[Vision2020] Libertarianism and Lighting

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Bruce, Jeff et. al.

Ah, Libertarian political theory... 

Individual property "rights" are granted and enforced by what entity?  The 
individual, the government, God or... ?  

It can be argued there are no individual property "rights" without a 
government to grant, protect and enforce them, otherwise the so called rights that 
ownership of land confers are nothing more than "might makes right," enforced by 
whoever has the biggest militia, although this also implies that whatever 
government has the biggest militia becomes the might to enforce whatever rights 
are granted anyone, so we are back to  "might makes right."  It is hard to 
escape this conclusion, no matter what principles you insist are really enforcing 
the "rights" involved.

Anyway, the manner in which the government determines what are and are not 
legitimate individual property rights, as these rights conflict between 
different individuals with different values, cannot be derived from only accessing the 
concept of the rights of the individual, without introducing the concept of 
the "commons" (sky, air, water, etc.) in some sense of this word.  And once on 
that slippery slope, the pure Libertarian political philosophy slides down, 
down, down to oblivion.  Are you reading this, Dale C.?  Ayn Rand thought she 
had a way out of this problem, but though brilliant, she was biased.

Jean, I appreciate the spirit of your post on light regulation, but I do not 
think you can define the "jointly held community sky" in terms of individual 
property rights, as you appear to do below.  Individual "property" can be 
bought and sold, but I do not think when you define the sky as an entity described 
as "jointly held community" you mean for it to be bought and sold, just as we 
recognize that water and air cannot be always defined in terms of the rights 
of private property owners when air and water, in many cases, cannot be 
controlled by an individual in a manner that confers upon them rights of individual 
ownership, in the same way someone's cow or horse can be "owned" and thus 
bought and sold.

I can see it now.  The brave new world of free market libertarianism ruling 
our lives.  The sky has been privatized and vast global corporations own the 
orbiting shields that control sunlight and the view of the night sky.  If you 
don't pay your "sky shield" bill, your sunlight and night sky is blocked.  And 
anyone complaining is just some commie liberal wacko looking for government 
handouts who thinks everything should be free.  

If there is such an entity as the "jointly held community sky" then if it 
could be bought and sold as private property it would no longer be what it is 
defined as.  This is one reason why when the states or the federal government 
sell public lands to private property owners (including corporate entities) they 
are violating a fundamental principle of what the "commons" represents.  

And if you go down that slippery slope far enough, there will be no "public" 
land left!
Don't doubt for a moment there are some powerful interests in the USA that 
want just that!

Jean wrote:

"If it were truly an all or nothing option for lighting your property and 
protecting your animals, that might be one reason to consider allowing the 
unregulated use that you propose, but it seems there are many other options 
that could decrease the "leakage" from an individual's private property onto 
the property of others, which I would also define to include our jointly 
held community sky."

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050201/21ce3ff3/attachment.htm