> On Tuesday it was stated that:
> "The problem is defining an ability for someone with no economic or
> vested interest to dictate to a private individual what he/she may
> do."
> I would interprete the "defining an ability" as the ability to
> determine property rights. My understanding of property rights is
> that they have two aspects. One aspect of a property right is to
> allow individual or group A to be "free" or to exercise their
> choice with the support of the state. The other, and less obvious,
> aspect of a property right is that it allows individual or group B to
> be coerced by the A's, also with the support of the state.
How are the B's "coerced" by the A's? I really am not following you
here. Could you explain further?
I would
> argue that every property right has these two aspect. Therefore,
> to ask for the right to be free is to ask also for the right
> to coerce others. The question is not whether we all
> will be free or coerced but rather who will be free and who will be
> coerced. The problem, then, is 'Whose interests count when interest
> conflict?'. (This issue does relate to the definition of rich and
> poor. To be poor is to be (completely) exposed to the costs of others'
> freedom. To be rich is to be able to (completely) impose your costs on
> others.)
How do the poor "pay" for the rich? This is a popular but incorrect
notion. The poor are protected under the same laws as the rich. Just
because someone is rich does not mean he "stole" from the poor. The
economy is not a zero sum game. Weath can and does get created. What
the rich have was either inherited or purchased with thier own
resources. Equity of resources is not a goal or requirement, only
equity of opportunity, and there are plenty of examples of dirt poor
people who have become millionaires in this country. More importantly is
the fact, that, in general, we are doing better than our parents,
although this may not be true for the next generation. As far as
"interests" go...I think the person with the most vested interest counts.
Again, I really don't understand your statement about the rich imposing
their costs onto others. If you are saying that because someone owns
property he is denying it's use to poorer people, perhaps you should move
to some of the remaining socialist countries of th world..at least before
they collapse... ;) Private property *means* private property. ownership
is a concept which builds peoples self esteem and self worth. It enables
them to reach for the brass ring. This is beneficial for all.
> (Freedom for the pike means death for the minnow. Isaah Berlin).
> Steve Cooke
>
Freedom for the humans means death to the spotted owl? ;)(Sorry,
couldn't resist...always wondered if someone could truly be an
environmentalist and an evolutionist...)
Best,
Andy