[ExI] Public spaces/was Re: What the France!?
dan_ust at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 9 14:24:42 UTC 2009
--- On Thu, 4/9/09, painlord2k at libero.it <painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:
> As the public places are properties of the government
> (now), it can decide that people must be unmasked. Or must
> unmask at request of the police, or other.
I think that would be a point of debate: whether public spaces are truly property of the government. Further, the issue is who should control public spaces. The strict libertarian view is, IMHO, that public spaces either have legitimate NON-governmental owners (and governments have merely stolen the property and dubbed it "public" to keep the fiction that everyone (the public owns it) and that governments are actually doing the will of everyone* when they control such spaces) or are unowned (in which case, they can be homesteaded). In my view, a strict libertarian would and should contest any government's control of public spaces -- well, within the limits of practical action. (I.e., one should at least ideologically and morally challenge the state -- but not necessarily risk being shot or spending time in the big house over this.:)
* Certainly, this view is, whether you accept libertarian property theory, wrong. If the public includes everyone, then public spaces bakes in fundamental antagonisms in any real world community. After all, different members of the public are going to feel this or that public space should be used in mutually incompatible ways, creating conflicts. The government, at best, can only enforce the views of some members of the public. (This is, of course, assuming an all inclusive defintion of "public." Naturally, I expect members of the public who get control of the government to feel they are more public than their adversaries -- and they'll dub the latter "special interests" or "petty interests" or "selfish.")
More information about the extropy-chat