[ExI] Public spaces/was Re: What the France!?

painlord2k at libero.it painlord2k at libero.it
Sat Apr 11 13:12:50 UTC 2009

Il 09/04/2009 16.24, Dan ha scritto:
> --- 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 definition is a bit lousy, I admit.
We could say that all public spaces (what is not incorporated is some 
specific property) are owned by "the people". And we could define "the 
people" like the group of persons that form a compact governing and 
controlling the place (the citizens). The (people forming the) 
government control the public spaces only as agents of the compact.

Obviously this bring a few problems on how to administrate the shared 
places, the public ones. But it is nothing different from administrating 
a condominium or a shared enterprises.

> 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.:)

The third possibility is that, the people agree between themselves to 
reserve a part of the spaces to public use and confer the administration 
to a body of government.
The hall of a condominium is a shared properties of the condominium 
owners, it is administered for them by the staff of the condominium and 
I don't think there is a right to homestead there.

I suppose that the condominium owners have the right to deliberate that 
masked people can not enter in the condo shared parts or must unmask / 
identify themselves is asked by the security staff.

Some owners could have different ideas, but this is matter of what they 
agreed when they became owners of a part of the condo. If the don't like 
the rules, they can change condo or convince the other owners to change 
the rules.

The problem happens when people are born inside the condo and start to 
have not defined understanding of the rules or the rules are lousy and 
imprecise or wrong.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list