Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Attention Libertarians
Message-ID: <1052@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Aug-84 17:16:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1052
Posted: Thu Aug 16 17:16:52 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Aug-84 19:02:02 EDT
References: <1211@bmcg.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 39

********************
>4.  A regulation which prohibits you from taking clams from designated
>    waters.
   As in the first case, this depends on who is making the regulation.  If the
owner of the waters, or of the clams, is doing it, there is no problem.  If
anyone but the owner tries to prevent their taking, then it is an illicit use
of force.  Again, if any damage is done as a result of taking those
clams--whereever they're taken from--then the taker is liable for damages to
whoever is damaged.  If noone is damaged, there is no liability.
********************
None of the libertarian answers to this one have covered what I originally
took to be its point: that the clams are likely to be poisoned by
temporary pollution (the case in the Delaware some time back and maybe
still).  The taker of the clams may sell them and poison large numbers
of people, for which he would be unable to make recompense in his lifetime,
if indeed he was in a position to try.  It surely must be better that
taking the clams be prohibited than that a sign be put up saying
"Clams here possibly poisoned" and hoping that no-one will take advantage
of the probably rich harvest and quick profits to be made.  It is quite
likely that the perpetrator would not even be discovered when the people
fell ill, especially if the clams were mixed from several sources and
diggers.

I have always felt myself to be a libertarian (unofficially) and
(equally unofficially) a socialist, but it appears that my notions of
what constitutes unwarranted state interference differ from the notions
of the "official" libertarians.  It seems to me unlikely that anyone
could make recompense either to heavily damaged (perhaps killed)
individuals or to a large number of slightly damaged people; such
recompense is the solution offered by Bill Price.  My preference is
to try to prevent the damage in the first place, and this is legitimately
accomplished by laws backed up by force.  The question to me is not
whether coercive laws should exist, but when they are appropriate.
We seem at present to have far too many for my taste.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt