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