I was debating some on libertarianism on Facebook, where a friend (whom I consider one, and whom I would be honoured to dine with) was debating with a friend of his (whether he considers him so or is a superficial acquaintance I known not) who admires Ayn Rand. I am not about to repost their entire remarks on the Ayn Rand link and on each others' remarks, since I have not asked permission to do so. I will however, as often before, repost my remarks, which sometimes quote what they answer.
Here comes my first remark, quoting other remarks:
Who agrees that a man who has no home has a right to squat wherever the owners and flat renters wil[l] let him?
The Catholic Social teaching, as existing before Vatican II, had a solid base in history, and laissez-faire as a step away from that has been such a big step to:
"If a worker should be able to keep the object of his labors, lest it be socialism, how would you split a toy amongst those on the assembly line who made it?"
1 why assembly line? if more toys _but nothing else_ were made by artisans, the other ones who worked on assembly lines could not afford them, but if more toys _and about more of everything else_ were made by artisans, it would be feasible
2 _even with_ an assembly line: a toy does not come out of it alone, if there are ten workers and hundred toys made, why not ten toys to each worker, he can go and sell in market place next day, while those who are selling can go back to work and invest what they want in materials, et c"The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas."
True. But it does mean that if a tribune IS provided, like free internet in libraries, it must be available without suppression for expressing wrong ideas. Or for using expression to get in income (see my music page http://o-x.fr/z5k)
and here is my second remark:
"There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself)."
That is where you are wrong. There is the right not to be cheated.
If a set of rich men ruin small producers by undercutting their prices for as long as it takes to ruin competition and then raise prices so as to compensate for that, if thus former competitors have been given the option to change their branch of business, to be dependents or to get real broke, and that in turn means a lot of more men depending on lowered prices and making those rich men richer, I think that both craftsmen _and_ general public have been cheated by them."There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals."
Wrong again. That is socialism.
Before me making my third remark, some of my remarks had been answered and answers answered, here goes:
"As for someone by selling a product cheaper or better the competition being cheating, it is not of course. It is simply winning."
Unless it is done in a fraudulent way so as to suggest permanently lower prices, whereas in effect the prices are raised soon after the competition is gone."As for people having the right to take property anywhere because they feel it is "vacant" or in "disuse"= this is socialism, which brings us back to the fact that many Christians argue for socialism, for slavery, for evil- which indicated clearly that your ideology has serious problems."
Not so. The right for a "first occupant" to take a "res nullius" is at the core of classic Roman property juridics. Socialism is when you say everyone has a duty to bring along a bureaucracy which will give the homeless a home, and every homeless has a duty to pass by that bureaucracy, avoiding all squatting.
Actually, the question whether a building which is condemned by authorities for ordinary purposes and certainly not being repaired at the moment is to be considered a "res nullius" was not my actual question. There are squatter collectives which answer in the affirmative, I am not part of them.
Mine was: if I enter an open door this night and noone minds if I stay one night beside their flat, as long as it is understood it is just one night and as long as I do not degrade, is it my right to do so?
