--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It would be interesting to see if we agree > which of her arguments are mistaken. >
One thing she missed, and this is not actually a mistake so much as a missed opportunity, is that she could have pointed out although that his "Covenant Of Unanimous Consent" Community is "NAP-libertarian" in the sense that no one Initiates Force (her protestations about children being born there etc, are not compelling), it is certainly not Free. She did, fortunately, eventually point out that one holdout could clog the system up forever, since any "Covenant Of Unanimous Consent" implies that everyone has Veto Power. But she shouldn't argue it; the existence of such a hellhole harms no one outside, and anyone remains inside it is his choice, and everyone could leave and the whole human race could live elsewhere and the Covenant could then be considered defunct and I suppose the Property could be sold WITHOUT the onerous restrictions. It is possible that one holdout could end up with the whole place to himself for eternity, but I can live with that. The Owners of the Property chose to saddle themselves with Deed Restrictions, and that is their right. (She also misses when she thinks it has to be some sort of Commune with no Individual Ownership of Land - seemingly unaware of Deed Restrictions and CCR's and HomeOwners Associations. All HomeOwners Associations I have heard of set up some kind of non-Unanimous Voting system, which of course attracts the worst meddling busybodies; but a Unanimous one could be set up.) She misses a bit on Slavery. It is entirely possible (and likely, I submit) that some people would, for perceived Value, submit to Consensual Slavery for the rest of their lives. There is nothing unlibertarian about that. Example: Jane has five children, all of whom have a dreadful genetic disorder for which Medical Science has just discovered a marvelous - and marvelously expensive - cure. Kevin is desirous of having a sex slave. He draws up a Contract whereby Jane can have certain assurances but will be his Slave from the minute she signs the Contract. The Contract specifies that John will provide a certain amount of money in a Trust Fund for the medical care of her children. You own your body. Whatever you own, you can Trade - permanently. That is part of the meaning of Ownership. You'd be surprised how often I see alleged libertarians deny that you can sell your body into Slavery or the Body Banks. A couple days ago I actually saw someone write that you cannot sell "yourself" BECAUSE you own "yourself". BeeZarre! Part of their confusion arises from the vague and ambiguously-used word "yourself". No, sorry, you own your BODY but you do not own YOURSELF. The relationship between You and Yourself is IDENTITY, not OWNERSHIP. As Brother Dave Gardner said, "They told me if I keep smoking I'll hurt myself. Nah... I might screw up my BODY, but there ain't no way I'm gonna hurt my SELF!"
