Jim Devine writes: >> But _why_ is it predictable? I would guess that it's because, as a >> self-styled "libertarian," David believes in what C.B. Mcpherson >> called "possessive individualism." That is, each individual is seen as >> the proprietor of his own person, property, and capabilities, while >> owing absolutely nothing to society for them. In the case of RCTV, a >> corporation -- owned by (wealthy) individuals -- is the only >> proprietor of its airwaves and owes absolutely nothing to to the >> society that granted those rights.
First, let me thank Melvin P. for writing a thoughtful response to my smartass post. Now with respect to Mr. Devine, unless he knows me better than I know myself, he is wrong, wrong, wrong. "Possessive individualism" is something I would consider a rather metaphysical concept, akin to a religious belief. I am not saying I don't subscribe to it, but you either buy into it or you don't and trying to convince somebody who doesn't buy into it based upon the concept is essentially pointless. Therefore, when I engage in the dialectic on this list, I try and limit myself to essentially utilitarian arguments and to focus on the consequences of decisions as opposed to the motivation or rationale of decisions. For example, I raised Milton Friedman's argument in Capitalism and Freedom because he makes an entirely consequentialist argument. If you value freedom of expression and the ability to dissent as an apriori value and want to design institutions to safeguard that value, it is much easier to do in a society based upon private property as opposed to collectivized property. And my point is that Venezuela is simply a further data point that Friedman is right. If you disagree that freedom of expression and abiity to dissent is important, then Friedman's argument (and my post about Venezuela) is irrelevant to you. Therefore, I am not criticizing Chavez because I believe RCTV has some inherent right to a broadcast license. Instead, I am simply pointing out that where the broadcast license is not institutionally grounded as a respected and protected property right, and is simply granted or removed at the sufferance of the ruling power, the consequence for freedom of expression and the ability to dissent is entirely predictable. Similarly, I am not criticizing Chavez regarding land redistribution because I believe some large landowner has an inherent right to his land. I am simply pointing out that the consequence of the act is entirely predictable. If you think the predictable events are good consequences, my post was not intended to change your mind. So, let the revolucion proceed. Just don't be surprised when entirely predictable events occur. David Shemano
