Re: The Libertarian action?

From: Brian Atkins (
Date: Thu Nov 02 2000 - 22:45:01 MST

Just to clarify we are talking about a NEW bar trying to open up next to
an existing condo. The new bar's property has never been used as a bar
previously. Does your answer still hold from all perspectives?

William Sullivan wrote:
> > (A) Signing a petition to deny a liquor license is an improper use of
> > government mechanisms, constituting the initiation of force.
> > (D) This is a straightforward conflict of interest between the bar builders
> > and the condo owners, and invoking libertarian ethics is needlessly
> > complicating the issue.
> I'm not clear on the above two options. My understanding of the libertarian
> position (if I can be excused for discussing the vast, conflicting body of
> libertarian opinion as one position for a moment) was not that there are no
> conflicts of interest and therefore initiation of force is improper, but that
> initiation of force is improper and especially so when interests conflict. So,
> it would seem to me that the second half of option (D) (after the second 'and')
> is a bit weird; if one agrees with the first half of the option's description of
> the problem, then "libertarian ethics" help to simplify the issue, not
> complicate it.
> As it so happens, this last is my position. I agree with the first half of (D)
> (before the second 'and') and the entirety of (A) (with the possible exception
> of the last five words, which I could quite happily live without). And I think I
> would also hold this position from the perspective of the bar owner, the condo
> owner, and a third-party; the issue of precedence and legitimacy is of the
> utmost importance and regardless of the benefit the condo owner may gain from
> the closing of the bar, empowering and/or encouraging a government like this is
> dangerous.
> William Sullivan

Brian Atkins
Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:19 MDT