What limits would you place on freedom?

[shereads]

Inspired by Joe's "Disturbed" thread...

I remembered a conversation I had with a friend when the Taliban destroyed a Buddha carved in the side of a cliff in Afghanistan. That topic led to one closer to home: the sale of the prettiest place in Miami, a 70-year-old botanical garden and aviary where Winston Churchill once posed with a parrot on his head, to a private owner who closed it and offered the land for sale to developers.

I maintained that no individual should have the right to destroy something that's become part of the culture, if there is any way it can be saved. My friend defended the right of the property owner to make a profit, even if it means destroying a beloved local landmark.

I read this definition of personal freedom somewhere: "Your right to throw a punch ends at the point where your fist meets my nose."

Is there a similar way to define the point at which society should refuse an individual the right to use his property as he wishes?

For the sake of argument, suppose that:

> instead of burning books, someone burns the last remaining copy of a book? He owns it. Does he have the right to destroy it?

> a museum sells your favorite painting to a private owner. He decides to destroy it, to impress Jody Foster or to win a bet with Donald Trump. Does he have the right?

> the Church decides to modernize the Sistine Chapel with track lighting and a coat of semi-gloss paint in a nice neutral taupe. Do they have the right?

> the King of Jordan needs cash and sells Petra to Donald Trump, who plans to turn it into a golf resort. In return for permission to add a high-rise casino at the entrance to Petra, he promises to put in a freeway. Are you okay with that?

Libertarians, don't be shy! Art lovers too.

 

[alyxen]

This is a pretty slippery slope, but I would have to say yes to all of these. One of the benefits of a free society is that the society is..well, free.

The book one is the toughest, but there is a very low chance that it would be the last copy, and no one anywhere, including the editor, publisher, author, distributor, etc, would have another copy saved.

But with the rest of them, it is private property. Take the painting example. If you don't sell it, no one has the right to burn it. If you sell it, then you have given up ownership 100%, and the new owner can do anything he or she wants, within the boundaries of the law.

Bottom line:

Should these actions be illegal? Emphatic NO!

Should these actions be considered amoral and frowned upon by society as a whole? Yes

 

[Edward Teach]

This is a pretty slippery slope, but I would have to say yes to all of these. One of the benefits of a free society is that the society is..well, free.

The book one is the toughest, but there is a very low chance that it would be the last copy, and no one anywhere, including the editor, publisher, author, distributor, etc, would have another copy saved.

But with the rest of them, it is private property. Take the painting example. If you don't sell it, no one has the right to burn it. If you sell it, then you have given up ownership 100%, and the new owner can do anything he or she wants, within the boundaries of the law.

Bottom line:

Should these actions be illegal? Emphatic NO!

Should these actions be considered amoral and frowned upon by society as a whole? Yes

What Alyxen said.

Ed

 

[ABSTRUSE]

What Alyxen said.

Ed

I agree too.

The loss would be so devastating. I remember when the Taliban destroyed the Carvings, and I thought how cruel a thing, but such things have been done for years.
In Ancient Egypt, faces of Pharoahs that were later hated had their faces carved away and erased from history.

 

[shereads]

Fair enough.

But I'd still like to know, where do you each draw the line between the rights of the individual and those of society?

Having lived in Houston, where there were no zoning laws to protect the value of homes in our neighborhood when one homeowner decided to sell his property to a gas station, I value laws and regulations that stop someone from destroying the character of a neighborhood or otherwise diminishing the quality of life that ohter people enjoy. Pollution is an example. If property rights are absolute, there's nothing to prevent someone from dumping pollutants into a river that crosses his property, or building an industrial incinerator next door to your child's playground.

Do you share the Libertarian view that government should not own and protect public lands? Should everything be for sale, from the Louvre to the Grand Canyon? If that were the case, what would prevent the world from becoming one vast Super Walmart, with a few protected enclaves for those who could afford a buffer zone around their homes?



Edited to add: Abs, you just made me have the most horrible thought: Donald Trump's face on Mount Rushmore.

 

[R. Richard]

Unfortunately the ability to restrict real freedom, even in the smallest ways, inevitably ends up restricting all freedoms.

Of course, no one should be able to physically harm others in pursuit of his own freedom. However, if you prohibit me from wearing a bright green necktie with a blue suit (I actually have no such urge), in a short time you find that there are very rigid dress codes in place that begin to seriously inhibit individual freedom.

JMHO.

 

[Guest]

This is such a big question, Sher. But the first thing that popped into mind for me was something Gauche has often posted, "Private property is theft". As far as art (e.g., paintings, sculpture, etc.) is concerned I believe this is so. I think it's criminal that a Van Gogh can be bought for an obscene amount of money by a corporation, or even that individuals keep what is unarguably great art above their private mantels.

Private property is the worst of capitalism and empire. The Aztecs had what to the Spaniards were hordes of gold, but to those native Americans it was religious art. The Spaniards gathered 99% of it and melted it to bricks for shipment home. That's just one example, the black market in cultural artifacts thrives because of capitalism (vs. art lovers) and causes great pain and suffering, including death, to individuals who reap very little out of their desperation. (And yeah, I do think the "Elgin" marbles should be returned.)

So if there's one thing I want the government to do it's to protect our national forests and landmarks and help keep our museums and libraries flourishing.

Perdita

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Edited to add: Abs, you just made me have the most horrible thought: Donald Trump's face on Mount Rushmore.

I think he would have his own separate monument carved somewhere, better for his ego.


I shudder to think that someone would destroy any work of art but as stated before, the individual has the right of ownership and that right always them to do as they wish.

I would hope to think a person of higher moral standards would never see this as an option.

Beatrix Potter left vast amounts of land to the British people with the stipulation in her will, that is was to remain as is, no building or change of any sort would void the contract. She felt it important to preserve the natural state and beauty of the land.

As far as the government itself owning national treasures that can be barted or vandalized, no way. They belong to the people, to be shared and enjoyed, not profited from.

Can you imagine in Japan, where people are considered living national treasures, that the government could sell them off? that would be horrifying in itself.

 

[McKenna]

The world as one, vast Super Walmart has me cringing...

With ownership comes great responsibility. (Work with me here, I know it's not the original quote.) Along with responsibility comes a moral obligation, as alyxen pointed out in his post. Sure you can destroy what you own, but is it the responsible/moral thing to do?

I do think people with dollar signs in front of their eyes forsake morality and responsibility for the sake of making a buck. This includes big business as well as small. For instance, I love the quaint, mom-and-pop shops. There prices aren't always the cheapest, true, but they're making an honest living at what they do. Mr Super Walmart moves into the area, and mom and pop are out of business. Does Walmart have any moral obligation to the people they put out of business or cause to lose their jobs? In my opinion, yes.

Unfortunately, I have to live in the real world and not my idealistic world.

I think rules and regulations in moderation are a very good thing, not only to protect public lands but to protect our basic rights. If it were just me and a handful of others on the planet, rules and regulations would most-likely not be that big of a deal. But as we live in a society with other members of this civilization, rules are needed just to ease the difficulty of inhabiting the same space.

When an individual acts in such a way as to disturb the rights and lives of the majority of the civilization in which he lives, then I think he's out of line. That's where I draw the line.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The problem with things like this is twofold.

First, my personal opinion is that those who destroy art and books for whatever twisted rationale (usually involves a deity or has a more nationalistic reason) they have should be shot on sight. However, it's been (unfortunately) going on for awhile.

Second, outright outlawing of the act only encourages those same forces to move toward outright censoring of art and books and it doesn't stop their little bonfires. Overall it makes them feel like martyrs insteads of the self-righteous demons they are.

So, I say don't make it illegal but hire a squad of snipers to shoot those who would use the freedom. (Kidding....kind of)

 

[shereads]

Unfortunately the ability to restrict real freedom, even in the smallest ways, inevitably ends up restricting all freedoms.

Of course, no one should be able to physically harm others in pursuit of his own freedom. However, if you prohibit me from wearing a bright green necktie with a blue suit (I actually have no such urge), in a short time you find that there are very rigid dress codes in place that begin to seriously inhibit individual freedom.

JMHO.

So in prevent unreasonable intrusions into personal freedom, you would live in a society with no restrictions at all?

I understand the fear, particularly when civil liberties are at stake. Give an inch, they take a mile.

But how much harm to others is acceptable? Would you prohibit only physical harm that is immediate, and obvious? Air and water pollution can harm others as effectively as if they'd been deliberately poisoned, but that degree of harm may take years before the symptoms are noticed. In the meantime, there's just the unpleasantness of a nasty smell, or bad-tasting water. At what level of harm is it acceptable to deny a factory owner the right to operate without any restricitons?

Noise at a certain level, over a sustained period of time, doesn't just annoy you, it can damage your hearing. Do you have to wait until that happens before your neighbor is prohibited from playing his stereo at top volume next to your bedroom window? Is it your responsibility to avoid the noise to accommodate his freedom?

I wouldn't prohibit ugly neckties, but I wouldn't want to live in a place where someone could paint his house with a wall mural of his naked ass with a green necktie tattoed on the left cheek. I'm not forced to stare at your necktie, but I could be stuck starting at the ass-painted house forever if nobody is willing to buy my house across the street.

When is harm to others so negligible that it should be freely allowed?

 

[pop_54]

Funny this thread on ownership and the right to destroy anything you have enough money to destroy has surfaced.

We had a circular round at work recently from the Bursar... reference overspending on the year's planned budget... To the effect that the college had found the need to dip into the endowment fund to the tune of £300,000 last year.

He reminded us that this endowment fund belonged to the college as a whole... had been built up over many years by previous generations for the good of the college and should remain untouched if possible as it belonged to 'future generations' as well as the present, and we had no right to spend it even though it's sitting there in a bank account in the form of cash, artworks, and property guarantees, all 12 million quid of it... we only have the right to spend the interest each year... he asked for a motion to cut budgets to be approved.

All we heads of departments agreed with him fully that we had no right to fuck it all for future generations of students etc and carried the motion 100% that we tighten our belts a bit this year if needed and rough it a bit in order that the endowment fund not be put at risk.

I also agree that no one has the right to wilfully destroy artworks, ancient monuments, and places of public interest, no matter how many dollars / pounds/ Euro's or whatever they have managed to suck out of the system or steal from others in their lives.

The Elgin Marbles were probably saved from deterioration by their removal, and I'm sure Elgin meant well... However the people of the region now have a better understanding of their treasured history and the fact that artifacts need to be preserved... The Marbles should now be returned to the rightful owners.

As for the poor unfortunate Aztecs... well... back to the 'disturbed thread' topic... I mean the Spaniads were devout Catholics acting on the instructions of the Pope for goodness sake... Of course the Gold had to be taken away from them for the good of the church, and those who refused to stop worshiping the Sun and the Earth and begin worshiping Rome should be slaughtered, bloody Pagans.

 

[Guest]

Hey, Pops, I'll meet you in the basement of the British Museum at noon tomorrow. I'll be dressed as a pagan slut.

Perdita

 

[pop_54]

Hey, Pops, I'll meet you in the basement of the British Museum at noon tomorrow. I'll be dressed as a pagan slut.

Perdita

I'll be there *P* darling... bring *P * with you... I'll wear my 1920's kit and Pith Helmet, we might get away with it

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Yeah, Christians historically have been both literature and art's greatest enemies. The amount of works they single handedly burned for what they thought was their lord, makes me ill-tempered to say the least.

P.S. Perdita, wear the chiton.

 

[shereads]

All we heads of departments agreed with him fully that we had no right to fuck it all for future generations of students etc and carried the motion 100% that we tighten our belts a bit this year if needed and rough it a bit in order that the endowment fund not be put at risk.

If generosity like that were as commonplace as greed, we might never have needed government at all. Laws would exist just to protect us all from the occasional mutant jerk.

That would include the corporate investors who buy art masterpieces and keep them in a safe.

As for the poor unfortunate Aztecs... well...

I almost hate to mention this, but didn't the Aztec religion involve not only gold, but some forms of ritual torture that would have made Torquemada squeamish? I'm no fan of the Conquistadors, but they didn't introduce the concept of invasion and slaughter...The only truly peaceful people were us Scots/Irish.

 

[Remec]

For the sake of argument, suppose that:

> instead of burning books, someone burns the last remaining copy of a book? He owns it. Does he have the right to destroy it?

> a museum sells your favorite painting to a private owner. He decides to destroy it, to impress Jody Foster or to win a bet with Donald Trump. Does he have the right?

> the Church decides to modernize the Sistine Chapel with track lighting and a coat of semi-gloss paint in a nice neutral taupe. Do they have the right?

> the King of Jordan needs cash and sells Petra to Donald Trump, who plans to turn it into a golf resort. In return for permission to add a high-rise casino at the entrance to Petra, he promises to put in a freeway. Are you okay with that?

> Yes. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be argued with, cajoled, persuaded, offered money, and...depending on the book in question...threatened with violence or even harmed. Although, I would be hard pressed to find anything (outside of fiction and/or poetry) that couldn't be replaced by the work of another author.

> Yes. see above.

> This is the same Church that repainted parts of the Last Supper and various other pieces of religious art, yes? I'm surprised something similar hasn't taken place already. 'Course no art students, historians, or religious people are going to pay admission or buy souvenirs of the place that formerly held one of Michelangelo's works in it.

> <shrug> Sorry, not knowing what Petra is exactly or what the value of it should be to me, I've no opinion on this one.

 

[Dream Keeper]

Inspired by Joe's "Disturbed" thread...

I remembered a conversation I had with a friend when the Taliban destroyed a Buddha carved in the side of a cliff in Afghanistan. That topic led to one closer to home: the sale of the prettiest place in Miami, a 70-year-old botanical garden and aviary where Winston Churchill once posed with a parrot on his head, to a private owner who closed it and offered the land for sale to developers.

I maintained that no individual should have the right to destroy something that's become part of the culture, if there is any way it can be saved. My friend defended the right of the property owner to make a profit, even if it means destroying a beloved local landmark.

I read this definition of personal freedom somewhere: "Your right to throw a punch ends at the point where your fist meets my nose."

Is there a similar way to define the point at which society should refuse an individual the right to use his property as he wishes?

For the sake of argument, suppose that:

> instead of burning books, someone burns the last remaining copy of a book? He owns it. Does he have the right to destroy it?

> a museum sells your favorite painting to a private owner. He decides to destroy it, to impress Jody Foster or to win a bet with Donald Trump. Does he have the right?

> the Church decides to modernize the Sistine Chapel with track lighting and a coat of semi-gloss paint in a nice neutral taupe. Do they have the right?

> the King of Jordan needs cash and sells Petra to Donald Trump, who plans to turn it into a golf resort. In return for permission to add a high-rise casino at the entrance to Petra, he promises to put in a freeway. Are you okay with that?

Libertarians, don't be shy! Art lovers too.

I'd like to start by pointing out that you have some issues with Donald Trump. This problem might have originated as far back as your childhood, and I think that the frist step is to recognize and assess the problem. Let's start with the day that you first saw Donald Trump... Joking. I must admit, that you make a very good point, and I believe that once something has reached a certain amount of Sentimental Value it may be deemed PRICELESS. A priceless object should become something that cannot be destroyed, or defiled, and be punishable by law if this is ever to happen. Does everyone agree?

 

[McKenna]

...The only truly peaceful people were us Scots/Irish.

*snort*

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: What limits would you place on freedom?

> <shrug> Sorry, not knowing what Petra is exactly or what the value of it should be to me, I've no opinion on this one.

Petra = ancient city carved into the side of cliffs, in a hidden valley in the Jordan dessert. Remember Indiana Jones and the Whatever? The one with Sean Connery as Indiana's Daddy? The grail was hidden inside the most famous building in Petra, called 'the treasury.'

It's like the Pyramids, if they had been discovered just recently and you had to journey far from a city to see them. Way more mysterious and stuff.

 

[Remec]

Pollution is an example. If property rights are absolute, there's nothing to prevent someone from dumping pollutants into a river that crosses his property, or building an industrial incinerator next door to your child's playground.

Do you share the Libertarian view that government should not own and protect public lands? Should everything be for sale, from the Louvre to the Grand Canyon? If that were the case, what would prevent the world from becoming one vast Super Walmart, with a few protected enclaves for those who could afford a buffer zone around their homes?

It's not property rights that come into play there. A river moving through your land isn't yours, so you can't do things like that to it. I've lived in several places where incinerators were within a good home run of, if not playgrounds, places where children hung out and played or just passed the time of day.

In both situations, the regulations dealing with public health and safety trump your rights to do with your property as you see fit. If you could show that you had them securely stored away with no chance of leeching into ground water or irradiating the local surroundings, I wouldn't have a problem with a company stashing its toxic waste in a warehouse sitting between a preschool and a hospital. It's not the polluntants that make the problem...and have made problems throughout parts of this country...but the businesses that become polluters and think it's fine because it's their property, without taking into consideration the affect their land has on the land around it.

 

[shereads]

For Remec:

http://www.panoramaproductions.net/tr_petra.htm

 

[Remec]

For Remec:

http://www.panoramaproductions.net/tr_petra.htm

> Yes. Trump is within his rights to develop the land as he sees fit to best himself a profit or suck funds from his income to be a tax break. Again, see the above...While the lands around the area don't hold much importance, IMHO, the siq and the buildings carved from the stone should be protected and preserved...even if put to use a a tourist trap and/or casino...

 

[Clare Quilty]

Poor people have their property expropriated in the name of eminent domain all of the time. Buildings are declared historical landmarks thereafter restricting what "improvements" or uses the property can be subjected to. I have much more of a problem with the former than the latter as this is usually at the behest of some private enterprise. As long as the expropriation is not from one private owner to another rich influencial private owner (as the Michigan Supreme Court recently addressed) I think its prefectly reasonable for a clear and significant public good to sometimes mitigate individual property rights.

 

[McKenna]

Not sure if anyone is familar with this, but this thread reminded me of a book I read called Desert Solitaire, by Edward Abbey. It's a polemic book, and some would say a bit extreme. Some of what he writes I agree with, some I don't. One of the things he goes into is the building of the Glenn Canyon Dam, and what was destroyed when the canyon got flooded: namely native American pictographs and petroglyphs, ruins of earlier civilizations, not to mention all the flora and fauna. Interesting read.

Of course the dam was built in the name of progress -but much was lost in its building.