Hi Pommy,
I hope to comment properly on this article later... but for now, I'll re-iterate my comment from the other thread - in the hope that it might stimulate some debate from other readers.
=====
Pommy,
To paraphrase from the Simpsons, the short answer is “No” with an “If”; the long answer is “Yes” with a “But”
Whilst I support freedom of expression, and whilst this sounds like it may have been motivated by political correctness, I agree with your views: private property comes up trumps.
I had a similar discussion about the Australia Day flag issue. You’ll recall the Big Day Out organisers wanted to ban the flag at the event - leading to calls from others (including my parents) for a ban on bans!
My position on this was that the the flag should not be banned in public - BUT, my property, my rules… If I had a bbq at my house and demanded that nobody brings a flag - then that’s my choice. So, whilst I disagreed with the concert organisers, I supported their rights to have their own rules at an a event for which they were taking the financial risk in putting together… provided they made these rules clear at time of ticket sales (which they didn’t, but that’s another story). See? Lots of “ifs” and “buts” to confuse the issue.
In the case of Clare College… How private is the property? What public funding do they get for this paper? Or, like Australia, is it funded by students union? If so, is students union membership compulsory?
You can't be too keen on the democracy thing either then? One vote for each person however little property they have..
Funny thing is, I work my bum off and hardly get to keep anything
Voda,
What has one-man-one-vote got to do with property rights? You don't have "democratic freedom" to come onto my property and do as you please...
Fleeced
Pub Philosopher has replied on his blog to this question. Take a look here.
Fleeced, I guess I was thinking of "productive" property when I commented about the democracy issue. This not just because my thinking is not precise, but also because I was following on from the Ayn Rand quotation at the end of Pommies' post which dealt with the ownership of the results of productive effort.
( much housing to my mind is only a semi-productive asset)
With regards the question of democracy, it is possible in a democracy for the owners of productive assets, shareholders in a company, to be regulated in their business affairs by the Government. Here in Oz, the corporations regulator has wide and growing powers. It is easy to imagine a situation where a democratically elected Government puts draconian regulations on companies and their shareholders equivalent to those which are presently being imposed on associations of workers - that is, on the trade unions.
What do we ditch first : unfettered property rights or democracy?
Commenting by HaloScan
