George Reisman does not (fully) understand the libertarian view on free speech.
In this otherwise excellent article of his George Reisman states: “Nevertheless, by the logic of the prevailing view of freedom of speech, protesters in the future will be able to storm into lecture halls and/or seize radio and television stations in order to deliver their message and then claim that their freedom of speech is violated when the police come to eject them, even though the police in such cases would in fact be acting precisely in order to uphold the freedom of speech. Indeed, since the days of the so-called Free Speech Movement at Berkeley, back in the 1960s, disruptions of speeches delivered by invited guests have occurred repeatedly on college campuses, in the name of the alleged freedom of speech of the disrupters. No attention has been paid to the actual violation of the freedom of speech of the invited speakers.”
In his analysis of the occupiers occupancy of Zuccotti Park, Reisman was astute enough to place free speech rights exactly where they belong; as part and parcel of private property rights:
A major lesson to be learned from the occupation is that hardly anyone nowadays understands the meaning of freedom of speech. Contrary to the prevailing view, freedom of speech is not the ability to say anything, anywhere, at any time. Actual freedom of speech is consistent with respect for property rights. It presupposes that the speaker has the consent of the owners of any property he uses in speaking, such as the land, sound system, or lecture hall or radio or television studio that he uses. Had the owners of Zuccotti Park invited the protesters to camp on their land and propound their ideas, and then the police had ejected them, the protesters’ freedom of speech would in fact have been violated.
However, when Reisman arrives at his discussion of Berkeley, he forgets all about this keen insight of his. Rather, he writes as if this campus of the University of California, like Zuccotti park, was private property. But even a fraction of a moment’s reflection will reveal this to be a total falsehood. Rather, this institution is state — not private property, and any analysis of private property that does not take into account this primordial libertarian fact must go off the rails.
This is precisely the error committed by Reisman’s mentor, Ayn Rand, as exposed in this article of mine. For further support of the view that the University of California at Berkeley is not private property, and that this is crucial for any accurate libertarian analysis, see here.
Let us be clear on what I am not saying. I do not aver that the “invited speakers” at Berkeley, the ones invited by the administrators, that is, the thieves in charge of that institution, were in the wrong. They, too, have free speech rights (although these must be truncated, given that they are invitees of the ruling class exploiters). What I am saying is that Reisman, in treating this university as if it was private property, errs in his otherwise excellent analysis of free speech. This author full well understands the issue of free speech. But, in using the University of California, Berkeley as an illustration, he made a particularly bad choice.
{ 12 comments }
Does a person have a right to barge into the White House since it is public property? Or a court of law?
A right, yes. That right will not, however, be respected by White House security or a bailiff.
So rights are what I can protect through my own brute force?
I believe he’s being practical (and quite cynical as well)
What we call “rights” nowadays are merely privileges granted by our overlords, theses grants are a boon allowed by our masters since they are the ones that own us.
It would seem that this property rights rhetoric is taking on a life of its own. And that is too bad, for Mr. Reisman’s point is valid. Mr. Reisman’s actual quote: “Actual freedom of speech is consistent with respect for property rights.” It’s an analogy, not a perfect analogy, just an analogy. I get exactly where he’s coming from with the Berkley free speech movement and the disruptions of college campus speekers. There is no need bogging it down by throwing property rights rhetoric in there. Your making his very valid point jump through some imaginary hoop. When someone goes to hear a speeker at a college campus, they are spending their time to hear that speeker, not some protestor disrupting the speeker. Time is not to be confused with property, but the productive efforts we exert with our time bring individually owned property into being. His point is that by allowing these protestors to disrupt the speeker under the guise of freedom of speech, you are mistakingly allowing the protestor to infringe on something very important to every individual in attendance who has to put up with the protestor — their time. Every minute wasted is a minute gone forever.
You are hinting at some trenchant points at the end of this comment, and in your second comment below this one. However, you seem to be fundamentally confused about Reisman’s point about property rights and free speech rights. He was not proposing some analogy, he was implying that property rights are the *root* of free speech rights. Do not confuse “property rights” to apply *merely* to landed property. They apply to all things which can be produced and owned–up to and including one’s own life. In a society of property rights–where all property is private–free speech means merely the right to freedom from suppression or punishment from any government. You do not have a right to demand that any private citizen provide you with the means to your expression. This is what Reisman was discussing. Private citizens cannot censor speech save through some act of physical force (which should properly be illegal), only a government can–and it is against the government that we hold our rights.
You mention contract rights in your later comment. Whence cometh contract rights? Does one not own the land, materials, labor, time or other goods with which he contracts?
Can I make an argument to throw property rights into the mix? Sure. Every student that attends a lecture either does so by paying the ticket price for the lecture, or if at no additional charge, as part of the price they pay for their college tuition. Allowing the protestor to disrupt the lecture is an infringement on the attendee’s contract rights, which they obtained by either paying the ticket price or their college tuition. Even if the college is a public institution, the contract rights obtained by the attendees are still contract rights of the individual purchaser — similar to buying a stamp from the US Post office — you wouldn’t argue that the individual does not have property rights in the stamp he bought.
You’re right, but having a forced taxpayer-funded institution makes it impossible to determine who the owners are, and who has a right to be there. Tragedy of the commons, I guess.
Mr. Block’s analysis is technically correct — however, as a practical matter it’s highly unlikely that anyone who would disrupt a campus speaker would be averse to doing the same thing in someone’s business or home for that matter. I think it’s safe to say that such a person doesn’t accept the concept of private property at all so would view it perfectly acceptable to disrupt anyone he chooses, anywhere he chooses.
There is also the issue of manners: it’s rude to interrupt a speaker. At least, that’s what parents used to teach their children.
The Rights And Responsibilities Of Free Speech.
The issue of free speech in private or public places is still only a partial one. Holisitcally human beings have rights (this is the half being addressed) but they also have responsibilities! As mature human beings there is another natural restraint in addition to respect for free speech and property rights and that restraint is acting responsibly, which implies wisdom. Of course this wisdom develops best in the environment described in the divine economy theory but even in lesser conditions (in other words, hampered in some way) wisdom advances as the ethics develops, as it does since humans have an affinity for and benefit from social cooperation.
The combination of the right of free speech, and the degree of responsibility consonant with the ethics of the times brings about balance and serves to confirm the following identity: human rights are property rights and property rights are human rights.
I’m not convinced that freedom of speech is a trivial corollary of private property. Rather, I tend to think of freedom of speech as a particular criterion to decide whose rights should prevail in some situations when the rights (property rights, if you wish) of different people are in conflict.
Let’s say we have a libertarian village where everyone’s private property is respected by the law. Now suppose a very clever ideologue is talking to young people, trying to convince them that theft and murder are morally acceptable (but they shouldn’t attempt them because they are currently against the law). There’s a libertarian case to be made for the other citizens to physically “retaliate” against this individual, since he’s arguably trying to bring about crime, to use other people as weapons, so to speak. But then, other libertarians will insist that he’s only talking, and the threat he may pose should be addressed on its own terms, through argument.
I’ve seen libertarians disagree exactly in this way, and I think this is what the “freedom of speech” debate is all about, at least for libertarians.
Here’s one from Paul Gottfriend on the the tradition of free discourse, and its enemies.
http://goo.gl/R82C0
Comments on this entry are closed.