As it stands, they [the Occupy protesters] have no inherent right to do anything on property which is not theirs…
This statement is unexceptionable in isolation, but as you note elsewhere, it runs up against the problem of “public property.” The contradictions built into the notion that property, especially real estate, can be “owned” by “the public” lead to exactly the sort of statements Espinoza has made.
Nevertheless, some among libertarians and just about every yahoo on the Left seems to read “public property” as “personal privy.”
You must know some very weird “libertarians.” I, and the others with whom I associate, consider “public property” a contradiction in terms and the source of an awful lot of public disorder. However, we treat such common areas with respect and consideration for the prerogatives of others.
In some respects, we need more government.
Were there less “public property,” and more rigorous respect for the rights of private property, would you still say that?
