<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The new definition of libertarianism: May I see your documents please?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://doctorvee.co.uk/2006/10/23/the-new-definition-of-libertarianism-may-i-see-your-documents-please/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://doctorvee.co.uk/2006/10/23/the-new-definition-of-libertarianism-may-i-see-your-documents-please/</link>
	<description>Not a real vee</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:47:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: doctorvee</title>
		<link>http://doctorvee.co.uk/2006/10/23/the-new-definition-of-libertarianism-may-i-see-your-documents-please/comment-page-1/#comment-22320</link>
		<dc:creator>doctorvee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doctorvee.co.uk/2006/10/23/the-new-definition-of-libertarianism-may-i-see-your-documents-please/#comment-22320</guid>
		<description>Not so. &quot;A totally privatized country would be as â€œclosedâ€ as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire.&quot;

Surely the whole point of private property is that the right to be in the street is not assumed for all people inside the country at all. As long as property owners decide that their property is &quot;closed&quot; nobody has any right to walk on the street.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not so. &#8220;A totally privatized country would be as â€œclosedâ€ as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire.&#8221;</p>
<p>Surely the whole point of private property is that the right to be in the street is not assumed for all people inside the country at all. As long as property owners decide that their property is &#8220;closed&#8221; nobody has any right to walk on the street.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Pedant-General</title>
		<link>http://doctorvee.co.uk/2006/10/23/the-new-definition-of-libertarianism-may-i-see-your-documents-please/comment-page-1/#comment-22298</link>
		<dc:creator>The Pedant-General</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:15:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://doctorvee.co.uk/2006/10/23/the-new-definition-of-libertarianism-may-i-see-your-documents-please/#comment-22298</guid>
		<description>&quot;So if the government has to check people â€œat all ports of entry and along its bordersâ€ to stop unwanted foreign people from trespassing on private land, surely it has check people walking down the street aswell to ensure that unwanted people are not trespassing on private land.&quot;

Nope - not at all. This right is assumed for all people inside the country - that&#039;s the whole point: once checked in at the border you too have the right to be in the street.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;So if the government has to check people â€œat all ports of entry and along its bordersâ€ to stop unwanted foreign people from trespassing on private land, surely it has check people walking down the street aswell to ensure that unwanted people are not trespassing on private land.&#8221;</p>
<p>Nope &#8211; not at all. This right is assumed for all people inside the country &#8211; that&#8217;s the whole point: once checked in at the border you too have the right to be in the street.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

