From: Randall Randall (wolfkin@freedomspace.net)
Date: Wed Jun 12 2002 - 20:43:33 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> I think, though, that Lee's definition of property is the problem. What
> gives an item value is entirely a matter of its marginal utility to its
> user, while an item's status as property is matter of the fact that
> labor produced it (or improved it from raw resources).
But the status of something as property is not intrinsic to the
thing itself, but a social convention. This social convention has
proven to be incredibly useful for things, because the convention
makes it easy to tell who should make decisions regarding that thing.
It doesn't seem true that this convention is useful for *types* of
things, however. The idea that one could own classes or arrangements
of things, rather than or in addition to the things themselves, seems
somewhat bizarre, actually.
> To use another's labor without recompense is slavery, therefore any
> product of our labor is property.
Nor is anyone here, so far as I can tell, advocating that the thing
of that type or with that arrangement should be taken away from you,
only that others should be free to create that sort of arrangement
of things in there own things.
-- Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com> Crypto key: randall.freedomspace.net/crypto.text ...what a strange, strange freedom: only free to choose my chains... -- Johnny Clegg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:46 MST