From: Twirlip of Greymist (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 17 1996 - 15:04:59 MDT
On Oct 15, 9:16pm, "David Musick" wrote:
} I don't understand is why it isn't blatently obvious to Suresh that private
} property is only maintained by force *when others try to forcefully take it
} from the rightful owner*. If no one tried to steal the property that I have
Who's the rightful owner? A homesteader? What if they improve the
land, leave it for a generation, and come back to find a new
homesteader? What if you try homesteading land used periodically by
nomadic herders? Who's the rightful owner of American land?
} take it, I must use force, so according to Suresh's logic, living is a
} coercive act, and no one must be allowed to live, for EXACTLY the same
Living is a coercive act, for most of us. The sun altruistically
radiates; plants grab sunlight and soil minerals; animals eat the
plants; we eat the animals and plants. Some people think sentient
beings should be magically exempt from this chain.
My 'solution' to the property question is that it does depend on force,
and yeah that kind of sucks in a way, but I don't see any alternative.
Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
"Do you know why Mr. Mayhew walked out? It was because his socialist,
egalitarian principles had been outraged. There was one poor lion who
hadn't got a Christian." -- Winston Churchill
(Some people see God in helpful coincidences. I see the Devil in my
random sig quotes.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:47 MST