From: Michael Lorrey (mike@lorrey.com)
Date: Mon Dec 14 1998 - 09:18:19 MST
Samael wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick.Gray@bull.com <Dick.Gray@bull.com>
> To: extropians@maxwell.kumo.com <extropians@maxwell.kumo.com>
> Date: 11 December 1998 17:50
> Subject: Property [was Re: The Education Function]
>
> >I think most people understand the idea of property as involving the right
> >to exclusive control over the use or disposition of an item, acquired
> >either by
>
> 1) extracting an unowned resource or by
>
> 2) legitimate (i.e. uncoerced) transfer from someone who previously owned
> >
> >What exactly is your objection to property as usually defined?
>
> If you trace back (2) through its chain of ownership, you end up back at
> (1).
>
> (1) is theft. An unowned resource is available for the use of anyone. One
> it is claimed nobody else may use it. Obviously theft.
No not obviously theft. If an unowned resource is unclaimed, then it is
unutilized, it is abandoned. If the original claimant is a government which is
your representative, then when the government sells it nothing has been stolen
from you. This is really a rather simple concept. If you are unable or
unwilling to grasp it then I suggest you see a shrink.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:59 MST