From: Samael (Samael@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Mon Dec 14 1998 - 10:41:32 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Lorrey <mike@lorrey.com>
To: extropians@extropy.com <extropians@extropy.com>
Date: 14 December 1998 17:35
Subject: Re: Property [was Re: The Education Function]
>
>
>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.
Not so. Common land may be used by many people and owned by none.
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.
I grasp that you believe in it. I simply disagree. It is possible to
understand someones position and disagree with it.
Samael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:59 MST