From: m (mt_2@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Dec 16 1998 - 23:24:25 MST
Hi,
---EvMick@aol.com wrote:
> daugh@home.msen.com writes:
>
> > "Samael" <Samael@dial.pipex.com> has a problem with semantics:
> >
> > >An object starts off as unowned. Everyone could use it. Then
somneone
> > >comes along and claims it. Now only they can use it. How is
this not
> > >theft?
> Like a pentium 166.......right?
IMHO there is a difference between a natural resource that someone
happens to have the cash to buy if they can at a particular moment
(I'm thinking of the purchase of what was formerly a commons, for
example), and something that is clearly more the work of someone's
hands (or a company's)?
In the latter there is more of a case for ownership;
in the former there are the rights of people in general
to consider (such as access to resources that all need).
My 2c worth.
m
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:02 MST