> 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*.
Hehe! "Rightful owner", that's rather funny. It's nothing like as simple
as you paint it, David, and the pro-property position is just as logically
unsound as the comunal position may be distasteful. There are no intrinsic
rights and wrongs in this, only accommodations made between people.
Take a very common situation as an example of the fluidity of the concept
of "rightful ownership". Say you have a car, fully paid for. Sadly, you
did not pay your local council tax, and the bailiffs come and take your
car away. What gives? Surely you were its "rightful owner" (tm), and no
act of petty local government can change that!! :-)
Actually, there is of course no such thing as intrinsic ownership of
anything, not even our bodies nor ideas. We're simply in possession
of some items for the while that circumstances or other people permit.
Even individualists realize that, despite being distinct individuals,
they are also part of a universe within which "ownership" of atoms or
atomic arrangements is a hilariously ridiculous notion.
Rich.
-- ########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available # galacta # Email : rich@galacta.demon.co.uk 158.152.156.137 # ->demon # Web : http://www.galacta.demon.co.uk 194.222.245.150 # ->ampr # AMPR : rich@g7exm[.uk].ampr.org 44.131.164.1 BBS:GB7MSW # ->NTS # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, kernel, O-O, C++, SoftEng, Nano ########### More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London