>> IAN: To that effect: to manipulate physical matter is control
>> physical matter, and to control it is to own it.
>
> That's just handwaving, of course. Possibly quite reasonable handwaving,
> but handwaving nevertheless, and lightyears from being indisputable, let
> alone logically unassailable. In effect all that you are saying is that
> "I define ownership as direct physical control." Fair enough, but you
> shouldn't try to disguise such a personal view as a higher truth demanded
> by logic.
IAN: Right. I see what your saying, and have to concede to its logic:
any proclamation we make regarding what "ownership" is, is merely
a subjective claim, ipso facto.
Of all possible claims about ownership claims, I'd say that the claim
that "ownership is a claim to physical property that is manifest via
the manipulation and demarcation of said property," is the most
concrete and physically testable. However, in accord with your
point, this does not make my claim more "true" than even
the most doctrinaire Polkadotian property claims.
>> IAN: So your saying that ... [lots of good stuff snipped]
>
> Don't you dare question the teachings of Polkadot! You will be
> tormented for all eternity by her Magnificent Pulcritude, which
> she has currently contracted out to the legions of devilbunnies,
> and you don't want to mess with them. :-)
IAN: Sounds perfectly frightful. Please don't throw me to
the devilbunnies (I've been very bad) please don't, PLEASE !
************************************************************************
IAN GODDARD <igoddard@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________________