From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
Date: Fri Dec 11 1998 - 09:33:42 MST
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:34:47 -0000, "Samael" <Samael@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>There are three quotes that I find very useful:
>1) Property is freedom.
>Capitalist view - Having property means you can support yourself.
So far so good.
>2) Property is theft.
>Communist view - owning anything means you are stealing from everyone - as
>in a natural state nothing is owned by anyone.
I assume this absurd contradiction is not your position. (Of course, it's
true that resources are not initially owned by anyone, so it's utter
nonsense to speak of "stealing" them "from everyone" or anyone. It's hard
to believe anyone ever bought into this Proudhonian bilge.)
>3) Property is impossible.
>Scientific view: 'Property' is just a term applied to objects that you do
>not wish anyone else to take away from you. It doesn't have an intinsic
>meaning.
What on earth is "scientific" about this vapid statement?
No word has "intrinsic" meaning; each user of a word assigns it a meaning -
"words don't have meanings, people do". You can give a word any meaning you
like, but if you expect to be understood you need to take account of the
way other people typically use it. Here you're using the word "property" in
an odd and apparently arbitrary sense, but at least you've made your
definition explicit. I suggest that in the interest of clear communication
you choose another word for the idea you're referring to above. It's simply
not what the rest of the world means by "property".
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 extracting an unowned resource or by legitimate (i.e. uncoerced)
transfer from someone who previously owned it. It's not just a desire to
keep someone from taking something.
What exactly is your objection to property as usually defined?
Dick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:57 MST