From: Samael (Samael@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Mon Dec 14 1998 - 10:40:18 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Lorrey <mike@lorrey.com>
To: extropians@extropy.com <extropians@extropy.com>
Date: 14 December 1998 17:35
Subject: Re: Final Challenge to Socialists
>Samael wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Lorrey <mike@lorrey.com>
>> To: extropians@extropy.com <extropians@extropy.com>
>> Date: 12 December 1998 01:04
>> Subject: Re: Final Challenge to Socialists
>> >>Samael said:
>> >> You would call the bits accessible by everyone 'tax' and the bits you
are
>> >> allowed to keep 'property'.
>> >>
>> >Listen buddy, the resources were all good and paid for at the source.
>>
>> I don't believe you _can_ buy them. The abstract concept of 'property'
>> breaks down to the denial of access to somebody. This appears to me to
be
>> wrong in much the same way as 'theft' is wrong. By finding a compromise
>> somewhere in between, we can come to a reasonable society.
>>
>> Samael
>
>Of course you can buy them. Either they just sit there and nobody does
anything
>with them, or somebody or every body organizes a system of making sure that
>everybody gets the maximum utility out of a given unit of resources. If the
>resources are offered to the highest bidder, then the original owner
(typically
>the government, which in a democracy is supposed to represent everybody) is
>getting maximum value for that resource. If you are getting the maximum
value
>for it, then you can hardly say it was stolen from you, unless it was sold
>without your permission. If you are a voluntary member of a body politic
which
>does not require your individual permission, then nothing was stolen from
you.
How about renting it out rather than selling it. This gives a constant
return for the government/population, does away with the need for taxation
(at least partially) and means that you can't destroy the land because it
doesn't belong to you.
Samael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:59 MST