Dick.Gray@bull.com wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:34:47 -0000, "Samael" <Samael@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
I think that his main objection is that he has none.
> >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?
>
Mike Lorrey