From: Michael Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 14 December 1998 17:35
Subject: Re: Property [was Re: The Education Function]
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dick.Gray@bull.com <Dick.Gray@bull.com>
>> To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Date: 11 December 1998 17:50
>> Subject: Property [was Re: The Education Function]
>> >I think most people understand the idea of property as involving the
>> >to exclusive control over the use or disposition of an item, acquired
>> >either by
>> 1) extracting an unowned resource or by
>> 2) legitimate (i.e. uncoerced) transfer from someone who previously owned
>> >What exactly is your objection to property as usually defined?
>> If you trace back (2) through its chain of ownership, you end up back at
>> (1) is theft. An unowned resource is available for the use of anyone.
>> it is claimed nobody else may use it. Obviously theft.
>No not obviously theft. If an unowned resource is unclaimed, then it is
>unutilized, it is abandoned.
Not so. Common land may be used by many people and owned by none.
If the original claimant is a government which is
>your representative, then when the government sells it nothing has been
>from you. This is really a rather simple concept. If you are unable or
>unwilling to grasp it then I suggest you see a shrink.
I grasp that you believe in it. I simply disagree. It is possible to understand someones position and disagree with it.