From: Dick.Gray@bull.com <Dick.Gray@bull.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> Date: 14 December 1998 18:29
Subject: Re: Property
>"Samael" <Samael@dial.pipex.com> writes:
><<<- -----Original Message-----
>From: Dick.Gray@bull.com <Dick.Gray@bull.com>
>To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
>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 right
>>to exclusive control over the use or disposition of an item, acquired
>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. One
>it is claimed nobody else may use it. Obviously theft.
>Therefore, by your own definition, all property is theft.
>As I've pointed out already, you're contradicting yourself. There can't be
>theft where there is no property.
>Why, precisely, do you think it's wrong to appropriate an unowned resource?
>Who's being wronged, and exactly how? Please avoid nebulous references to
>"the people" or the "common good"; I don't speak that language. We exist as
>individuals, not as some mystical collective entity.
Where I say 'anyone' I don't mean 'the people', I mean "each and every individual".