Re: Property [was Re: The Education Function]

Michael Scarazzo (
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:15:41 -0800 (PST)

---Samael <> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Scarazzo <>
> To: <>
> Date: 14 December 1998 18:29
> Subject: Re: Property [was Re: The Education Function]
> >> An object starts off as unowned. Everyone could use it. Then
> >somneone
> >> comes along and claims it. Now only they can use it. How is
this not
> >> theft?
> >
> >What objects start off having value in their natural state without
> >having value added to them through work (efforts of individuals)?
> Shelter, animals, land, oil, water, trees.
> All opf these, while requiring some work (at least to move them to
> they are needed if nothing else) but return a profit vastly out of
line with
> what they cost in the first place. Getting to a resource first (like
> happening to choose a plot of land above an oil field) does not seem
like a
> reasonable way to get rights to it. Rewarding hard work is fair
enough (or
> even easy work), but blind luck and force?

I think your whole problem with your perception of value is that you believe value should be static. Value is not static. It is determined dynamically by the demand of those who want the resource (whether natural or produce by humans). By what standard are you measuring the "vastly out of line" profits that those who make natural resources available to others? Guess what? Blind luck is part of life. There is no force involved, unless you try to forcibly take what someone has gained through initiative or through blind luck. The government has no business dictating who is lucky and who deserves what. Every single basic resource that you named requries work from those who are willing to trade their time and effort making the resources ready for human use in exchange for other commodities or to store the market driven and negotiated (thus fair) value in the form of money. I believe that you miss the basic premises of the free market.

Get your free address at