>> I don't understand is why it isn't blatently obvious to Suresh that private
>> property is only maintained by force *when others try to forcefully take it
>> from the rightful owner*.
>
> Hehe! "Rightful owner", that's rather funny. It's nothing like as simple
> as you paint it, David, and the pro-property position is just as logically
> unsound as the comunal position may be distasteful. There are no intrinsic
> rights and wrongs in this, only accommodations made between people.
>
> ... "ownership" of atoms or atomic arrangements is a hilariously
> ridiculous notion.
IAN: That is logical: all notions of rights and ownership,
are, like all notions, merely mental fabrications.
However, some notions and their application as rules of human
action prove to be more effective than other notions in reaching
a given set of desired outcomes, such as technological progress.
The theoretical system of private property rights proves most
effective as a means toward technological progress, which
in turn improves the welfare of the majority.
Perhaps the most scientific measure of "ownership" is that X
owns Y where X controls Y. The Earth owns us all, the galaxy
owns the Earth, and the Universe the galaxy. But at the smaller
end of things, "I" own my body, or my body owns my body, because
my body controls itself. Or more clearly, my body owns itself
to the degree that it controls itself. By extension, my body
owns those things in its external area that it controls,
or manipulates. In this sense "ownership" is not "a
hilariously ridiculous notion" as you suggest.
************************************************************************
IAN GODDARD <igoddard@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________________