Damien Broderick wrote:
>
> At 06:38 PM 11/12/00 -0800, samantha wrote:
>
> >Property is theft from whom? You can['t] steal if no one has any ownership
> >rights. :-)
>
> This standard retort to a snappy slogan (or counter-slogan) entirely avoids
> the case being implied.
Not at all Damien. It illustrates the syntactical paradox inherent in
the statement.
>
> I make no assertion on the legitimacy of the following case, but it strikes
> me as far from incoherent let alone meaningless:
>
> In the first instance, the world's natural abundance has no owners. People
> emerge in communities, with shared language and skills, who learn to turn
> this abundance to their advantage. This wealth can be broadly shared (by
> some algorithm of distribution), or sequestered to the possession of a few,
> often by force of arms. If theft is the wrongful confiscation of hard-won
> or even widely available wealth (naturally occurring, cultivated or wholly
> contrived by intelligent human effort), it is easy to see how the fiat
> assertion of `property' might be regarded with indignation as theft from
> the commonwealth or commonweal.
Unless that assertion is endorsed by the commonwealth. This is the
purpose of the Deed. It is a declaration by the community as to the
provenance and legitimate ownership of the item in question.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:35 MDT