From: Michael Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 14 December 1998 17:35
Subject: Re: Final Challenge to Socialists
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Lorrey <email@example.com>
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
>> Date: 12 December 1998 01:04
>> Subject: Re: Final Challenge to Socialists
>> >>Samael said:
>> >> You would call the bits accessible by everyone 'tax' and the bits you
>> >> allowed to keep 'property'.
>> >Listen buddy, the resources were all good and paid for at the source.
>> I don't believe you _can_ buy them. The abstract concept of 'property'
>> breaks down to the denial of access to somebody. This appears to me to
>> wrong in much the same way as 'theft' is wrong. By finding a compromise
>> somewhere in between, we can come to a reasonable society.
>Of course you can buy them. Either they just sit there and nobody does
>with them, or somebody or every body organizes a system of making sure that
>everybody gets the maximum utility out of a given unit of resources. If the
>the government, which in a democracy is supposed to represent everybody) is
>getting maximum value for that resource. If you are getting the maximum
>for it, then you can hardly say it was stolen from you, unless it was sold
>without your permission. If you are a voluntary member of a body politic
>does not require your individual permission, then nothing was stolen from
How about renting it out rather than selling it. This gives a constant return for the government/population, does away with the need for taxation (at least partially) and means that you can't destroy the land because it doesn't belong to you.