From: Michael Lorrey <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> Date: 14 December 1998 18:29
Subject: Re: Property [was Re: The Education Function]
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Date: 12 December 1998 01:04
>> >Dick.Gray@bull.com wrote:
>> >> What exactly is your objection to property as usually defined?
>> >I think that his main objection is that he has none.
>> Not true. I have a house, a job, a computer and several thousands pounds
>> worth of books, CDs, videos, etc.
>> I'm a systems analyst, by the way, so I'm earning a few pounds here and
>> To believe in an ideology does not mean that you would have to
>> benefit from it. I would expect myself to fall into the 'short term
>> category from taxation before the advantages of the system brought long
>Well its good to see you're not a welfare layabout. However I sense that
>have a rather severe resentment against anyone who has more than you. Why
>this? Did someone take your toys away as a child? Humiliated by the rich
>Or were you born in a wealthy liberal household which was beset by guilt
Do you always retreat to ad hominem attacks when you fail to attack someones
>Rather than just bitching about how property is theft, I suggest you
>detailed workable system under which resources are maximally utilized to
>all, given that all resources originally belong to nobody. If you can't
>sufficient answer then please shut up with your socialist nonsense.
Already did so some tiem ago. Since the only objections were that 'it involves stealing', which I have already shown I don't believe, I assume you agreed with it in other respects.