> email@example.com writes:
> > "Samael" <Samael@dial.pipex.com> has a problem with semantics:
> > >An object starts off as unowned. Everyone could use it. Then
> > >comes along and claims it. Now only they can use it. How is
> > >theft?
> Like a pentium 166.......right?
IMHO there is a difference between a natural resource that someone happens to have the cash to buy if they can at a particular moment (I'm thinking of the purchase of what was formerly a commons, for example), and something that is clearly more the work of someone's hands (or a company's)?
In the latter there is more of a case for ownership; in the former there are the rights of people in general to consider (such as access to resources that all need).
My 2c worth.