From: Randall Randall (randall@randallsquared.com)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 14:26:17 MDT
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 01:41 PM, Charles Hixson wrote:
> Randall Randall wrote:
>> I'm still not sure why ownership without responsibility is regarded
>> as a good thing, here.
> It's a good thing because it's the only was that large constructions
> can be accomplished without an authoritarian government. I believe
> that the first one was the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London, and
> it was used to essentiall build London.
The fact that something was done in a particular way doesn't
seem to be strong evidence that it couldn't be done any other
way.
> But these small investors can't know what it being done in their name.
> The have ownership, but not control.
[snip]
> If you don't control something, you don't own it.
When you've finished the debate with yourself, let the winning
argument come out and play. :)
I agree with your second statement.
> If you do control it, pertending that you aren't responsible because
> you don't own it should be no defense.
If you control something, you DO own it. I agree, however, that
the current USian legal system is really screwed up on this point,
among others.
-- Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com> "When you advocate any government action, you must first believe that violence is the best answer to the question at hand." -- Allen Thornton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 14:38:38 MDT