--- Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2005-02-16T13:31:14-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: > > --- "R.A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > > > Property is like rights. We create it inherently, because we're > human, > > > it > > > is not bestowed upon us by someone else. Particularly if that > property > > > is > > > stolen from someone else at tax-time. > > > > But as long as property rights are generally considered to be a tenet > and > > characteristic of society, excuses for officiated theft, for instance, > > merely put a veneer of legitimacy over certain kinds of theft. I > doubt > > that RMS will ever be framed, arrested and thrown in to the gulag, his > > property confiscated; but for someone like myself, that is certainly > an > > option, eh? > > Is there a difference between property rights in a society like a pride > of lions, and property rights that are respected independent of social > status? Or are they essentially the same? They seem to be different, > but I can't articulate why. Obviously the latter needs enforcement, > possibly courts, etc., but I can't identify a more innate difference, > other than simply as I described it -- property rights depending on > social status, and property rights not depending on social status. > > I don't think any society has ever managed to construct a pure property > rights system where nobody has any advantage. Without government it's > the strong. With government, government agents have an advantage, and > rich people have an advantage because they can hire smart lawyers to get > unfair court decisions. So maybe this is just silly, in which case I > believe even more strongly that formal status-independent property > rights are not the basis of government.
Whatever. See the sentence I wrote last in my previous message. When you grow the fuck up, drop me a line. Regards, Steve ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca