From: "C. Cormier - Ormetal Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 23 May 2002, at 13:12, Kenneth C. Griffith wrote: > > > 1. Ownership must be specific: ... > > Why must it be specific? There is no need to. > > There are many exemple in real life of this kind of ownership. They > call it undivided property. Very often used in real estate. > > Basically, in the GoldMoney system, the user owns an undivided > part of a gold pool that he can transfer. First, before we go further, > do we agree on this?
I think that's the whole sticking point, Claude. Ken does not agree with this premise. Basically Ken is saying that you must be able to point to a distinct piece of something and say "that's mine." If you can't pick it up and carry it away with you, you can't own it. (When I put it that way it sounds kind of absurd, doesn't it?) Personally, I don't see why I can't own an undivided interest in something. Let's say I'm in a rural area and several of us share a common water well and reservoir. Maybe I purchase a certain portion of the water capacity in gallons/minute. That's clearly an undivided interest. It sure seems like ownership -- I could potentially sell all or a portion of my capacity to others. Come to think of it, companies do this kind of thing all the time with network bandwidth. I think Ken has some very good things to say and writes some great articles, but if we don't agree on this fundamental premise then we will ALWAYS arrive at different conclusions, no matter how we hash out the subsequent arguments. The premise of ownership of undivided interests is fundamental. -- Patrick --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
