David Shemano wrote:
>The issue, from my
>perspective, is not whether property is "private" in the sense you seem to
>be asking, or whether rather metaphysical notions of freedom and consent can
>exist under capitalism.
and
>"Private property" is my shorthand for saying the rules will
>provide that with respect to any specific resource, commodity, etc., a
>single individual gets to decide issues of possession, use and transfer.
The problem here, David, is that private property is NOT a relationship
between an individual and a thing it is a social relationship between many
individuals within a definite form of society REGARDING the status of the
thing as a possession. To view the relationship as being between a *single*
individual and any specific resource, commodity, etc. is precisely a
*metaphysical* understanding of private property -- or in other words a
*fetishization* of the social relations that recognize ownership of objects.
Just between me, the mountain and the sea I can proclaim myself possessor of
all I behold. It's strictly a social/historical question though whether or
not my ownership claim gives me any right of disposal over the mountain or
the sea.
Tom Walker
Sandwichman and Deconsultant
Bowen Island, BC
