David S. wrote:
>Maybe I am just being dense. You defined "private property" (which you seek
>to abolish) in your previous post as "Private property has the technical
>connotation of ownership of the social productive means that are necessary
>to production in a society with an enormous division
Charles Brown wrote:
--
There is enormous division of labor and specialization in the historical
socialist states. It is pretty much the same level of divsion of labor as
the capitalist state it takes over from.
Miners only mine. They don't make steel , by and large. Doctors o
-
From: "Andrew Hagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:40 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:9826] Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:50 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
> >Private property is th
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 01:52PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
-
People owning stuff is personal property. The aim is not to abolish personal
property. Individual consumer goods would be personally owned.
Private property has the technical connotation of ownership of the socia
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:48:02 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
>Private property has the technical connotation of ownership of the social productive
>means that are necessary >to production in a society with an enormous division of
>labor or soicalization and specialization of the production >process.
Charles Brown wrote:
-
People owning stuff is personal property. The aim is not to abolish personal
property. Individual consumer goods would be personally owned.
Private property has the technical connotation of ownership of the social
productive means that are necessary to prod
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 12:40PM >>>
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:50 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
>Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of
>production. So, it is the numero uno
effective principle of bourgeois law and jurisprudence , today's exploitati
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:50 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
>Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of
>production. So, it is the numero uno
effective principle of bourgeois law and jurisprudence , today's exploitative form of
productive relations.
>
>The su
On the ancient and long history of private property of different types especially in
European history, see Engels' _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the
State_.
Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of
production. So, it is the numero uno
>The court held that
>regardless of whether he planted them deliberately or if he merely found
>them growing on his farm, it was his responsibility to destroy the seeds and
>seedlings or pay royalties.
I'm not familiar with Canadian patent law, but in general those bodies
of law that, grouped to
At 08:25 AM 3/30/01 -0800, you wrote:
>Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual
>property, essentially a legal fiction on par with M.'s corporate
>personhood. The farmer's land is mere _real_ property, essentially also a
>legal fiction but having a common law history g
Intellectual property is old, too: Patents are in the constitution, and were
known (I am sure) for centuries before that. Property is a "fiction," but it
has a social objectivity that makes it quite real. --jks
>
>Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual
>property,
Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual
property, essentially a legal fiction on par with M.'s corporate
personhood. The farmer's land is mere _real_ property, essentially also a
legal fiction but having a common law history going back many, many
centuries. So the cou
Charles, it is worse than that. He has been breeding and collecting his own
seeds for decades, developing his own distinctive strains. He sued Monsanto
for contaminating his crops with the pollen.
Charles Brown wrote:
> Law as aggressive protector of private property.
>
> Thanks
Law as aggressive protector of private property.
Thanks to Les S. for this:
From slashhdot.org: "A Canadian court has ruled that a farmer growing
genetically modified canola without a license violated Monsanto's patent and
owes damages. Percy Schmeiser claims that the seeds ble
15 matches
Mail list logo