On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:50:47PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote: > On 20/09/2011 22:24, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> That doesn't really matter. If a number of individuals interact >> you have a society. Once that happens, things are 'yours' only >> because the others agree the are. Such agreements arise because >> they bring mutual benifit. > > Interesting choice of words. You say "agree", I would say "recognise". Okay, English is not my first language, so 'recognise' could be more accurate than 'agree'. > My thoughts (which you appear to equate with "things") are my own, > and if I choose to share them with anyone else that is my choice, > and their privilege. Agreed. I was mainly talking about ownership of physical things. >> The alternative is living isolated, or having to physically >> protect and defend your 'property' all the time, which sort >> of defeats the purpose. > What purpose is that? Who decides what the purpose is? The 'purpose' (maybe again a bad choice of words) of owning things is being able to use them, in the most general sense, without interference of others. If the ownership itself is contested, there is interference. > Unfortunately, not all societies are so "enlightened". The days where > one needed no lock on one's front door are long gone; if they ever > really existed much anyway. I have been burgled three times, by > individuals (aka "society" according to you) who clearly did not "agree" > that my Tannoy DC200 dual-concentrics, or my gold signet ring with the > family seal on it inherited from my father, belonged to me. Yes, some members of your society may ignore the rules, but such behaviour is not deemed acceptable, and they will be prosecuted and punished if found out. Which means your ownership is 'recognised'. The only point I wanted to make is that the very concept of 'property', of 'owning' things makes sense only if it is recognised by others - it is a social agreement and not a law of nature. And as such it can be reviewed if the need arises. And even if the basic idea is never put to question the modalities can be. > Seems to me there are plenty of people around who would treat my > thoughts in the same way, if they could. Perhaps a few of them are > even on this list. You just can't slap a GPL licence on a person > and call it "natural". I never mentioned 'thoughts wanting to be free' or 'slapping a GPL on a person and call that natural'. Ciao, -- _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
