trc (02/24/83)
David Sher proposes that I can substitute rape (or some other verb, such as steal, destroy) in my argument - see if it makes sense to you. Do humans have a right to rape/steal/destroy non-human things? Yes - because [raping/stealing/destroying] those things helps achieve values, and so enhances ones' life. Does anyone really believe that these negative things really help enhance ones' life? Can possession really be equated with rape or theft? Consider that possessing something is neutral to OTHERS's rights - neither enhancing or harming others. It is possible to USE something one possesses to harm others, or help others. But the mere fact of possession does no harm. The same cannot be said of rape/theft/destruction of others or their property. (Some will argue that it harms one if someone else owns something that one needs - not so - that harm would come from the other person refusing to negotiate a mutually beneficial solution to the first person's problem.) David also asks why people must have "exclusive access" to things [I presume he means, in order to gain the benefits of those things.] It is not a question of exclusive access, but the RIGHT to, if one chooses, have exclusive access. In the case of renting, the owner has choosen to let the renter stay in the apartment in return for monetary payments. He has also choosen not to let someone else stay who wouldnt have paid. In the case of a married couple, two people have agreed that they value the well being of each other above all their material possessions - and so they share ownership of all they have. [Although, in the past, women had no real property, and were, to some degree, property themselves.] But it should be noted that this choice of sharing would not be possible if there were no possession in the first place. They would not be able to choose NOT to share things with others in order to reserve that right for their mate. To summarize, I dont think David poked any holes in the arguement that possession is a right arising from the right to ones' life, and which in turn leads directly to capitalism, namely the respect of all individuals rights of possession. Several other points - "enforced capitalism" - where some persons rights to possess are abrogated by force in order for others to gain - is not capitalism at all. However, existance of some instances of this type of activity does not preclude capitalistic actions elsewhere in the same country - we need look no further than the US for examples. The government enforced monopolies (there is no other kind except forced) are some of the least efficient, yet "fattest" corporations around. Steve Bellovin says he would only have socialism apply to the largest corporations. But what this means is that it applies to anyone who owns part of a large corporation at the time it is "socialized". There are problems with corporations that seek only the short term bottom line - but those problems are best dealt with by insuring an environment where anyone who is harmed by the corporation can gain reparations. Currently, people are only liable to the limit of what they invest. If they had to take responsibility for the full impact of the corporate actions, perhaps there would be more emphasis on the long term gain of never giving people reason to bring suit against the company. And if not, then they would be fully liable for the results. I would agree with anyone who claimed that stock holders should actively work to see to it that their corporation doesnt harm people. In fact, people boycotting a company for its actions (EG Nestle) would be wiser to put together an investment fund for the purpose of getting a voice in the corporation to work against undesirable practices. Further, it would be easy for the anyone to gauge the level of support they have by the amount of investment gained in their fund. Likely, the corporation involved would be more impressed by such, and would be more likely to act before being "invaded". Maybe the investors would even make a profit! Tom Craver houti!trc American Bell, Inc Holmdel, NJ