tma@osc.COM (Tim Atkins) (01/17/90)
In article <21453@unix.cis.pitt.edu. rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) writes:
.** Disclaimer on **
.
.This is NOT a flame nor a set of views that I hold particularly strongly,
.mostly because they've never been tested, which is something I hope you'll
.help me do. (In other words, don't flame my ass, just tell me how you
.disagree).
.
.** Disclaimer off **
.
..** Flame ON **
..
..I am NOT a tenant of the US government. The land I live on is MINE, the
..money I make in trading is MINE, and the choice of what I do with my
..life is MINE. The government may have forgotten it, but feudalism
..(let's call what you advocate what it really is!) not among the founding ideas
..of the US.
..
..** Flame OFF **
.
.No, but you are a member of the organization known as the US government,
.and are bound by its decisions which you're expected to participate
.in making. If you're no longer interested in your membership, you
.could renounce your citizenship.
.
No, I am a free individual supposedly in a country that knows that
the responsibility of government is the protection (not creation) of
individual rights.
.Also, I'm not sure I understand your conpect of ownership. Isn't
.onwership a human concept and institution? You speak as if there is
.some kind of "real" ownership that is deeper and more basic than the
.govt. based notion of ownership.
Ownership is a concept logical growing out of individual rights. If
individual rights are "inalienable" then property rights follow
immediately. The gov't based notion is nothing but the legal paper
(some of it fit for the w.c.) that the government encodes its purportedly
protective policies upon. Its validity can only be judged by reference
to the concept of property rights. Yes, they are independent of gov't
daffy-nition.
.As far as I can see, "ownership" is a way that people behave toward
.objects. To say I "own" something means I act toward it in certain ways
.as compared with the way others do. My "ownership" exists by virtue
.of the general concensus that I "own" it, that I and others acknowledge
.and recognize my "ownership". Govt. based ownership is a formalization
.of the common (and therefore variable and unreliable) concept of
.ownership.
About as utterly pragmatic and anti-conceptual statement as I've seen in
many a post. Catches the other signs of ownership but says nothing about
the concept itself. Of course, the entire post seems to wish to deny that
such a concept has any real meaning.
.--
.Richard H. Graham
.University of Pittsburgh - CIS
.rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu
- Timrhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) (01/19/90)
In article <1869@osc.COM> tma@osc.UUCP (Tim Atkins) writes: >No, I am a free individual supposedly in a country that knows that >the responsibility of government is the protection (not creation) of >individual rights. Maybe this assertion about the proper role of govt. is true for the basis of the US, I'm not going to pretend to know one way or the other. But when it comes to the role of govt's in general, isn't it true that the proper role is whatever its members decide it to be? >Ownership is a concept logical growing out of individual rights. If >individual rights are "inalienable" then property rights follow >immediately. The gov't based notion is nothing but the legal paper >(some of it fit for the w.c.) that the government encodes its purportedly >protective policies upon. Its validity can only be judged by reference >to the concept of property rights. Yes, they are independent of gov't >daffy-nition. This is not so far from what I'm saying as you might think. People come together from time to time and draw up some formal system of rules and agree to abide by them because they reflect to some extent their notions (or philosophies) of fairness, "rightness", or whatever. One example is our system of govt. (such as it is) which reflects our notions concerning individual rights. I'm willing to concede property rights following from individual rights, though I'm going to have to give it some more consideration. Where we disagree, or more accurately, what you believe and I question, is whether and in what form "individual rights" actually exist. I think they're a grand idea, I'll raise my hand in favor of them every time, things do run a lot smoother with them around. But do they exist in the physical world somehow, or are they a purely human convention similar to, say, the rules for basketball or (what's his name's) Rules of Order? >About as utterly pragmatic and anti-conceptual statement as I've seen in >many a post. Catches the other signs of ownership but says nothing about >the concept itself. Of course, the entire post seems to wish to deny that >such a concept has any real meaning. Should I be pleased or disappointed that you consider my statement pragmatic and anti-conceptual? I'm trying to catch ALL the signs of ownership, and I've expressed as many as I've found on personal reflection. And finally, am I really "wishing to deny" the "real" meaning, or am I searching for it? I've been asking for the "real" meaning for a while, and today two people have suggested that it is a natural extension of the concept of personal rights. This forces me to give greater consideration to the concept of personal rights. -- Richard H. Graham University of Pittsburgh - CIS rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu