--- Justin <justin-cypherpunks@soze.net> wrote:
--- "R.A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com> wrote: [snip]
Property is like rights. We create it inherently, because we're human, it is not bestowed upon us by someone else. Particularly if that
On 2005-02-16T13:31:14-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: property
is stolen from someone else at tax-time.
But as long as property rights are generally considered to be a tenet and characteristic of society, excuses for officiated theft, for instance, merely put a veneer of legitimacy over certain kinds of theft. I doubt that RMS will ever be framed, arrested and thrown in to the gulag, his property confiscated; but for someone like myself, that is certainly an option, eh?
Is there a difference between property rights in a society like a pride of lions, and property rights that are respected independent of social status? Or are they essentially the same? They seem to be different, but I can't articulate why. Obviously the latter needs enforcement, possibly courts, etc., but I can't identify a more innate difference, other than simply as I described it -- property rights depending on social status, and property rights not depending on social status.
I don't think any society has ever managed to construct a pure property rights system where nobody has any advantage. Without government it's the strong. With government, government agents have an advantage, and rich people have an advantage because they can hire smart lawyers to get unfair court decisions. So maybe this is just silly, in which case I believe even more strongly that formal status-independent property rights are not the basis of government.
Whatever. See the sentence I wrote last in my previous message. When you grow the fuck up, drop me a line. Regards, Steve ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca