Fine, I'll take on your arguement. Humans want private property because of the kind of creatures that we are. We want homes, not just for shelter but as an extension of our identities. This is why people decorate their homes. Decorations don't serve as something to prevent exposure to extreme weather. Nor do they provide food, food storage, food preparation, or a place to sleep. They provide entertainment - which we own. We own appliances not for their decorative abilities - though you could if you wanted to - i.e. chrome retro toasters and such, but for their ability to help us store/prepare our food, or keep our clothes clean. We own radio's, TV's VCR's, DVD players, stereos, etc. because they entertain us when we are bored. These things are all property. Few people in modern countries would give these items up to live in a tent. But say you do live in a tent, at that point, the tent is your property and is of immense value as are clothes and tools - they help your survival. Would you give them up? Only if you didn't need them (for instance you might have had spares.) Land also serves as a property - there are many other creatures who are territorial and also view the places of their shelters as their property. Birds build nests, etc... cats (large and small) as well as dogs and other canines mark their territory. This is something that is instinctual and with it comes the concept of "This is mine, I will protect it to keep it" and so on. If you're going to try and argue against property ownership, try taking a t-bone from the mouth of a big dog. Also for example, my dad's dog likes to play property games too. If I shake a plastic bag or a piece of paper around, he'll come over a grab it and hold on to it. He won't let go of it until I let go of it. He let's it drop to the floor - if I try to take it off the floor, he puts his paw on it, and if I continue, he'll bite to protect it. Dogs understand property. So do cats. Ever have a cat rub it's head on you? It's not showing affection, it's just marking you as it's property. All of this predates laws, governments and even modern humans. Property becomes an extension or a tool of the individual. Birds nests for example, and Bowers which don't serve as a shelter - but more as art intended to attract female bower birds for mating, etc. Once you start from there, private property makes sense, and is no longer in question - except if you're a Marxist/communist which goes against this ingrained relationship to property and therefore is doomed to fail. Private ownership of land is no different. Some peoples don't have this concept, they are nomads, but like it or not, they too must live off the land. Afer all, their either hunt or plant vegetation or both. For the time, the land is under their care. They may move on frequently and not attach themselves to it, but there is always a camp, or a caravan or something that is property. Now, the original arguement was about smoking and being up or downwind from someone's cigarette. It was on the street - something which is considered non-private property or the commons. Being exposed forcibly to second hand smoke was the gripe, and banishment of the act of exposing others to second hand smoke by the law in places such as Pubs and restaurants was the core of the arguement. At some point, Harmon chimed in with the idiotic idea that all smoking should be banned on public streets because he hates walking behind someone who is smoking. But this is an issue of the commons. One is free to simply be elsewhere. Another street, another side of the street, another city, or even one's property. One is not forced to breathe another's exhaust. While on the street, it's not your property, and hence you can't declare that the guy infront of you must stop smoking because he's violating your property rights so long as you can move out of the way of that smoke. You're also welcome to wear gas masks or whatever (let's ignore the fact that the cops will think you a suspect for something for the sake of the arguement.) Point is that street, and that air is not your property, it's shared property - and hence not subject to your whims, likes and distates, but upto the community to decide its usage. If a large enough population who uses said street wishes to smoke there, then the whims of a small minority of who are offended by second hand smoke should not force the rules to be changed. As to why some people get red faced when private property gets mentioned, it's very simple: the ones mentioning it are usually the ones interested in taking it away (read theft.) For example: communists, socialists, fascists, dictators and totalitarians in every form, cultists, and mobsters. Some may believe in thir professed (and flawed) ideals, but in the end, they are governed by greed or are making the way for those who are governed by greed to steal said private property. Especially when they claim such gems as private ownership of imovable items such as land or what's built on them is senseless. Tell that to countries, states, cities, neighborhoods and so forth. It's after all, not just about trying to live a better life. It's true that trying to live a better life is a huge goal. Hence, the grass is always greener on the other side. But it's mainly about property, not everyone gets the concept - until they actually live in a commune (or under a totalitarian regime) and find out first hand why it doesn't work. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Thu, 1 May 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:

...

While we're at it, there should be a law against noisy kids playing

Why is it that many people here get red faced whenever someone hints at their private property and can't even imagine that some people might have a slightly different view of the world they're in ?

Why do you want private property ? You want it because it helps you live a better life, basically. So I'll pass the ownership of land (as it's a dumb concept but unfortunately unavoidable to enable the ownership of immobile goods (like what's built upon it)), so property rights are just a visible barrier people put between them and others.

It makes perfect sense to imagine this barrier having a different geometry for other people. I, for one, am very annoyed at people who take a bath in perfume and seem to have destroyed their nose doing it for their lifetime.

Anyway, the whole thing is trying to live a better life through a mix of interaction with others and separation from others. And property rights is just a way to attain this. Someone needn't start tinkering with your owned stuff to interact with you, be it in a way you like or not. Property rights are only a part of the notional barrier, which is really the barrier of where others' freedom stops and yours begin. And it's a fuzzy barrier at best. Property rights are just an attempt at codifying it, and not perfect, though sufficient in a variety of ways.

<rant> And to get back to this moronic argument that says "if you don't like smoke, don't go downwind", have you fucking considered that maybe I *didn't* go downwind, but the fucking smoker went upwind of where I was ? </rant>

-- Vincent Penquerc'h