From: <jamesd@netcom.com>

If you claim that Eric does not own the list then you claim that it is unjust for him to change the rules without consent.

If I claim he owns the list then I claim that it perfectly proper for him to change the rules without consent, regardless of whether or not he has a good, or even sane, reason.

[...] So what's the point? Fortunately, Eric and not you is running the list, and he's a reasonable man. Yeah, sure, according to the rules of PPL or Roman Law or mathematics or whatever, he has every right to take unilateral action and do whatever he wants to with the list. OK, he's the "owner," so? This is the real world, not an algebra lesson: the whole reason this discussion is happening is that Eric realizes there are a few hundred friends (damn, I should have said "comrades") involved here and he would like to discuss the issue. This "ownership" thread seems like a gratuitous exercise in abstract propertarian philosophy. Man, some people actually seem EAGER to have Eric make some drastic unilateral move just so they can bleat "Yes sir, he's the owner, that's his right! Yes sir, he's the owner, that's his right!" and have their worldview sanctioned. Yes, that IS his right, but he's obviously too nice a guy to just do it tomorrow morning without discussing it first and then inform us all of the new status of his "property." So why don't we just discuss his proposal? I agree with Tim that effortless encryption/signing of email is still a dream for most of us. I don't think there should be any "punishment" for not signing (not even having the non-signer's mail delayed). I do think signing should be encouraged. I think that at some time in the future (a year?) Eric's proposal may be reasonable, but I don't think it's time yet. --Dave.