[Re: [Re: [Sovereignty v. global justice [was... Mohammed gets Miranda]]]]

[Jim Choate]

On 20 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote:

> I agree with your response to the first question,

Ok, we're in sync.

> the next two questions are absurd questions suggesting

So you're saying the 2nd and 3rd question are absurd?

> a simple repudiation to them and by that means,
> a simple repudiation to a clear concept of property.

You believe a priori there is a 'clear' concept of property?

Do you own yourself (assume for a moment we ignore the DoI & Const.)?

Clearly the patent and property courts don't agree, I sent a forward on
this aspect earlier today. 

You believe that there is some definition of 'property' that all can agree
on? I'd like to understand what makes you believe this.
 
The best real world definition I have is something that allows a person to
make money. No other significant principle of weight seems to be involved.

> You interpreted the third question right.

Apparently not if you believe your last two questions are absurd. I
suspect this is a 'native language dispute' where what you mean and what
comes out isn't what I'm seeing. Can you possibly reword your second
question so I can hopefully understand your intent better? Assuming of
course it's worth your time.

> Jim Choate <ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 19 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote:
> > 
> > > Your response raises more questions for me Jim
> > 
> > And me as well :)
> > 
> > > like:
> > > -what is property?
> > 
> > A figment of human psychology. My dog certainly doesn't use the same
> > definition of 'property' that I do, so it's clearly not 'universal'.
> > 
> > > -how can I appropriate of the cleanest air this world has to offer?
> > 
> > I don't understand this question, poor wording.
> > 
> > I think you're asking how to make sure the world is a clean place. As long
> > as humans must live on the planet full time I doubt it'll ever happen.
> > Outside of resource issues and looking at the political/psychological
> > aspects, Two party (ie consumer/producer) systems are inherently unstable
> > (it's why nobody wants to answer the question "where does the market
> > stability come from in order to create the free market"). So the answer
> > would seem to be diversity (ie vote with your feet).
> > 
> > > -what property will give me quality of life and not take it from me?
> > 
> > I don't think property will give you that. The only measure of 'quality of
> > life' I've ever seen is 'security through freedom'.

    ____________________________________________________________________

           Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a
           smaller group must first understand it.

                                           "Stranger Suns"
                                           George Zebrowski

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------