Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!rhg2
From: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Phil Ronzone's stereo
Message-ID: <21643@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 16 Jan 90 15:46:32 GMT
References: <2310@odin.SGI.COM> <12569@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2356@odin.SGI.COM> <1990Jan13.090428.25775@agate.berkeley.edu> <2818@odin.SGI.COM>
Reply-To: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services
Lines: 30

In article <2818@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
--  I have a counter-question: how many people does it take to
--agree to treat "your" stereo as "yours" in order to make it
--yours? Just you? Ten? Ten million?
-
-The answer is one. AND only one.
-
...
-Social contract - justification of theft by a few by invoking the specter
-		  of the many. See Divine Right of Kings and Fascism.

This is all well and good, but I'm still waiting for your basis of the
concept of ownership.

If it only takes one person to determine owership, what do you do about
disputes?  Based on your concept of ownershipt, who owns the land in
Antarctica?  How about the moon?  I suppose if I claim ownership of one
of them then that's all there is to it.

I gave a lot of thought to this subject when the "Fred and the dam"
debate started, and as far as I can see, "ownership" means, and only
means "people generally agree on who owns it".

If there is some basis of a concept of ownership that is more basic and
more substantial, I'd like to hear it.

-- 
Richard H. Graham
University of Pittsburgh - CIS
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu