Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!keith
From: keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Phil Ronzone's stereo
Message-ID: <=1R5L=@rpi.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 90 16:24:15 GMT
References: <2310@odin.SGI.COM> <12569@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2356@odin.SGI.COM> <1990Jan13.090428.25775@agate.berkeley.edu> <2818@odin.SGI.COM> <8ZggXmy00W0TM96LF=@andrew.cmu.edu> <2847@odin.SGI.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 13

Umm, people? I just started reading alt.individualism again, and I noticed
an argument about property. On the one hand some assert that a majority
_consensus_ determines property. Some assert the [communist] idea that
_need_ determines ownership. A third faction asserts that property simply
_is_ [a primary?]
The correct approach to this question is: "Who created the property?" It is
THIS person who owns it. He (she) may then transfer ownership voluntarily
to someone else. 
This seems to be related to the objectivist/libertarian debate. As the Lians
assert that property _is_ [a fundamdental irreducable primary] they also
assert that liberty is a fundamental irreducable primary. It only remains for
them to find the "proper" philosophy [because it supports their ideas].
This sounds like rationalization...