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: Who owns what?
Message-ID: <21687@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 90 20:34:41 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> <=1R5L=@rpi.edu>
Reply-To: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services
Lines: 23

In article <=1R5L=@rpi.edu> keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) writes:
>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. 

But doesn't this concept hinge on the ownership of the materials used in
making the property?  All (physical) property can be traced back to
natural resources which were created by nobody (at least nobody involved
in the debate).  Rules of ownership are simple to design AFTER
everything has been assigned an owner.  So (again) who "owns" Antartica?
The moon?  Who will own the stars?

When Europeans began messing around in the new world, I believe they had
some kind of claim system (whoever gets there first), which was easily
circumvented by a military system (whoever's still there after the
fight).  But even with these systems in place, do the participants have
"actual" ownership, or only "ownership with respect to the established
system"?

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