Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!rhg2
From: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: MY :-) stereo
Message-ID: <21701@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 18 Jan 90 15:31:39 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> <21673@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <2908@odin.SGI.COM>
Reply-To: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services
Lines: 32

In article <2908@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In many discussions of property rights, where the concept of ownership is
>asserted as inherent, the lifeboat cases ALWAYS pop up.
>
>I mean, why is it that people so quickly jump to, "well, what about the case
>where you have two guys in a lifeboat and only one ...".

Because a lot of things seem to make perfect sense when only common
everyday occurances are considered.  Newtonian physics works great 
when you're talking about objects larger than grains of sand and smaller
than mountians (eg 99.99% of everyday life).  So it becomes real easy to
start accepting trends that are based on common events as absolutes.

When you only consider examples that concern common events ("...say I 
grow some corn on my land...") of course the common rules will fit
like a glove.

It's only when you try to plot the course of photons through a
gravitational field, or describe what happens to land that "nobody
owns", or imagine societies with differing concepts of property
interacting that you wonder if Newtonian physics is'nt just a useful 
set of approximations, and maybe the system of ownership that I've been
taught from birth is just a social convention that works for me mainly
because everyone around me is following the same rules.

I hope this helps explain why I (and others) approach concepts in this
way.  None of this, however, alters the fact that for some reason you've
chosen not to answer the question that was posed.
-- 
Richard H. Graham
University of Pittsburgh - CIS
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu