Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!texbell!attctc!lll-winken!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!uci-ics!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder
From: byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Phil Ronzone's stereo
Summary: Answer: One as long as he's right!
Message-ID: <524@smcnet.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jan 90 05:40:43 GMT
References: <2310@odin.SGI.COM> <12569@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2356@odin.SGI.COM> <1990Jan13.090428.25775@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Santa Monica College Telecom, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 71

In article <1990Jan13.090428.25775@agate.berkeley.edu>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> In article <2356@odin.SGI.COM>, pkr@maddog (Phil Ronzone) writes:
 
> >I say it does not matter of 1 person or 1,000,000 people want to steal
> >my stereo. It is theft if I am unwilling.
 
> >Answer the question of plead the fifth!!!! :-)
 
>   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?

It depends on how it became "yours".  I can think of a few:

If you bought it from a someone else (like the owner of the stereo store)
all it takes is the agreement of the previous owner (and he can't
change his mind either).

If it was "found" in a natural state and nobody else could be located
with a counter-claim (for example if it was floating in the ocean with
no address label and an honest effort was made to find the owner.

If you built the stereo from parts you owned (acquired through some
valid means).

If someone gave it to you as a gift (actually, this is like a sale but
with a price of zero).
 
>   It became "your" stereo not in a state of nature, but in a
> civil state which guarantees property rights and prints currency.

That's a description of the circumstances, not the method.  The government
(if it's working properly) ensures your property and other rights.  You
had the rights before, the government just makes sure that they are
not violated (again, if it is doing it's job).

> If you want to base your right to "your" stereo not on a social
> contract, but on the state of nature, the answer to your question
> is easy. If enough people want to take "your" stereo, then they
> do.

If enough people want to kill me they will probably do that too, but
does that mean that I have no right to live?  Is murder unjust
when practiced by one person but just when done by a mob?  You
seem to confuse policy (which can be just or not) and justice
(which is just by definition).  Would you agree with the statement
that "Everything the majority decides is JUST no matter what it decides."?
How about "Evil committed by a majority is not evil?".  If this is the
case, you would have to approve of all kinds of moral atrocities of history.
Presumably you would not object to the imposition of such atrocities in
the future either right?  Why should I not be afraid of your moral views?
 
>   Property is socially defined. It is part of the social
> contract.  Your idea that you have an absolute property right
> which you have not earned and cannot defend is repugnant and
> silly.

Who said that the property was not earned?  I would assume that Phil
worked for the money to buy that stereo.  Given my distillation of the
moral principles behind your view, isn't that really the repugnant (because
it advocates any evil imposed by the majority) and silly (because it
would assign ownership on a basis other than the reasonable ones
(trade, labor, or discovery) wouldn't such a distribution be a bit silly?).

Brian Yoder

-- 
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
| Brian Yoder                 | answers *byoder();                            |
| uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers |
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-