Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!texbell!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!princeton!phoenix!roger
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Phil Ronzone's stereo
Message-ID: <13102@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 19 Jan 90 16:47:34 GMT
References: <2310@odin.SGI.COM> <12569@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2356@odin.SGI.COM> <1990Jan13.090428.25775@agate.berkeley.edu> <2818@odin.SGI.COM> <21643@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <2904@odin.SGI.COM> <13024@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2947@odin.SGI.COM>
Reply-To: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 129

In article <2947@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <13024@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>I own all my property. There are three kinds:

>>>p0 = my own life

>>Fair enough.  What does this mean?  To what extent may you defend your
>>ownership?  May you violate somebody's property rights (steal his food)
>>to protect your right to your own life?

>You may not initiate force. No, you can't steal somebody elses food.

Funny, I recall a posting the other day where you said I could
appropriate property if I made due compensation.  Seems to me, if the
decision is mine, then your property right is NOT absolute.  That may
not be stealing, but is does involve relieving you of some of your
control over your property.


>LIFEBOAT case: you've had a boating accident. You are in the water
>without a life jacket. You are holding a Stinger missile. You notice
>a jet plane overhead. You figure if you shoot the jet down, you
>can get something to hang on to, maybe even a life jacket, from the
>debris. Q: May you shoot the jet down? A: NO.

Q: Can I have your second parachute, even if you don't want to give it
to me?

>>May you restrict another's actions to lessen a THREAT to your own life?

>Define threat. Imminent objective initiation of force? yes.

Example: neighbor has obvious fire hazard in home.  Fire in his house
makes fire in mine very likely (happens in cities!).  What should I do?
Hazard on HIS property endangers me and my property.

>>Life-as-property is tricky.

>No, I don't thinks so.

OK: it's not tricky, just wrong.  I've described several collisions
between life-rights nad property rights.  Your rules seem unreasonable
at the very least.

>>>p1 = my ideas and thoughts (i.e., Einstein owns E=MC**2)

>>In what sense does/did he own it?  Did he have the right to control the
>>use of it to derive other products of thought, e.g., further work in
>>physics?

>It is his. Yes.

In what case is this anything other than a useless point?  Once he's
told the world about it, say, in a publication, may nobody use it as a
basis for their own thought?  In what sense can he control it?  

If he doesn't tell anyone, who cares whether it's his or not?  How can
we tell?

>>Suppose we said that Einstein did NOT own that idea.  How would the
>>world be different?  How would E's life have been different?

>I don't know.

Can you IMAGINE things being any different at all?  An example?

>>>p2 = my tangible derivatives (farm the ground, I own the
>>>     corn)

>>Would that be YOUR ground you're farming?  How did you get it?  From
>>whom?  How did the original owner get it?

>Land is NOT a derivitive. I can't own it. I can own all the improvements.
>I can rent the "land" (it's improvements) from another. The act of
>discovery is an improvement, whether it is an idea or land.

And a very convenient one, certainly wrt the "discovery" we did on land
that others had discovered long before us.  

Suppose I discover some land (will an aerial photo of Earth do? 8-).
How do I demonstrate my claim to make OTHER improvements?

>>>In many cases of p2, ownership is immediately transferred
>>>upon production via prior agreement as per most blue and
>>>white collar jobs.

>>Hmmm, doesn't seem to work for p1 -- or does the ETH (or wherever) own
>>that formula after all?  

>I don't what you are mumbling about.

Great.  He writes sentences without verbs, and accuses ME of mumbling.
The Eidgenoessische technische Hochschule, where Einstein studied (and
taught?) is what I was talking about.  That and the formula you cited
earlier.

>>Now, let's think about coerced transfer of ownership (it happens!) and
>>how to remedy it.

>>Then, let's consider the conditions that make it realistic even to TALK
>>about ownership: you can own something according to the above under any
>>conditions, but it may be a pretty useless concept unless certain other
>>things obtain as well.  What are they?  

>There is no such thing as coerced transfer of ownership. If someone
>steals your car, do they own it?

No.  Do the Indians own Maine?

>Do YOU own anything, Mr. Lustig? Do you even FEEL that maybe you own something?
>No? Excuse me, what's your address??? :-) :-)

Yes, of course I own things.  But I don't have the same idea of "own"
that you do; actually, I still don't know just what you MEAN by "own."

Property is a relationship between people, not a relationship of a
person to a thing.  It exists with reference to things; but the precise
meaning, and limits, of ownership, ESPECIALLY wrt real property, are big
problems.  

And your fudge about not owning land is pointless, because we certainly
act as though land were indeed owned in some sense.  (Also, tell me
about making improvements to air rights, or to the sea.  What are these
like?)

What is the difference between owning land and owning its discovery --
in practical terms?

Roger