Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Freedom and property, round 2
Message-ID: <257@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 19:37:46 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.257
Posted: Mon Nov 25 19:37:46 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 20:55:24 EST
References: <1137@mtuxo.UUCP>
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 50
Summary: 

Adam Reed writes:

>OK, I left the definition of property implicit in the last article.  So:
>A person's PROPERTY is the ensemble of things over which the person
>exercises ownership. Now once [Running Dog] 
>begins to use the previously unowned
>land, as is his right as a free person under the above definition of
>freedom, he is thereby exercising ownership over it. At this point it
>becomes his property, with implications stated in the definitions of
>freedom and ownership above. (For a consideration of the *moral* issues,
>see the discussion of wealth and value creation in my original article.)

This argument seems to beg an important question:  whether the land
in question was unowned previous to RD's cultivation of it.  My story
postulated that the land was previously *unused*, not that it was
unowned.  For clarity, I will further postulate that the land was
discovered by Running Dog -- no one had known previously of its
existence. 

>OWNERSHIP is simply the right to use or trade the owned entity in any way
>that does not invade, or threaten to invade, the person or property of
>another.  
>A person's PROPERTY is the ensemble of things over which the person
>exercises ownership.

These two definitions are mutually circular, i.e., they include each
other in their definitions, and therefore tell us nothing except the
relation between the two concepts.  If we put the two definitions
together, we have (condensed):

  OWNERSHIP is the right to use an entity in any way that does
  not invade the aggregate of things over which another person
  exercises OWNERSHIP.

This may be a true statement, but it obviously doesn't tell us what
"ownership" means, so we still don't know what the term means.

I think the terms "own" and "ownership" are the main source of the
confusion.  If so, Adam (or anyone) can clear up the confusion by
restating the argument without using the term "own" or its
derivatives, and without using terms like "property" that include an
"own-term" in their definition, and instead substituting terms that
explicate the meanings of the "own-terms."  I'm requesting this so
that we can clarify the logical structure of the argument, which I
confess I don't understand:  i.e., exactly which premises lead
through what steps of reasoning to which conclusions.  I think the
Propertarian argument will run into serious trouble if this is
attempted, but let's see.
-- 
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes