Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!g-rh
From: g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Types of Property
Message-ID: <6495@cca.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Mar-86 01:15:04 EST
Article-I.D.: cca.6495
Posted: Mon Mar  3 01:15:04 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Mar-86 19:16:24 EST
References: <1691@bbncca.ARPA> <536@whuts.UUCP> <1636@ihlpg.UUCP> <1121@ihlpa.UUCP> <528@mmm.UUCP> <287@aero.ARPA> <>
Reply-To: g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge
Lines: 47
Summary: 

[..... Truncated quoted material follows .......]
>> >mean. Well, I think I get the gist... You're saying that if I want to come 
>> >into your house uninvited during a party and hand out literature that you
>> >find offensive, I should be allowed to do so. Would you also extend this
>> >"free speech" concept to actual speech? If I wanted to enter your house and
>> >harangue at the top of my lungs, should I be allowed to do so? At any time
>> >of the day or night?
>> >
>> There is a very important distiction between a private citizen's house and
>> a corporate mall. A corporation is an artificial entity the owners of which
>> (shareholders) are protected from any legal action from private people.
>> The corporation is a creation of the state, it has a charter from the state,
>> therefore it should be subject to the same cival rights requirements that
>> apply to the state.
>> 
>
>So a mall owned by an individual, or a partnership, that wasn't a 
>corporation, should have the right to refuse political leafletting?

The real distinction is this:  There are (for the sake of simplification)
two types of property.  The first type is private property controlled by
an individual.  By this I mean things like my car, my house, my personal
tools, etc, that I actually use.  It also includes my means of production
if I am an individual producer.  For example, it would include my dental
tools and office equipment if I were a dentist.  In a very real sense I
can be said to own and operate this property personally.

The second type is what I will call social property.  A good example is
a steel mill.  I can't operate a steel mill all by myself.  A steel mill
has value and utility only if there is an organization to operate it.
The same is true of a shopping mall.  No one "owns" a shopping mall in
the sense that they "own" their house.  The important thing about social
property is that there must be organizations to operate it, and, in all
but very primitive societies, the rules under which these organizations
operate and exist are defined by the society as a whole.  The debate
between the proponents of classical capitalism and those of socialism
can be viewed as one about the "best" approach towards regulating the
control and operation of social property.

In my opinion it is an error to confuse the two.  Claims that forced
permission of leaflet distribution in shopping malls are the same kind
of thing as giving the general public the right to enter my house without
my permission are misleading, nor is the issue one of the formal ownership
of the mall.  Mind you, I am not taking a position on either side.  I am
simply trying to dispose of some strawmen and red herrings.

	Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.