Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Types of Property
Message-ID: <568@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Mar-86 12:49:06 EST
Article-I.D.: kontron.568
Posted: Tue Mar  4 12:49:06 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Mar-86 19:24:32 EST
References: <1691@bbncca.ARPA> <536@whuts.UUCP> <1636@ihlpg.UUCP> <1121@ihlpa.UUCP> <528@mmm.UUCP> <287@aero.ARPA> <> <6495@cca.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 52

> [..... 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.
> 

Why distinguish between "social property" and "personal property" based
on whether one person can operate it or not?  Why not make the distinction
based on whether one person can *build* it?  This seems just as valid,
perhaps more so, since an automated steel mill MIGHT be operable by one
person, but would certainly require many people to build it.  This
distinction seems designed to justify the status quo concerning leafletting,
rather than a realistic basis for treating a mall differently than a
church or home.

> 	Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.

Clayton Cramer