>Matt Cramer writes:
>Please bear with me for a moment. Complete abolishment of private
>property? That is desireable?
Why would it not be? What are the virtues of 'private' 'property'? Why is it necessary to your 'individual'? How is the sovereign independence you are extolling dependent on exclusive ownership of things?
>My problem here is that in a world of limited resources, you CAN'T
>completely abolish private property. Until we reach a point of
>technological advance where we have unlimited energy and resources, there
>are always going to be people who, through luck or force, control those
>resources.
Why can't they be 'controlled' by collectives/groups/communities, however you want to frame the opposition to allowing individuals to control such necessities? Luck or force? So because you think it seems likely people might fuck it up we should just settle for what is wholly unfair and undesirable? Christ, you're making me come over all idealistic.
>Private property is liberty in the sense that there is a certain type of
>property which people honour without the threat of force behind it
>(ignoring the truly criminal element, which are a different problem).
It is not at all clear to me what you are talking about.
>Private property is theft in the sense that the property is only honoured
>with the threat of force (of a state) behind it.
Oh I can see why it's so desirable then. Enough said.
>Much misery is caused by confusing these two types of properties.
How, exactly, are these two separate 'types' of property?
Catherine