On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Catherine Driscoll wrote:
> >Matt Cramer writes:
[snippidy do dah]
> >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?
Simply put, some things we call property are beneficial and some are harmful.
These aren't MattC orginal ideas. Check out the French Revolutionary PJ Proudhon (apologies if he's as popular here as Habermas and everyone knows who I'm talking about):
http://www.cats.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ip/proudhon.htm
Matt
-- Matt Cramer <cramer at voicenet.com> http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/ Respect my body 'cos that's where you came from.
-DJ Rap