home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.environment
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!ncar!vexcel!dean
- From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
- Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
- Message-ID: <1992Nov17.180001.27901@vexcel.com>
- Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
- References: <1992Nov9.012422.28509@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Nov9.172217.2590@vexcel.com> <1992Nov13.055628.8407@ke4zv.uucp>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:00:01 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <1992Nov13.055628.8407@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
- >In article <1992Nov9.172217.2590@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
- >
- >I do reject the idea of collective property. A collective is an
- >abstract fiction that can have no rights or responsibilities.
- >Only individuals can have rights, property or otherwise, and
- >only individuals are responsible for their actions. As far as
- >I'm concerned, "public" property is a synonym for *unowned*
- >property. Thus no one has a right to it, and no one has a
- >responsibility for it. That's why it's so often and so easily
- >abused.
-
- Well, I am not going to spend time trying to convince you that
- it is your perspective, not mine that is fiction. Whether it
- is the public statements of Thomas Jefferson (who believed that
- private property is the creations of the state, and therefore
- subject to the state), or numerous other historical
- precedents, collective interest and property are well established.
-
- When someone has a higher "opportunity cost", it means they are
- trying to usurp a greater amount of collective property. Just
- remember that when people like me oppose your efforts to
- capitalize everything on the face of the Earth, we view your
- efforts as taking our collective property.
- >
- >Gary
- --
-
- dingo in boulder (dean@vexcel.com)
-