Someone wrote:
> The state and the free market are
> irreconcilable.
Someone else wrote:
> Okay -- how do you establish property absent the
> state, . . .
James A. Donald wrote:
> What makes the computer on which you are typing
> this your property?
Ron Allen wrote:
> The individual PC owner knows what makes a
> particular computer his or her personal
> property, but personal property is not what the
> modern state is about.
>
Michael Price wrote:
> Just answer the fucking question dirtbag.
Ron Allen wrote:
> I did answer the question.
Michael Price wrote:
> No you didn't you just said "The individual PC
> owner knows what makes a particular computer his
> or her personal property," not how he knows or
> why it's personal property. It's not an answer
> it's an assertion that someone else knows the
> answer. So answer you lying dirtbag.
Ron Allen wrote:
> You did not ask how or why in the above
> question: "What makes the computer on which you
> are typing this your property?"
> My answer to this question is that knowledge
> makes a personal possession into a personal
> property.
Michael Price wrote:
> Well that wasn't the answer you gave. You gave
> the answer that everyone knows what the answer
> is, which is not an answer. In any . . .
Ron Allen answers:
Any and every answer to any and every question is
a matter of knowledge, of belief, etc.
Ron Allen wrote:
> It is knowledge of property rights and property
> laws which establish and constitute an awareness
> and a consciousness of what accounts for
> personal property, of what justifies and creates
> personal property.
Michael Price wrote:
> But what MAKES the computer your property?
> That's the question, why not answer it?
Ron Allen answers:
What makes a particular computer a person's
property is both a matter of logic and of law.
Every person knows the answer because every
person knows both the logic and the law of
property. A personal computer is personal
property both logically and lawfully. If is
logical because a personal computer is
linguistically constituted to be personal
property. It is from the linguistic connotation
of something being personal that the logic of its
being property becomes an assured and certain law
of a thing, or of things.
Ron Allen wrote:
> How do we know something is personal property?
> We are educated and instructed in order to know
> this.
Michael Price wrote:
> By who and why are they right? You can't just
> say we know something because someone told us.
> By that standard the Creationalists are right.
Ron Allen answers:
What we know is always changeable, alterable,
adjustable and modifiable. What we know is always
a dialectical opposition of what we are taught and
what we have observed, or of what we are told and
what we have experienced.
Ron Allen wrote:
> We are told this; we are taught this. This
> knowledge is inculcated in our minds. Culture
> and tradition implant this knowledge in us; the
> rules and laws of society imprint this knowledge
> in us. Property is a social convention, a
> social praxis, a social norm.
Michael Price wrote:
> And what is that social norm?
Ron Allen answers:
There are many social norms; and, they are often
confused and contradictory, often ambivalent and
muddled, often connected and coupled.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Why do we know something is personal property?
Michael Price wrote:
> Who's "we"? You clearly know nothing about it.
Ron Allen answers:
No comment.
Ron Allen wrote:
> We believe something is personal property
> because we are trained and tutored to believe
> this.
Michael Price wrote:
> But that's not a valid argument for believing in
> it. In any case it does not tell us what makes
> something personal property, which is the
> original question?
Ron Allen answers:
I am not sure that I can possibly give you the
kind of sure answer you would like for me to give
you. I do not believe that you can ever give to
yourself the kind of infallible answer that you
would like to find to your questions.
<><><><><><><><>
"The intellect can negate, but it cannot create."
-- Hermann Bahr
