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 wrote:
> Any and every answer to any and every question
> is a matter of knowledge, of belief, etc.
Michael Price wrote:
> Yet another piece of irrevelence like those Ron
> always throws in to distract.
Ron Allen answers:
I can add nothing important to this assessment of
what I write.
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 wrote:
> 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.
Michael Price wrote:
> So you think a personal computer is personal
> property because it's called a "personal"
> computer? That's moronic.
Ron Allen wrote:
If I thought what you think I thought, or think,
then it would certainly be a moronic thought.
But, I believe that a personal computer is
personal property because a personal computer is
properly personal property, and this is because a
personal computer serves to supply a proper and
personal need. To use another example, that I
have often used, shoes are a properly personal
property, but a shoe-factory is properly a
collective property. A personal computer can be
operated only by one person at a time; but, an
industrial facility must be operated by many
workers at a time.
Michael Price wrote:
> For a start how does that make a particular
> personal computer a particular person's personal
> computer?
Ron Allen answers:
What makes a particular PC a particular person's
personal property is that a particular person has
earned an income by their own personal and direct
labor; and, with this pecuniary income, a person
can exchange some of their income for a particular
PC.
Michael Price wrote:
> What about computers owned by clubs,
> corporations, etc. that are clearly not personal
> property?
Ron Allen answers:
Computers that are collective property are not
personal property; but, a personal computer can
be a collective property. A personal computer is
produced to serve as a personal property, even if
it comes to be a collective property. If a PC is
public or collective property, it still has the
properties of a personal computer, and it could be
operated as a personal computer if its ownership
were individual instead of collective.
Ron Allen wrote:
> 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.
Michael Price wrote:
> So anything not called "personal" is not
> personal property?
Ron Allen answers:
Every thing that can be personal property is
personal property if it is personal property.
There are things which cannot really be properly
personal property, even when these things are
legally regarded as personal property. An
industrial factory is legally regarded as personal
property; but, it is not properly a personal
property, because it is not a creation of any one
individual's personal labors, and because it is
not the object of any one individual's personal
labors.
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 wrote:
> 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.
Michael Price wrote:
> So in other words you have no idea what makes
> your theory true so you claim that no theory is
> provable. Vintage Ron?
Ron Allen answers:
No theory is objectively, eternally, absolutely or
naturally true; just as no theory can ever be
completely, conclusively, irrevocably, finally or
absolutely proven.
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 wrote:
> There are many social norms; and, they are often
> confused and contradictory, often ambivalent and
> muddled, often connected and coupled.
Michael Price wrote:
> So in other words you don't know, so why bring
> it up.
Ron Allen answers:
I do not know absolute answers to simplistic and
superficial questions. Your questions come from
your answers, from your opinions, and not from my
opinions. The answers I have to my questions are
not intended to answer your questions.
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 wrote:
> 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 wrote:
> I am not sure that I can possibly give you the
> kind of sure answer you would like for me to
> give you.
Michael Price wrote:
> Then why give such a sure assertion that your
> claim is true? If you can't explain why
> something is true how do you know it's true.
Ron Allen answers:
Questions, like answers, are always subjective
questions. Our questions come from our answers.
Your questions do not come from my answers.
Thomas Fuller wrote: "'Tis not every question
that deserves an answer." In fact, I consider
very few of your questions as being interesting
enough to deserve an answer. Those questions of
yours that are interesting I have already given
an answer to a long time ago. I have often made
it quite clear that I am not all that interested
in your opinions, your questions, or your answers.
I am mostly interested in clarifying my opinions,
in explaining my opinions, after you have managed
to confuse and corrupt my opinions, after you have
intentionally misinterpreted and misrepresented my
expressed opinions.
Ron Allen wrote:
> 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.
Michael Price wrote:
> Well you've never managed to take down one of my
> explanations.
Ron Allen answers:
I simply am not all that interested in your
simplistic and childish explanations. If you can
only misrepresent and misinterpret what I write,
then I believe it likely that you can only
misinterpret and misrepresent what you experience
and observe.
<><><><><><><>
"Humans and melons have one thing in common:
You can't tell from their looks whether they
are ripe."
-- Alessandro Morandotti
