I agree with your response to the first question, the next two questions are absurd questions suggesting a simple repudiation to them and by that means, a simple repudiation to a clear concept of property. You interpreted the third question right. Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 19 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote: > > > Your response raises more questions for me Jim > > And me as well :) > > > like: > > -what is property? > > A figment of human psychology. My dog certainly doesn't use the same > definition of 'property' that I do, so it's clearly not 'universal'. > > > -how can I appropriate of the cleanest air this world has to offer? > > I don't understand this question, poor wording. > > I think you're asking how to make sure the world is a clean place. As long > as humans must live on the planet full time I doubt it'll ever happen. > Outside of resource issues and looking at the political/psychological > aspects, Two party (ie consumer/producer) systems are inherently unstable > (it's why nobody wants to answer the question "where does the market > stability come from in order to create the free market"). So the answer > would seem to be diversity (ie vote with your feet). > > > -what property will give me quality of life and not take it from me? > > I don't think property will give you that. The only measure of 'quality of > life' I've ever seen is 'security through freedom'. > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a > smaller group must first understand it. > > "Stranger Suns" > George Zebrowski > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
