Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Scott Chilcote wrote:

> I'd argue that it takes an organized, cooperative society to recognize 
> and respect individual property rights.

And I'd agree, as long as that organized, cooperative society isn't
based on use of force to coerce people into participating. Voluntary
organization is absolutely fine, of course.  I'm certainly not
proposing radical individualism, where nobody works with anybody else
in society for the "greater good."  I'm just saying that "society" has
not authority to coerce individuals into doing things against their wills.

> 
> Without such an arrangement, what you own is highly negotiable.  It 
> consists of what you are capable of protecting, while you are conscious 
> and present.  Anything else is fair game for any competitor.

That is certainly true to some extent.  Which is why I totally agree
with voluntary organization for mutual defense and other worthy
causes.  The flipside though, is that ultimately freedom does come
with a price, and that price is responsibility.  And we are all
ultimately responsible for defending ourselves, our homes, our property,
our families, etc.  If we can get our friends and neighbors to help
on a mutual exchange basis, that's terrific.  But we should never
try and abdicate the responsibility for protecting our own interests.


> I don't think it was an accident that we and most other places that have 
> high standards of living wound up with notions such as common good and 
> fairness.  These concepts may be heavily exploited and manipulated, but 
> this doesn't negate their essential value.

Agreed.  I'm not arguing against any of that.

> If people did not band together to put out fires or chase off invasions, 
> regardless of whether those threatened were able to pay for the honor, I 
> think we would be a far less evolved species than we are today - if we 
> existed at all.

Again, agreed.

> So why should the notion of individual property, which is granted by a 
> civilized society, have more value and meaning than requiring that each 
> individual who benefits from their society should make a contribution to 
> its continued success?  

I don't accept your assertion there, that private property is "granted"
by "civilized society."  Having a civilized society certainly makes it
easier to maintain what is yours, and I've already said I'm in favor
of that.  But ultimate responsibility for defending ones home and
possessions does, in my mind,  fall to the individual.


And look at the so-called "civilized society" we have in place now.
This construct goes out and spends billions of "our" dollars fighting
an unjust war in Iraq, which has killed ~70,000 Iraqi civilians, and
does it in "our" name.  I'm sorry, but if I want to disassociate myself
from that system, I think I should be able too.  It doesn't represent me
or my beliefs.  But that's the problem with a system based on coercion;
we can't choose to not be part of the system when it turns to evil (or
just goes against our beliefs in general).

> If some or all of those members decided that 
> they were no longer going to do anything to ensure that the society 
> continues to prosper, then it will likely fail.

Yes.  That would be unfortunate.  But lots of things are unfortunate.

>  And at the point at 
> which it fails, then the property rights that it granted become moot.

Well property rights become a moot point when the universe dies of
heat death or collapses into a singularity as well.


TTYL,


Phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGnMWmdkzqYMZbBuwRAhw5AJ4lQtHw/4rfRjpBp6H3eUjCnbC7bQCfbYIB
nQtCc3+fDNtyEUrgLdlimto=
=4FYb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
begin:vcard
fn:Phillip Rhodes
n:Rhodes;Phillip
adr:;;P.O. Box 16905;Chapel Hill;NC;27516;USA
email;internet:mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk
tel;home:919-928-0236
url:http://www.linkedin.com/in/philliprhodes
version:2.1
end:vcard