 | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) Yeah, that baffles me, too. For any physical entity or object, it seems that "existence" doesn't simply imply "a place to exist," it expressly *includes* a place to exist. Not necessarily this plot of land or that particular country, but (...) (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Christopher L. Weeks
| | | | | (...) Uh oh...I was trimming too liberally and misrepresented DaveE's stance. Immediately before his "communistic ideal" comment, I had written "I think I think that land should be a commons, tragedy or not." Totally, my bad! Chris (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) Doh! Well, my cool ontological musings remain in effect regardless... Dave! (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
