From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com>
Subject: RE: AUT: Neo-conservatism and workers
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:10:35 +0100


I'm getting confused by these discussions about ownership.

Does this not mean that the moon or one of the lagrange points in space,
because they are socially owned cannot be used unless everyone agrees with
the proposal?  Or is it that a judicial process is required to enable the
use of a place or 'thing'? If so what constitutes the judicial process being
proposed.

sdv

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
[mailto:owner-aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Harald
Beyer-Arnesen
Sent: 07 July 2000 14:56
To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: RE: AUT: Neo-conservatism and workers


Bill Bartlett wrote:

        For the products created by the socially-owned means of
        production to be the private property of whoever happens
        to be operating the machines at the time is absurd and
        unworkable. The social ownership would be a meaningless
        legal fiction, the means of production might as well be
        private property.

In total agreement. Just as it is absurd that the petroleum
resources in the North Sea, or in the Gulf, should belong to
"Norwegians, "Arabs" or any particular "tribe".

anarchist-communist greetings

Harald

  in solidarity,
  Harald Beyer-Arnesen
  haraldba-AT-online.no



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---