On 23 May 2002, at 14:33, Patrick Chkoreff wrote: > think that's the whole sticking point, Claude. Ken does not agree > with this premise.
That is what I realized. > Basically Ken is saying that you must be able to point to a distinct > piece of something and say "that's mine." If you can't pick it up and > carry it away with you, you can't own it. (When I put it that way it > sounds kind of absurd, doesn't it?) Well if this is what he thinks... he is wrong. At least in the law of many if not most countries, undivided property is a known concept printed in the law books and totally accepted as a form of ownership. > Personally, I don't see why I can't own an undivided interest in > something. I am sure you can... I do. > Let's say I'm in a rural area and several of us share a common water > well and reservoir. Maybe I purchase a certain portion of the water > capacity in gallons/minute. That's clearly an undivided interest. Exatly... and you could use this as money to exchnage part of your water capacity for other things... You onw part the the stream of water by contract with other users. > I think Ken has some very good things to say and writes some great > articles, I agree. but if we don't agree on this fundamental premise then we > will ALWAYS arrive at different conclusions, no matter how we hash out > the subsequent arguments. The premise of ownership of undivided > interests is fundamental. I agree. Claude --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
