john courtneidge wrote:
[snip]
> That thought raises, again, my ponderings over the concept of 'intellectual
> property'.
[snip]
> Perhaps I inch (or centimetre?) towards a concept of 'co-operative
> stewardship' of 'property' (tangible and/or intellectual) rather than the,
> present notion of 'private property' ?
[snip]
Garret Harridan's classic essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" admonishes us
about some of the problems visas that which is *not* "private property".
I think that a certain Patek Philippe [watch manufacture] motto
points in a constructive direction, for both the objects of
human praxis and for the practitioners:
You never actually own a Patek Philippe.
You merely take care of it for the next generation.
I would argue that all private property (except for
"consumable", which should be minimized) should be
*stewardship*, and that the trustees (aka "owners") thereof
should be held accountable therefor (and, of course, they
also deserve an appropriate "retainer" for their good
offices.
(Personally, if I had the money, I would not own nor
have to do with anything which would not be
lusted after as a donation by a major
museum upon my decease.)
+\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit
my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
