Sorry about the Lockean tabula rasa.. I meant to add a few comments to my earlier reply.
If you mean by "private property", personal property appropriated in a certain manner then perhaps the justness of private property in that sense is assumed in saying that private property is theft. However the context of discussion is capitalism and the relevant private property is private property in the means of production and associated laws that allow appropriation of value produced from what is owned: interest, rent, and profits. Proudhon himself says at another place that property as personal possession is freedom not theft. Cheers, Ken Hanly] ----- Original Message ----- From: "David B. Shemano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Enron > In defense of David Shemano, Michael Perelman writes: > > >> David is a conservative. He speaks English with a right wing dialect, but he does so > >> with humor (not snottiness). We can disagree with him. I usually do, but we can > >> still be polite. > >> > >> I don't see him as a red meat class warrior, but as a sincere [albeit misguided] > >> conservative]. > > As a I said when I first participated on this list so many years ago, I am here to learn, and believe learning results from dialectic argument. The argument that capitalism is legalized fraud and theft is a very interesting thesis which I would love to explore. (For instance, doesn't that statement, as a normative statement, assume the justness of private property, because if not, what is wrong with theft?). However, as Prof. Craven does not appear to suffer from any doubt, I doubt he would enjoy such an exchange with me. You can't please everybody. > > David Shemano
