[David,]

I think what confounds our "Western" (or is it Roman?) view of property is the wealth that it potentially affords. If I owned a stable, like Jefferson did, I would likely keep it as long as it provided wealth to me. Because I don't own horses, I would probably sell it and gain wealth in its loss. In this way stable ownership represents a potential for the accumulation of wealth, which is highly encouraged in our society. In the pre-Columbian societies of North America owning a stable would have been a liability, especially since horses weren't reintroduced until Cortez entered the scene in the 1500's. The most vivid example of a non-"Western" view of ownership of which I can think is that of the Northwest Coast societies who viewed wealth as the antithesis of ownership. Specifically the potlatch, where in order to demonstrate one's wealth all worldly possessions were given away. Family groups would try to out-do each other by giving more away than the others in an effort to gain social status and therefore "wealth". This, of course, horrified the early European based religious and military governments who made such a barbaric practice illegal.

Now let's move to today, nobody sues anyone else over intellectual property unless they perceive (and demonstrate) that the "unlawful" use of another's intellectual property caused a diminishment in potential or actual wealth [you tell me, am I right?]. Another example is insurance; when property is damaged or stolen we are reimbursed for the real or potential loss of wealth that the property once represented. We don't really care about property (including stables), only wealth, its maintenance, and its accumulation.

Plagiarism is a wonderful exception. There are few laws to address plagiarism and yet our society demands great punishment for offenders (demotion, expulsion, blacklisting, etc.). It's an interesting link back to the ethical-vs-legal view of law.

[Personal material deleted]

thanks Philosophy-law Guy,

Philosophy-science Guy

[Scott F.]