[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If "everyone owns everything" then you've already got a concept of property.

[/ QUOTE ]Nope, you have a negation of property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. You can't have it both ways. If nobody owns resource X, then nobody has any legitimate reason to complain when resource X is consumed. If someone does have a right to resource X, than that person has an ownership interest in that resource.

[/ QUOTE ] You are engaging in sophistry. Resource Air is a common resource, meaning it belongs to everybody and nobody owns it. If someone claims that he owns the Air (whether the whole planet's air or the wind passing over his farm), then that person is stealing from everybody else -- even though nobody else has laid claim to the air!

Classical anarchists simply expand this notion of common ownership to almost everything. So, according to them, an individual stating that he "owns the forest outside Paris" is an individual who is a thief. Even if nobody else has claimed to be the forest's owner. Their reasoning is mostly archetypally Christian, radically libertine and anthropo-centric.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nope sorry. You claim ownership of the air the second that you take it into your lungs and separate the oxygen from the carbon dioxide. Noone has a higher claim to that resource at that time than you do at that time. that's all that "ownership" means the highest claim to a particular resource at a given time. If I spend $100's taking that air and bottling it and creating scuba gear are you saying that I can't own the air? If someone wants to show ownership of the forest outside paris they have to show that they have the highest claim to it, usually a property deed. There are something that at this point in time noone has any claim to nor wants any claim to say an acre of land at the bottom of the ocean but that isn't to say it's unownable just that noone claims it currently.