You, Peter D. Junger, wrote:

>: PS Since you denigrate the concept of property generally, what would you
>: propose as a superior concept?
>
>No concept is needed.  Just talk about copyright when you are talking
>of copyrights, of patents when you ate talking of patents.  And
>realize that both are the creation of statutes.
I have no problem with that, but to what purpose? Is a common law
protecting private property somehow superior to a statute doing the same
thing? Some would argue that the latter, being crafted by legislatures
are more democratically valid than the judge-made former.
>
>If you have to use a concept, you could use the one that the United
>States Supreme Court usually uses:  monopoly.
Again, no problem. In fact, when I first brought up this topic it was to
offer up an example of monopoly in the service of free enterprise.

Tresy Kilbourne
Seattle WA
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think
little of robbing; and from robbing he next comes to drinking and
Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination."
                -- Thomas De Quincey (1785 - 1859)