On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Tresy Kilbourne wrote:

> You, DDeBar, wrote:
>
> >OK, maybe it is a good idea to get a definition of terms. If so-called IP
> >is not properly called property, what would be a correct term?
> My property professor had a succinct defintion: "property" is the "legal
> relation between two people with respect to a thing." It's an interesting
> way of looking at the subject, because most people fetishize "property"
> has the thing itself. But that obscures what's really going on, which is
> the adjudication of rights between individuals.

Thank you for the clarification. I am going to extend this concept of
property to money. If I may paraphrase you...

 " MONEY-PROPERTY is a *special* legal relation  between two people with
respect to a thing.(stuff called money)"

Money is made from something physical and exchanges hands, so I see no
reason why it should escape a thorough application this general
legal notion of property.

Economic "values" of money should not be allowed to *arbitrarily* negate or
overide (as they do now) the serious implication of money as property
between TWO individuals. However economic notions of value have
unforatunately been used to construct a set of limited legal
interpretations of money, thereby rendering the full power of
property law, in relation to money, impotent.

I say individuals DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CREATE THIER OWN MONEY FOR OTHERS
(BUSINESSES) WHO CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT. The technical problem lies with
reforming the banking/money-system so that personalized money can begin to
circulate in the economy. This is a just view of money creation rather
than an economic view of money creation. It also cuts across all economic
theories about money from Adam Smith to Marx to the Neoclassical school.


Harry Veeder