Re: Definition of "rich"?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:06:08 +0200, peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:

sinister <sinister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If there's no right to access natural resources, why is there a right to
control natural resources?

First come, first served.

Nope. Wrong. That principle presupposes someone doing the serving,
who _chooses_ to thus allocate the benefits he is providing. Even
aside from its total irrelevance to the real world -- there is no plot
of land anywhere on earth whose current possession can be traced
through purely consensual transactions to a first-comer -- the evil
and idiotic notion that being first to discover, claim, or use a
natural resource confers any sort of property right in it is easily
refuted:

A man stumbles into an oasis from the desert, dying of thirst. He
rushes to the water and is about to drink, when he hears a revolver
being cocked behind his ear. A quiet, raspy voice intones, "Uh uh. I
know what you're thinkin'. 'Is he going to charge me six years' labor
for a sip of water, or only five?' And to tell the truth, in all this
excitement I haven't quite totalled up the rent myself. But bein' as
it's 44 miles to the next waterhole, which might as well be the other
side of the world, and I'd as soon run your sorry *** _clean_off_ my
land, you've got to ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel _thirsty_
today?' Well, do ya, _slave_?"

-- Roy L
.