Re: We are ALL guests (except Eric)

[jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)]

James A. Donald wrote:
> > The extropians list claimed to be managed in accord with the
> > principles of justice.  Eric makes no such grandiose claim.

Timothy C. May writes
> This is a straw man, as I have made no mention of "justice."

But the extropian list, which you cite as precedent, did make
that claim.

You also make the claim that Eric does not own the list.

The question of ownership is only relevant to questions of what is 
just and fair.

If you claim that Eric does not own the list then you claim that it
is unjust for him to change the rules without consent.

If I claim he owns the list then I claim that it perfectly proper
for him to change the rules without consent, regardless of whether
or not he has a good, or even sane, reason.

(As it happens, I do not think he has a good reason.)

My point was that the ownership debate on the extropians list
was a result of the questionable and grandiose claim of extropian
justice, and is therefore not a relevant precedent for the 
ownership of lists in general.

You raised the issue of the extropian precedent.   The extropian
precedent is irrelevant because the *extropian* list management
made the claim of "extropian justice".

*Relevant* precedent and custom indicate that the list is Erics
private property, and he may do as he pleases, wisely or unwisely.

Such actions are morally neutral, except in that wisdom itself is
good.



-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@acm.org