... Definition of Actual Property in Cypherspace

Dave Long dl@silcom.com
Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:40:42 -0800

>                                                            it's safe
> to argue that if I control the decryption of that "thing", to make it
> immediately useful to me, it becomes, in fact, my *property*, to do
> with what I want

I normally define Property as that
stuff which a third party (a state?)
will defend on my behalf*.

What makes it interesting is there
can be multiple conflicting claims
on a resource, but it provides a
mechanism to resolve them.

Not sharing resources obviates the
need for a 3rd party, as there's no
2nd party possible, but that seems
to make the solution more boring,
not more elegant.  Or am I just an
April Fool?


* after reading FWD, I think this
may be Hanson's argument in C&C:
the yeoman, his land, his slot in
the phalanx, and his seat in the
assembly, should be equivalent up
to isomorphism.