Nor can I, of course.

However, I believe that my argument has one fundamental advantage over yours. The context of this dicussion places it firmly within a North American frame of reference. And here we do have commonly--though I grant, not universally--held sets of values as they involve concepts of ownership and property.

It bears noting that the potentially aggrieved party in this case is a creation of statute--a corporation is a legal person, but not a natural person.

I suggest that it follows that interference with that person's rights (again, a legal creation) can be understood only within the cultural context in which that person was created. You cannot speak meaningfully of a corporation's property rights in a cultural context where neither corporations nor property nor rights exist. But they do exist here, and further, they cannot be discounted merely because they are something less than universal.

In fact, I do not agree with your second premise. And I am ambivalent about the first. But the fact situation here places the issue squarely within a US cultural, ethical and legal milleu. Accordingly, I think that in this instance, the legal issue trumps any moral dilemma,

That is not to say that I would take the same position were the context different. But I think it is merely academic to consider issues such as these divorced from their contexts.

(Fine, call me a pragmatist. I may be plodding, but I'm happy!)

[This message has been edited by AC*SE (edited 06-14-2000).]