You get the relationships wrong. Here's the correct answer:
For something to have value it must be valuable.
For something to be broken it must be breakable.
If you really think that matters it's time to go back to grammer school.
Or prehaps
It's time to go back to grammer school if you really think that matters.
I am illustrating to you that characteristics do not mandate treatment. Doing otherwise would fall in line with a naturalistic fallacy (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) which you seem to be doing here. Property is not purely derived from physical characteristics but is bound by social standards. However, you can establish which characteristics are necessary for something to act as property - and that's what was done in part in the manuscript which was cited earlier.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Read your link again. Read the first damn paragraph FFS.
Moore argues it would be fallacious to explain that which is good reductively, in terms of natural properties such as "pleasant" or "desirable". What does that have to do with anything?
Property is not dervied from physical charactersitics it is derviced from the concept of ownership. If you can own it it's your property. Is that really too complex for you to understand?
My yard is my property because I own it. Antarctica despite being exactly the same physical charactersitics as my land is not property because a bunch of countries got together and said NO you can't own this.
You don't get it. I can't help you. Note the subtle difference between "treated as" and "are".
So you accept the rest of the world will treat them as property... but you're content to be wrong because you know they aren't?
I give up - you win.
