 | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Or they have to recognize their desires as destructive and seek to curb them. (...) I agree, but I don't see why stewardship rather than ownership necessarily decreases your ability to enjoy privacy. (...) You are in effect saying that the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Wicked, yes, probably; good? arguable I suppose; just? Hmm.. hard to say. I think I would call it just. (...) Well-- here's an issue, obviously. If you could create humans who didn't have an innate desire for control, then sure, the system (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Doh! Well, my cool ontological musings remain in effect regardless... Dave! (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Uh oh...I was trimming too liberally and misrepresented DaveE's stance. Immediately before his "communistic ideal" comment, I had written "I think I think that land should be a commons, tragedy or not." Totally, my bad! Chris (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Yeah, that baffles me, too. For any physical entity or object, it seems that "existence" doesn't simply imply "a place to exist," it expressly *includes* a place to exist. Not necessarily this plot of land or that particular country, but (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Yes, it makes sense. There are certain rights that virtually everyone wants for themselves, so we make a compact with the others in a given group to acknowledge that it is best for all concerned that we grant those rights to all within the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
Darn, wish I'd seen this note before posting a second ago. (...) That's how I see it too. But that is wicked, not good and just. (...) Convince me. (...) I'm not yet convinced. I'm not ready to accept as fact that humans exist in the unalterable (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
I have decided that it makes the most sense for me to stop talking about space in the universe and just talk about land. Bear in mind that I think the argument extrapolates out to all habitable space, but for now, talking about land might be easier. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Being properly servile
|
|
(...) (eager to please) How shall I "ef" off, oh lord? ;-) -->Bruce<-- (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) No, it is not. Or need I remind you that there were few democracies in Europe in the 1930s??? And that there was a war in Spain drawing attention and polarizing the oppinions? (...) That's news to me. Why do you have that perspective, if I may (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) Bruce, I thought I told you before--If you're going to reply to my posts, I'm going to have to require you to agree with me blindly and absolutely. Don't ask for clarification when I've already decided to say I understand, even if I don't (or (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) The issue quickly becomes conflict of rights. One expects that in Libertopia, it is believed that nobody has the right to kill another person. But by (in theory) buying up all space (air, land, sea, outer, inner, etc), one effectively is (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) I would have to argue that Mike isn't quite understanding what he wrote. Slavery was central but a secondary issue? No, it is either not central, or it wasn't a secondary issue. The chain of events over the previous decade makes it fairly (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) They did not "occupy" the Rhineland - it was already part of Germany. (...) Would AH have violated the treaty if he thought he'd be repelled? Can SH get the same level of public support AH got? Did you read the text I quoted? See: ==+== (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) Interesting. I'm not sure I can reconcile that claim with Stephen's statements (which assert outright that the institution of slavery is of paramount importance), but at least I understand your view better now. Thanks for the clarification. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) should (...) Slavery was central but it was the secondary issue. The primary issue was the states right to secede, that is why the war was fought. Of course in this case the states tried to exersice their right to secede because the Federal (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) That's cool, but the bigger issue raised by your post was the claim that slavery was not central to the Civil War. I'd like to hear your further thoughts along that line of discussion, particularly in light of Stephen's comments. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) This is the exact same attitude most Europeans had regarding Germany in the early 1930s. (...) Actually I think supporting the war will cost him the election. (...) from (...) Actually no, I mean the United Nations (not just the US) should (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
Ok this is in reply to all three posts following my original. I guess I should have been more clear. I was explaining why people still cling to the Confederate flag, not attempting to justify it. The line; "Today most people see the flag as a symbol (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Had france actually stopped them after occuping the Rhineland (which it could have done very eaisly at that point) the whole thing would never have happened. The German military at that point was weaker than Saddam's is right now. Instead the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
