|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
