 | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) I'm OK with that. (...) Reminder, under the premise we agreed upon, if it requires force initiation, it's not a right. This will be used to eliminate some things tentatively labeled rights, below. (...) not sure I understand the question. A (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Oh, definitely. That wasn't the point at all. If I still remember the original point of this. :) (...) For the record, I totally agree and sympathize with Todd's decision to run things the way he currently is. There are clear and definite (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) I think a word is missing. How about: "all rights are necessarily property rights" and "some rights aren't necessarily property rights"? (...) I think before I can do that, I need you to explain what a property right *is*. Where does this (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) If one must. I also think you'd have the lawyers sicced on you. Things like this are blatantly illegal. As added protection, Todd could make the NNTP connections password-protected (fairly easily, even, technically). In which case you'd need (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thread Nazis! (was Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party)
|
|
(...) <pedant>pedant</pedant> (...) I know. That corollary is mentioned in several places, though, and in its original form, and almost all others, refers only to Godwin's Law -Strict. (...) Often, yes, majority, no. Not that this is an issue for (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
