 | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) Can you at least quick state your answers to the first two questions I asked, so the problem is clear? (If you don't want to argue from a natural rights basis, I need to ask some different questions.) (...) I will be there. But, I'd rather (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) It's ok; some kindly corporation would doubtless taken them in. (Huh. There was a Simpsons episode recently on just how this might play out. The school had to close, and a corporation took over. Worked out well, if I remember right.) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) We're not stuck on this planet. You can, with current technology, go to the moon/Mars and live there. It would merely cost immense amounts of money, but that's irrelevant. (...) Given that the notion of 'country' historically really rests on (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Exactly. That's why I used "adults" rather than "18+". (...) Ethical. I'm for the moment entirely uninterested in anything legal that may or may not coincide. (...) I probably agree. (...) Indeed. (...) By, or for? (...) Yes. And I would like (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) Yes. But fraud is a crime against you that takes PROPERTY away. I tried to kill this one once but Matt is right, without the "you have the right to have property" right, this one is slippery and he can keep wiggling all day long. I can claim (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) 1-2K can't buy an education. That's not enough for books, other educational tools, and rent/maintenance on the school building, let alone pay for teachers as well. Unless you're talking primary education. (...) Bass boats? (...) Oh yeah, that (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
<Fo1y8z.Mr9@lugnet.com> <38781DD3.4545ED6B@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Wait. Wouldn't that make you status quo guys happy? Our government is a dollar-electable government. Chris (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
Hi Guys, This is a good read so far. Thanks. (...) I think the deal is that everything we collectively value about our modern social technology (even if some of us complain about governance) is possible strictly because our systems include an (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) <nitpick> reason is ONE of the tools we have </nitpick> I may take a stab at this too, but like you I have no idea when. The coming weeks are going to be busy, with war coming up. James (URL) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) That's fine, but I am going to try to show that life-affirming REQUIRES property rights because of the nature of man. That is, to not recognise them is to be anti life affirming, or in other words if you want to be human, you have to recognise (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) I should point out that I accept "life-affirming" as a test for whether something is good or bad, not for whether it exists. (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
|
|
I see at least four distinct potential abilities related to property. I don't believe that any of these can be derived from any other. These may or may not be things that one can do with property (or, ahem, properties of property), and there may or (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) It still shows some strange attachment to the concept of property. For one thing, what's this "trade" stuff? But more deeply, I think you're assuming that force necessarily relates to property. I don't think it must. For example, if it's in my (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) This is precisely why Ford decided to pay his workers 5 bucks a day when people were making 1 and 2 dollars a day. He wanted them to be rich, relatively speaking, and be able to afford his products (and those of his friends). And it worked. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian theory and altruism
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <3876C987.86AB9507@v...er.net>... (...) Wow, somebody better slap me before the praise goes to my head... Frank (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) millions of (...) But if production is made more efficient, this means that those doing the production will get more money, and when you dig all the way down, ultimately the only way to actually spend the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) Yes, the social contract argument is one that's familiar to me and in fact has been advanced here in this very group before, although not very crisply, to my way of thinking. It was more along the lines of "my country, love it or leave it" (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) Again, I'm not sure that I agreed that I had to show property rights exist... Let's put a pin in this whole discussion and go back a level. I may start a new thread and come back to this one when (if) we've satisfied what I feel the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) OK, fair enough. Just to be clear, if we posit that there are no property rights, under such a system of rights calculus, it might well be OK for you to walk up to me and rip food out of my hand, food that I traded someone else for, or grew (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) Me: Right R exists. You: Right R interferes with property rights and therefore can't exist. Me: Wait, you haven't show that property rights exist. You: Yes I did; it's proven because (of a string of logic assuming) R doesn't exist. That's (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
