 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I agree that history, math, and etc., are important, but isn't teaching about caring for the environment important too? Is your fear that they're not learning both, or is it mostly from the fact that they're learning this at all? (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) That is true, especially places like Washington, DC, etc. (...) < sarcasm > Isn't there a law against fire arms being within 500 feet of a school? How could such a thing happen? < /sarcasm > I have heard gunshots in Flint, MI, every now and (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Lindsay, I seem to be repeating myself. But anyway... (...) cal truth is much more complex. Hmm.. Well, from the people I have heard talk about this, they are high up, this is another debate I don't want to get into anymore.... (...) en we're in an (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Depends where you live in the US! Where I lived in Elkhart, Indiana [1] as a child, it was fairly routine to hear gunshots. Not in the "nicer" parts of town, or in the suburban areas, of course, but certainly where I was. I remember finding a (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Well, I was just showing that people get shot in many ways. I don't think I know of anyone ever getting shot, in my family, friends, co-workers, etc. It's not like you hear gunshots every where you go or something. (...) That is the funniest (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) It's also hard to compare even the US and the UK, much less Chechnya, Bosnia-Herzegovina or Kosova. But I'd argue that any of those three places in 1990--a better analogue of time--would have been *much* safer than the urban United States. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I think it was in one of my classes, showing the history of drug laws. Sociology, perhaps? Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) With none of those embarassing white powder marks around the nostrils. ;) (This is similar to the selling point of chewing tobacco, no smoke stains or smells.) (...) Where did you find one of *those*? I've never seen one, except as a plate in (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Could be either, but there are SEC restrictions on speculation now that would prevent the free-fall of 1929. 1997/8 in Indonesia/East Asia could have done the same thing as 1929, except that the response was very different--in part because we (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) It's fairly clear-cut that it *is* their reason for being. You may argue about whether they fulfill that mandate, but their reason for being and the intellectual trajectory that generated them are right in line with the idea that intellectual (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if you live in the US than say the UK. (...) I find it easy to believe, however I would (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Yes, that's true. Cocaine was originally not realized to be harmful and thought of as medicinal. When it became apparent that there might be some health concerns, Coca-Cola removed it from their product. But this isn't necessarily a promise (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Didn't the original Coca-Cola have cocaine in it, for that extra midday boost (1), when it first came out? 1) Original advertisement, which I saw, many moons ago! Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) And Coka Cola would finally win the tasteaddictionMORE challenge... Richard (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) It might not be an improvement, but it'll certainly be an issue. 'Cause without the government telling corporations they can't, a lot of food products could very easily have a new secret ingredient. Oh, sure, people might vote with their (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian theory and altruism (was: some incorrectly spelled thing not worth repeating
|
|
(...) Hmmm. I suppose you're probably right. I'm not much of an expert on the 19th or 20th century. Larry, have you ever studied history? I wonder, cause you seem to rely heavily on that "charity" thing. Jasper (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) But that doesn't exactly reduce paper consumption. :) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I believe barnesandnoble.com is doing that now. (Or is it just that they've got it in development for deployment soon.) Either way. (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Are you _sure_ you're talking about the 1929 crash, and not the 2002 crash? Jasper (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) However, the machines that can print and bind a one-off book from typeset files and do it quickly are getting there. In a few decades at most, physical distribution of books will be gone, except fro the mass-market things. Those can probably (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
|
|
(...) To expand on my late-night thoughts: If the way we gain property is through "mixing of labor", or interaction [1], minds can't be property. I don't labor on my mind, and I don't interact with it. I am it. You might ascribe some sort of (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) You can get shot in any country, thank you very much, whether or not they have guns, illegal or otherwise. Did you hear of Bosnia, maybe. Chechnya (SP?) etc. Destroy what? (...) Ah, we have communities over here, Richard, whether you believe (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) God Bless America. Freedom to be shot, be badly educated, pollute, destroy and watch as much mind-rotting TV everyday to fill a life-time. Biggest and loudest doesn't equate to being best. IMO some of the best countries to live in are the (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I don't think so. Anyway... (...) Who just happened to make IMO, the best country the world has ever seen, where people have unparalleled freedom, etc. This concept of how evil those dead white guys are always galls me. I heard countless (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian theory and altruism (was: some incorrectly spelled thing not worth repeating
|
|
(...) No, they weren't doing all that badly--they were doing *abysmally*! The entropy of that system was increasing dramatically, because 40%+ of GNP was going to militarization--the only way to sustain the veneer of prosperity at the upper levels (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Okay, I'll chime in here--I feel very strongly about this issue, because I'm a member of that "other" group, the ones who never said anything (as children) or went to counseling or to court or anything after instances of sexual abuse. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Well, yes, but they're not *our* dollars at the moment. ;) The important part at the moment is that we strive for it *not* to be dollar-electable--I wonder what would happen if cash-motivation were allowed to come out into the open? Just a (...) (25 years ago, 11-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 (...) Fostered by government? If so, only fostered by the government's complicity with the banking/savings and loan (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
<FnxK4w.Gt1@lugnet.com> <3874FDA7.2043@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Just an aside: The computer "revolution" and the much-touted paperless office in fact led to the paper (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Not bloody likely--I can't tell you how many times I've hurt myself separating large plates. (...) When conditions are relatively good, we go after that which unsettles us. It's natural, and art funding believes in a certain amount of liberal (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Interestingly, that's a case of your almighty market defining what art is meritorious. When we get a black-velvet Rembrandt analogue, I'll concede it as a good development--until then, I'm firmly in the corner of mixed-source funding. The (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I have to break in here--do you know who these "government drones" are? Take a look at the message I wrote earlier about how the NEA/NEH operate--I've done some more reading, and while an appointed congress makes final decisions, the advisory (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) True--they thrived, often, through the patronage of aristocrats or crowned heads. It's a different world and the shift has occurred. The NEH and NEA are part of the knowledge-based society we pretend to be. (...) Trying to imagine how the (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
|
|
(...) That's not clear at all. The mind-as-software concept is one way it may possibly be, but that's actually a fairly radical view. It's something I'm agnostic about until we've got further information. In the meantime, this is such an important (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
|
|
(...) Well, if you are meaning a mind as different than a brain, I think it's safe to just call it an idea (in the context you use above). It's a complex bit of software. Whatever intellectual property rights arise from this whole discussion would (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Duh, then the house/hovel that they previously occupied can go to better, more worthy people - in Libertopia this seems to be equivalent with richer people. (1) Richard (1) And why not, as they supply the libraries, schools and workhouses ;) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) YM, throwing the parents into jail and throwing the kid out on the streets? I fail to see the overall improvement. Jasper (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) This would also be a good solution if the parents are on crack (perfectly legal in the libertarian utopia) and not really into making sure their kid gets taken care of (let alone educated). (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) I think I've addressed these to some degree in my other message. If there's more you'd like me to say, let me know. (...) Both property rights and morality are only meaningful in a social setting. A human being alone in the universe has need (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) You mean just like they do now? (Home schooling was ruled constitutional, IIRC. At any rate, it took the courts.) (...) And who certifies the certfier? IOW, quis custodet custodies? I'd guess that would have to be either a fourth-party, (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
|
|
I'd like to introduce some terminology. The rights [1] in my earlier message I'd like to call "basic property rights" [2]. That is: * The right to, through interacting constructively with things in the universe, mark those things as mine. * The (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
|
|
I realized that last night I failed to address an important question I'd raised earlier: (...) The ideas I've expressed <URL:(URL) apply only to the physical universe -- that is, matter (and potentially energy, because of that equivalence thing). (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libitarian guff
|
|
(...) One minor point I'd add regarding the occasional need for government: the Securities Exchange Commission was established to prevent the same cataclysmic market crash from happening again. Among other things, the SEC requires that brokers be (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Yes, me too. My hunch is we'll get into this in the property-rights discussion -- but not for a while yet. (...) (For the record, it actually turned out to be a terrible disaster.) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
|
|
Ok. Here's some thoughts on answers to my own questions. I should start by saying that I'm not here assuming that property is a natural right -- it seems to be constructed. Nonetheless, much of this applies either way. I'd still like Larry and (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) What happens when parents (inevitably) decide that they can provide a decent education at home, rather than spending all of that money? If the child has a right to a certain level of education, and the state has to uphold that right (or rather (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) And if the parents decide not to send their child to school, what then? Do they spend time in jail? Who decides what constitutes "schooling", and what doesn't? Why do I get the feeling this inevitably leads to the government deciding whether (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Yah. Right. Did I mention I disapproved of slavery, even if it was freely entered into? (...) You base your worldview on the _Simpsons_? Ah, I guess that's not too bad, really. Hmmmm, donuts.. Jasper (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <3877B741.22DBA4E0@v...er.net>... (...) And in fact my assertion, which may not have been perfectly stated is not "every community will have a library", but that if the value of a community library is sufficient, (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) More questions I'm afraid :) Using this premise, does the child have a right to expect an education from their parents? And if the parents default on that duty - would the child suffer? (As I understand it, one of a Libertarian state's duties (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) First, I want to make a distinction between "not life-affirming" and "anti life-affirming." It's possible for something to not necessarily go out of it's way to affirm life, yet not deny it either. Anyway: There may be potential rights that (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I'm not convinced that it's all that clear cut. I have observed age-peers of mine who are markedly less worldly and make stupid decisions about their lives. At what magic age is one fully capable of making decisions such that we can (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Ah, good, so I was not wrong about you ;) (...) _if_ the job-market becomes tight, corporations will want to deal with that _now_, because they'll have not planned in advance. Their way of dealing it will include, but is not necessarily (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) Absolutely. What I disagree with is the libertarian view that their resolution is the only possible "right" one. As soon as resolution of conflicts comes into play, the possible solution to the problem ambiguate. In the case of an entire (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
One thing to point out here is that these scholarships are ONLY going to be needed for the people that can't afford the 1-2K USD or so per child per year to pay tuition. I of course feel that will be a VERY small set. Way under 1% of the population. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Er, no. (...) No! (...) Yep! (...) Actually, I agree - but the Frank's assumption that I was responding to was that corperations would invest in education because the job market would become so tight due to the benefits of Libertarianism. You (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) You think that's a _good_ thing? You think a child in "early childhood" is qualified to make the choice of not only profession, but even lifelong employer? Sounds like slavery, by any other name. Aside from that, you think that corporations (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
OK, we need to back up. (...) Can you restate this? Are you stating that there are rights, or that there should be rights, that are not life affirming, that is, that are actually "wrong" using the "morally good" = "valid" = "life affirming" test? Or (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
<3876E1AE.144F396A@voyager.net> <slrn87dqa8.j61.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You're right, I jumped in the middle and didn't check assumptions first. Fuggedaboutit. Frank's doing fine (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Only inasfar as Bill Gates is a nazi. And despite my intense dislike for the man, who definitely shouldn't have 25 million times more say than anyone else, I doubt he is _that_. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I don't think our current usage is enough to support a dedicated backup server, yet. I mean, we have, what, 1000 messages/day and 30k users? Still peanuts ;) By the time it gets up to 10-25k msgs/day, I'd be looking for a physical backup, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Sounds that way to me. It's Better than a one-vote-per-person system, because this way those who are wealthy (and therefore more qualified to decide what is good for society) get more say. Bill Gates [1] obviously shoud have 25 million times (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) So you would agree that education and poverty are areas which could do a lot more than they do now if they were more efficient with the money they recieve? Reorganise away, but remember that the Market isn't neccessarily the best optimiser, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) <nitpick> Libertarian documentation is full of (correct) comments about how such government systems are woefully inefficient, and how they would be made much less inefficient under Libertopia.</nitpick> (...) Sounds more likely to me that (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I would sponsor education in return for the installation of brain-chips which prevent them from working for my competition or buying products from someone else. This benefits me a lot more than a "traditional" education would. And hey, if they (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) And after I go to the Company School, I can shop at the Company Store. Maybe it's my cynicism rearing its ugly head again, but I just don't buy into the kieretsu paradigm. I don't think a corporation, especially one as accountable (to the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) For clarification -- I do assert that all the rights in my initial list pass the force-initiation test [1] (as Larry asked that they do) in the absence of at least one separate and additional property right. [1] although not necessarily any (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) But the point to which I'm replying is that libraries _would_ get built! (...) Universal access to libraries is something that can obviously benefit society. As I've seen you say: take that as a given for this argument. Again, the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) No no. I didn't agree to that at all. Your question was "What sorts of rights are not property rights but do not require force initiation?" Eliminating answers simply because they fail the force-initiation test is begging the question. I (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
<Fo04xr.MoE@lugnet.com> <slrn87djsf.fag.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Not at all. Not all value can be as easily judged as the operating budget of a library. But if your property (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) It's a very sensible location. It's land that has been in the family for a while and has unmeasurably high personal value. In fact, there are lots of equally valuable connections to places and people in the surrounding community, despite the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38bfb403.278198521@...et.com>... (...) Where are the parents when this is happening? I certainly would limit the permission I gave a photographer to publish a picture of my nude child if I thought the picture might (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian theory and altruism (was: some incorrectly spelled thing not worth repeating
|
|
(...) It's predictable _from the government_. What makes you think the corporatist swine are going to be as predictable? (...) What's this "corporation" thing? "Officers" has always referred to cops, in my experience. (...) None. Not in an (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) So just because your dad happened to build a house somewhere, you think the whole world should bow down and provide all the "niceties" of life, regarless of whether the location your dad built his house on (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
This is the anchor of a new thread to deal with the subject proposition. Posters to this thread will have accepted the first parenthetized equality as true, and will have accepted that humans are life affirming, and that therefore to initiate the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
