Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:54:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
739 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Sometimes you have to be pragmatic about certain things, and just accept
> some philosophical assertions because there is utility to doing so.
Right. One good thing Scott did, long ago, was provide a link to David
Friedman's(1) site, which among many other good things, provides a good
example of how natural rights don't always work out, and then demonstrates
how you can use a cost benefit (utilitarian) analysis to show that it's
vastly more efficient to always use rights based calculus even if there are
problems at the boundaries. At least that was my take on it.
> Tell ya what though -- would everyone doubting the asserted foundational
> principles of "life, liberty, and property" please send me ALL of their
> lego. I am sure I can put it to better use -- and if you don't want to
> "own" it, I will!
Hey now... you're going back on our deal, we split it 50-50!!! :-)
1 - yes that Friedman, he's Milton's son.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) Well, every argument can be beaten down to some foundational principle that is a mere assertion that some may not agree with. I am not sure I have ever seen a philosophical argument that didn't ultimately break down that way. I'd be well (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
