Subject:
|
Re: Pure Capitalism and Property Rights (was Re: People are idiots...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 02:29:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
561 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
>
> > Could you explain what you mean by 'all rights are property rights'?
>
> Sure...
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?q=all+rights+are+property+rights&s=o
>
> post 118 (1998) is the first place I think I use that phrase in this forum.
Lots of interesting stuff there. Plenty of examples demonstrating that
specific rights can be construed as property rights, but apparently nothing
demonstrating it to be the case for all rights (but I could have missed it -
there are, after all 'about 8000' posts to look through.)
In fact your statement "All rights are property rights in the final
analysis." (in http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=118 ) seems to
concede that there is no proof. But that's a pretty old post.
Can it be demonstrated that 'all rights are property rights'?
Cheers
Richie
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
