Subject:
|
The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:28:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
731 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Unfortunately this debate which I feel is actually worthwhile to me is
> getting burried by some other debate.
Buried in that other people aren't contributing their thoughts because they're
too wrapped up in the more emotionally satisfying debates about unsolvable
situations in the Middle East? Or buried in that _you_ are too busy in the
other thread? (I'm not reading the stuff on terrorism or Iraq.)
> It seems like everytime you raise
> the "should land be property" issue,
This makes me start to sound like a broken record. I guess that's because I
haven't found anyone who writes on the idea (if anyone can point me, that'd be
keen!) and haven't found people with whom to talk it through.
> which would be new ground for
> debate, some other debate starts up and burries this one under the
> tiring Middle East or religion debates. This is what continually
> frustrates me about .debate and makes me want to just wash my hands of
> the whole thing.
We could talk it through anyway, just ignoring the repetitious flak. We might
have fairly few participants, but we'd get some. We might have to be careful
to not pursue our own spin-off debate topics too. I think the abortion issue
is certainly tied to the right to exist, but not central to the point. It
would be easy for us to spend serious time trying to figure out the impact on
the morality of abortion and get distracted. One that I'm more likely to get
twisted up on is the existence of _any_ goods since they all come from the land.
My basic premise is that space in the universe can't be considered a limited
good in a system that assures that people (intelligences?) have an innate right
to exist.
This means that we (in the USA) have either misunderstood the role of real
property by treating it as a good or we have been (accidentally) hypocritical
by claiming the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as I
understand that phrase.
Where do you think my stance is flawed?
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) Yes, though a contract may be in place. I would tend to think that there is an implicit contract entered when the child is conceived. (...) Ok, point conceded. I've lost my train of thought on this bit though. Unfortunately this debate which I (...) (21 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 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
|
|
|
|
