Subject:
|
Re: Vague abstract debate that puts people to sleep?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:16:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1008 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Ok, point conceded. I've lost my train of thought on this bit though.
> Unfortunately this debate which I feel is actually worthwhile to me is
> getting burried by some other debate. It seems like everytime you raise
> the "should land be property" issue, 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.
>
> Frank
The whole "everything can be called property rights" seems so leaden to me.
I won't argue it either way - it just seems like a game of semantics to me.
What I could add is pendantic: Chris is right from a the single sale point
on value, but that is misleading from a number of angles (I'm not sure he
would argue against that, since it was a limited point). The buyer may have
had the impression that the $1000 bond was worth paying $1500 at that
particular moment, but he may modify that assessment later on, or find no
one who agrees with his assessment, and may not recover his investment. For
the buyer, that one particular bond did fetch $1500, but a similiar one may
not, for more or less. And on and on beyond the one moment of one
particular sale: as I said, pendantic, so I didn't bother. Value is a
fugitive thing.
The Middle East can be a tiring subject, especially considering the rather
strident way of expression that some choose, but it is a national debate at
the moment, one that may have far reaching and lethal implications. This
thread would go over bigger, no doubt, if there were more Libertarians
present. :-)
Oh, the subject header change is just a joke!
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
