Subject:
|
Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:27:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
829 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > 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.
>
> Is it right to exist, or right to exist and be supported, or just right to
> try to exist and to be free of constructive interference?
Not a right to support (at least in any but the vaguest of senses) just a right
to a place. In what I understand of libertopia, it would be theoretically
possible for one person to buy up all the land and not allow anyone else to be
there. Then what? It is my assertion that if people have a right to exist,
they must have a right to exist _somewhere_. That leads to land (or any kind
of space) not being a typical good, at the very least. I think I think that
land should be a commons, tragedy or not.
> > 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.
>
> That phrase to me does not imply an unfettered right to exist. Rather it
> implies the right to try to exist free of interference but with it the
> responsibility to engage in productive activity to secure the resources to
> do so.
Sure, I agree. But still, the right to exist somewhere...not just in theory if
you can find a place that will have you.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
| (...) The issue quickly becomes conflict of rights. One expects that in Libertopia, it is believed that nobody has the right to kill another person. But by (in theory) buying up all space (air, land, sea, outer, inner, etc), one effectively is (...) (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
