Subject:
|
Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:19:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
802 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > One that I'm more likely to get
> > twisted up on is the existence of _any_ goods since they all come
> > from the land.
>
> Is it possible to move to an uninhabited planet and start all over? This
> planet has tangled property rights, but what about some other one?
Hmm, interesting question. Some problems I see:
- If the other planet has biological or sentient inhabitants, we would
have to decide just what their rights are. Hopefully we would recognize
them...
- I would have a concern as to how "righteous" a settlement on another
planet would be if we don't move the entire Earth's population there.
One would have to ask if the people who left Earth were selected in a
fair way, and used a fair share of resources.
> > 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?
I'm leaning towards the latter right now, but I want to explore this. My
question is what assures that the population doesn't exceed an amount
that can be supported.
> Also, why is space in the universe a limited good? The universe is infinite,
> as far as we can tell, or practically so. What is actually limited is the
> space in the universe that's easy to get to.
My thought on this aspect is that the human population will quickly grow
to fill the accesible space.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
