Subject:
|
Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:48:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
871 times
|
| |
|
|
I have decided that it makes the most sense for me to stop talking about space
in the universe and just talk about land. Bear in mind that I think the
argument extrapolates out to all habitable space, but for now, talking about
land might be easier.
Larry doesn't think that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" implies
"an unfettered right to exist." I'm not sure what he exactly means by
unfettered, but I think he's just trying to indicate that no one owes their
time spent --the most precious of resources, keeping you fed. I agree. The
right to exist does not mean the right to exist under all circumstances.
Refusing to feed yourself, endangering the life of another, and lots of other
things are ways of surrendering that right. But I do think that the right to
exist is (or should be) socially upheld for anyone who does not engage in the
activities that we generally agree act to reduce that right.
I think the abortion issue is tied to the right to exist only to the extent
that we have to figure out exactly who has (should have) the right to exist and
what criteria are applied for determining that right. It seems like an issue
that would be easier to solve once the right to exist is hammered out.
Things that it seems like we need to determine or agree upon:
What is a right?
From where do any rights come?
From where does the right to exist come?
Once those are answered, I think we will be closer to accepting many
implications. Some of these are: to whom the right to exist applies, what this
means about real property, and what (if anything) are we doing wrong?
Here's what I think:
A right is a legal construct. It is indicative of a class of behaviors
available to all people upon which no governance may encroach. (I realize that
many of the things we think of as rights, aren't implemented properly under
this definition.) In the past I believed that it was acceptable for these
rights to be sold away and limited by the owner of a venue. I don't think that
today. It will be cleaner if we work from as absolute an understanding as
possible.
Rights come from us. The People (should) determine what our rights are. I
reject that rights are either divine or natural. The rights that a society
grants to its members is indicative of the social aesthetic that is prominent.
At least until a group of people actively recognizes a set of rights, the
notion of 'might makes right' is the reality.
The right to exist is a piece of aesthetic that I support strongly. Like all
rights, it's just something that we make up in order to facilitate a world in
which we are comfortable. But it seems to me that without this one, any other
discussion of rights is silly.
I'm not so much interested in figuring out what the laws in the US or any
particular country really mean, as I am in figuring out what is "right." What
will build a healthier world for everyone?
I guess one way to proceed is to hear why people do not think that everyone has
a right to exist. I'd be interested in your opinions.
Does any of this make sense?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
| (...) 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? (...) (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
|
|
|
|
