 | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | 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. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) Yes, it makes sense. There are certain rights that virtually everyone wants for themselves, so we make a compact with the others in a given group to acknowledge that it is best for all concerned that we grant those rights to all within the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) If a right is just a legal construct, then why can't it be sold away or limited? (...) If a right arises simply from the people, then I'm not sure a right to exist is compatible. (...) I think we need to explore the foundations of rights. Why (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | I'm addressing three of Frank's notes here, not just the one upline from where I'm posting. As a result of my use of "good and just" coupled with the assertion that rights are merely a legal construct, Frank pointed out that we need to know the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
