 | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | Darn, wish I'd seen this note before posting a second ago. (...) That's how I see it too. But that is wicked, not good and just. (...) Convince me. (...) I'm not yet convinced. I'm not ready to accept as fact that humans exist in the unalterable (...) (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Yeah, that baffles me, too. For any physical entity or object, it seems that "existence" doesn't simply imply "a place to exist," it expressly *includes* a place to exist. Not necessarily this plot of land or that particular country, but (...) (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Uh oh...I was trimming too liberally and misrepresented DaveE's stance. Immediately before his "communistic ideal" comment, I had written "I think I think that land should be a commons, tragedy or not." Totally, my bad! Chris (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Doh! Well, my cool ontological musings remain in effect regardless... Dave! (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Wicked, yes, probably; good? arguable I suppose; just? Hmm.. hard to say. I think I would call it just. (...) Well-- here's an issue, obviously. If you could create humans who didn't have an innate desire for control, then sure, the system (...) (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | (...) Or they have to recognize their desires as destructive and seek to curb them. (...) I agree, but I don't see why stewardship rather than ownership necessarily decreases your ability to enjoy privacy. (...) You are in effect saying that the (...) (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Hm. I guess I have to question how different is this stewardship you're envisioning versus ownership? What does ownership entitle you to that stewardship doesn't; given that in our current system, the government can confiscate your land if it (...) (21 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | I think that even with the rules of real estate essentially intact, if we called it and understood it as stewardship rather than ownership it would change the way we think about land-resources. For the better. But I think that several positive (...) (21 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) I think we need to hold people to some standards. Let's assume that the right to exist does require us to provide minimal support to all. Now, take someone who takes their monthly check and spends it all on booze. Should we give them a bigger (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) Hmm, another thought... If "rights" are a legal construct, where does "good and just" come from. Clearly we seem to feel there is some absolute measure of goodness and justness. Without such, you can't judge anyone else's actions. We probably (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Why? Why, in particular is is 'wicked' to make the best deal you can for something. We're assuming that the person you're dealing with is competent and you are not being fraudulent, right? Is selling your body off for spare parts (and thus (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) First, your stance seems to assume that notions like 'competent,' 'fraudulent,' and 'fully informed' are binary in nature and that a person is on one side or another of a clearly demarked line. I don't think that's so. Second, It's still my (...) (21 years ago, 23-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
