Debate : 19022


Off-Topic / Debate / 19022	19021 \| 19023

Subject:	Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:35:04 GMT
Viewed:	967 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: > > > It is my assertion that if people have a right to exist, > > > they must have a right to exist _somewhere_. > > > An excellent communistic ideal, but realistically flawed, sadly. > > Convince me. 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 existence somewhere. Assertions that "existence" does not include a locality are misguided. It would be like saying "circles have a right to exist, but they don't have a right to be round." One is inherent in the other. So it's not a communistic ideal at all; it's ontological. Dave!

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
(...) 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)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
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)

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

Custom Search