Subject:
|
Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:40:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1746 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz wrote:
>
> Christopher Weeks wrote:
> > Is the idea behind being on the yes side a moral one about property
> > rights or is it based on cultivating a relationship with TLC? If it's a
> > moral one, then I guess we just disagree because the only things like
> > morals that I have are based on contracts (in a broad sense) to which I
> > have agreed, and personal aesthetics (which people sometimes
> > over-emotionally call honor).
>
> I want to understand your point here better. The above reads to me that
> you only respect property rights when you have willingly entered into a
> contract with someone. Is this really true? Do I need to sign a contract
> with you before I let you into my apartment lest you decide that you
> want all my LEGO sets?
>
> Please clarify.
Hi Frank,
Actually, the reasoning for why your property is safe while I'm in your
apartment falls under both my contract and aesthetics categories. When
I refer to contracts in a broad sense I don't just mean reams of
legalese with hundreds of spots to initial and a big page of signatures
at the bottom. I include verbal commitments as well as certain
'understood' commitments. I am a verbose advocate of property rights so
I feel committed to upholding that ideal.
In addition, I want the world to be a place where property rights (as I
understand them) are respected. It fulfills my sense of aesthetic to
contribute to that vision.
My comment about understood commitments above is fraught with peril. I
have on a number of occasions been told that I am contractually obliged
to, for instance, pay income taxes because there is an implied contract
between the US gubmint and myself. I don't buy it. I never will. I
have the right not to enter that contract and my silence on the matter
doesn't automatically shove me into it. On the other hand, I am allowed
to enter these 'implied' or 'understood' contracts when I want to. And
I consider them equally binding on my behavior.
Does that cover it? If not, feel free to ask again or point out holes.
This helps me to formalize my opinions.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
116 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
