Subject:
|
Re: Matthew jumps in (was Re: Goodness of Man?, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:44:57 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.&AntiSpam&com
|
Viewed:
|
1758 times
|
| |
|
|
<3874A8CA.59FCB9A3@voyager.net> <slrn879jb5.6vn.mattdm@jadzia.bu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
> > Again, from my perspective, no one refuted that position using a
> > property rights based argument. My adversaries in the debate merely
>
> I don't understand the basis for the assertion that property rights are the
> basis for all other rights. Where do property rights come from? What makes
> that a privledged right above any other I can imagine?
Fair enough. I'll try to root out the cogent thread but if you want to
dig, use "life affirming" as your search words, that should get you to
it.
>
> Arguments for this I've seen that I don't buy:
>
> 1. It's self evident.
>
> Not to me it's not. Let's see some justification.
>
> 2. It's the way it was in the State of Nature.
>
> Really? When was that exactly? I'd like to see some historical records
> from the time. Seriously, and more importantly, why property rights in
> specific? Without some basis, this just comes back to argument #1.
>
> 3. I can build a rational system which derives all other rights I want to
> support from this one.
>
> Several problems here.
>
> First, just because you can build such a structure doesn't say anything
> about the strength of its foundations. For example, one can build various
> non-euclidean geometries from directly contradictory axioms, and they're
> all self-consistent and rational.
>
> Second, it's used in a disturbingly circular way: only those (potential)
> rights which support the premise are taken to be "real". So of course
> those support the premise. If someone says "Well, what about right to
> health care? Can't derive that from property rights!", you say "I
> know!".
>
> Third, it's not satisfying because it's nice for rights-based arguments
> to be seperate from utilitarian arguments. You implied in a post just a
> few hours ago that there's a distinction. Not if you're supporting
> property rights with this argument there isn't.
>
> 4. No one can show me anything better.
>
> Not necessarily true (I'll happily get into that later), but even then,
> so what? Doesn't absolve you of the burden of proof.
I think that the argument I advanced doesn't fall into any of these.
More later, my lunch is getting cold... Well, maybe it's a variant on 1
but not merely asserted, it's based on what the nature of man is.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
188 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
|
|
|
|
