Subject:
|
Re: Matthew jumps in (was Re: Goodness of Man?, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:16:16 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdmSTOPSPAM.org
|
Viewed:
|
1648 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
> 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. • [snip]
> 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.
Found this: <http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=1776>
I don't think you say a single word about property, let alone property
rights as a foundation, though. For what it's worth: in fact, I agree
strongly with your conclusion in that case. The weak link you point out is
indeed weak, but granting that, or even not granting it, I definitely agree
that all people have rights which we must respect, and that initiating force
as a way of solving disputes is unacceptable. But I don't see any necessary
link to property.
Also: <http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=3136>, but you don't put
forth a very convincing argument there. ("Take that as a given.") *grin*
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
