Subject:
|
("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 05:32:17 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@ANTISPAMnovera.com
|
Viewed:
|
259 times
|
| |
|
|
This is the anchor of a new thread to deal with the subject proposition.
Posters to this thread will have accepted the first parenthetized
equality as true, and will have accepted that humans are life affirming,
and that therefore to initiate the use of force is morally unacceptable.
(MM, if you don't agree with these premises, let's back up and check,
but I think you were saying you did)
Here goes. This is hard for me, because it was a long long time ago that
I came to this conclusion. It's been instinctive for me for a very long
time. So I may miss some steps. We'll fix it.
As I recall, I think what did it for me was trying to prove the negative
and arriving at a contradiction, because my intuition, even then, stood
in the way of a cogent proof. (it is hard to build a proof when a voice
in the back of your head is saying "but it's obvious, why waste your
time")
Plus I had just read Galt's speech which dealt with the issue
convincingly enough for me at the time.
The negative to "all rights are property rights" is "some rights are not
property rights".
What does that mean exactly?
Is it possible to determine a right that is not a property right that is
still compatible with the no coercion rule?
Note a potential contradiction in my past remarks. I have at times said
"we must reserve the monopoly on the initiation of the use of force to
governments". But I will argue that is not actually correct. In fact I
would argue that even government can only react to the use of force, or
the threat. It cannot initiate force, although it certainly can prepare
to respond with overwhelming force against an external agressor when the
threat becomes apparent. Even so, it must not START wars, merely finish
them by winning decisively.
Still with me? Discuss the question, above. What sorts of rights are not
property rights but do not require force initiation?
--
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:
29 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
