Subject:
|
Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 06:14:21 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm#antispam#.org
|
Viewed:
|
530 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
> The negative to "all rights are property rights" is "some rights are not
> property rights".
I think a word is missing. How about: "all rights are necessarily property
rights" and "some rights aren't necessarily property rights"?
> Still with me? Discuss the question, above. What sorts of rights are not
> property rights but do not require force initiation?
I think before I can do that, I need you to explain what a property right
*is*. Where does this right come from?
But, I can start right in with a quick list of non-property rights which do
not require force:
"The right to go to your place of residence while you're not home and
eat any food I find there so I don't starve."
"The right to be doing something meaningful with my life."
"The right to use and duplicate software without permission."
"The right to marry out of love."
"The right to a fair trial."
"The right to free speech."
"The right to free goods."
(We haven't determined where rights come from, or how one thing can be a
right or another not. These aren't necessarily a *good* rights, but they're
potential ones.)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
29 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
|
|
|
|
