Subject:
|
Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 06:59:05 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.!ihatespam!com
|
Viewed:
|
295 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> 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"?
I'm OK with that.
>
> > Still with me? Discuss the question, above. What sorts of rights are not
> > property rights but do not require force initiation?
Reminder, under the premise we agreed upon, if it requires force
initiation, it's not a right. This will be used to eliminate some things
tentatively labeled rights, below.
> I think before I can do that, I need you to explain what a property right
> *is*. Where does this right come from?
not sure I understand the question. A property right is the right to
possess something, free from claims on it that were not freely entered
into by the person who holds title. That something can be real property
(real estate), tangible property (personal goods), intellectual
property, or the body itself. Not an exhaustive list but I think I got
most of them.
Where do these rights come from? Isn't that the crux of the debate? We
shall see.
> But, I can start right in with a quick list of non-property rights which do
> not require force:
OK.
> "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."
But if I have secured my residence against entry unless you possess a
key, and you don't have one, and you enter, are you not using force?
Against my (real) property instead of my person, but using force
nonetheless. So if you're using force, this one fails the contradiction
test, can't be a right. Or are you limiting force to force against my
person? I certainly don't. We have to be careful, I can see circular
reasoning traps that EITHER of us can fall into on both sides of the
argument.
> "The right to be doing something meaningful with my life."
Not to ask what "is" means or anything but what does this mean, exactly.
That is, how do you actualize this supposed right? If it's the right to
pursue happiness, that's a property right. If it's the right to ACHIEVE
happiness, that's free goods. See below.
> "The right to use and duplicate software without permission."
Aren't you using force when you do this? Hence fails the contradiction
test.
> "The right to marry out of love."
As I've defined it, this is a property right. (the right to dispose of
my body as I see fit, in agreement with others who also have the right
to dispose of their body as they see fit)
> "The right to a fair trial."
As I've defined it, this is a property right. I think. Put a pin in that
one, I'm skipping it for tonite, but agree it needs more explication.
> "The right to free speech."
As I've defined it, this is a property right. No doubt about it, to me
anyway. (recall what free speech means, it means that one can say what
one wishes, subject to the desires of the owner of the property, or if
in a public place, subject only to public safety concerns. Therefore it
falls under the right to dispose of my body as I see fit, hence a
property right.)
> "The right to free goods."
As I've defined it, this requires force, because there are no free
goods. Hence fails the contradiction test.
>
> (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.)
interesting start. I hasten to point out that even if I case by case
show that each of your examples is either a property right, or requires
force, I haven't proven the negative, viz, that some rights aren't
necessarily property rights. To do that we must examine the nature of
rights, counterexamples never prove the negative.
--
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:
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
|
|
|
|
