 | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) I'm OK with that. (...) 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. (...) not sure I understand the question. A (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) No no. I didn't agree to that at all. Your question was "What sorts of rights are not property rights but do not require force initiation?" Eliminating answers simply because they fail the force-initiation test is begging the question. I (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) For clarification -- I do assert that all the rights in my initial list pass the force-initiation test [1] (as Larry asked that they do) in the absence of at least one separate and additional property right. [1] although not necessarily any (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | OK, we need to back up. (...) Can you restate this? Are you stating that there are rights, or that there should be rights, that are not life affirming, that is, that are actually "wrong" using the "morally good" = "valid" = "life affirming" test? Or (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | (...) Absolutely. What I disagree with is the libertarian view that their resolution is the only possible "right" one. As soon as resolution of conflicts comes into play, the possible solution to the problem ambiguate. In the case of an entire (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes, the social contract argument is one that's familiar to me and in fact has been advanced here in this very group before, although not very crisply, to my way of thinking. It was more along the lines of "my country, love it or leave it" (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) We're not stuck on this planet. You can, with current technology, go to the moon/Mars and live there. It would merely cost immense amounts of money, but that's irrelevant. (...) Given that the notion of 'country' historically really rests on (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) First, I want to make a distinction between "not life-affirming" and "anti life-affirming." It's possible for something to not necessarily go out of it's way to affirm life, yet not deny it either. Anyway: There may be potential rights that (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) Me: Right R exists. You: Right R interferes with property rights and therefore can't exist. Me: Wait, you haven't show that property rights exist. You: Yes I did; it's proven because (of a string of logic assuming) R doesn't exist. That's (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Again, I'm not sure that I agreed that I had to show property rights exist... Let's put a pin in this whole discussion and go back a level. I may start a new thread and come back to this one when (if) we've satisfied what I feel the (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) OK, fair enough. Just to be clear, if we posit that there are no property rights, under such a system of rights calculus, it might well be OK for you to walk up to me and rip food out of my hand, food that I traded someone else for, or grew (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) It still shows some strange attachment to the concept of property. For one thing, what's this "trade" stuff? But more deeply, I think you're assuming that force necessarily relates to property. I don't think it must. For example, if it's in my (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | I see at least four distinct potential abilities related to property. I don't believe that any of these can be derived from any other. These may or may not be things that one can do with property (or, ahem, properties of property), and there may or (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | Ok. Here's some thoughts on answers to my own questions. I should start by saying that I'm not here assuming that property is a natural right -- it seems to be constructed. Nonetheless, much of this applies either way. I'd still like Larry and (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | I'd like to introduce some terminology. The rights [1] in my earlier message I'd like to call "basic property rights" [2]. That is: * The right to, through interacting constructively with things in the universe, mark those things as mine. * The (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | I realized that last night I failed to address an important question I'd raised earlier: (...) The ideas I've expressed <URL:(URL) apply only to the physical universe -- that is, matter (and potentially energy, because of that equivalence thing). (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, if you are meaning a mind as different than a brain, I think it's safe to just call it an idea (in the context you use above). It's a complex bit of software. Whatever intellectual property rights arise from this whole discussion would (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That's not clear at all. The mind-as-software concept is one way it may possibly be, but that's actually a fairly radical view. It's something I'm agnostic about until we've got further information. In the meantime, this is such an important (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) To expand on my late-night thoughts: If the way we gain property is through "mixing of labor", or interaction [1], minds can't be property. I don't labor on my mind, and I don't interact with it. I am it. You might ascribe some sort of (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | Hi Guys, This is a good read so far. Thanks. (...) I think the deal is that everything we collectively value about our modern social technology (even if some of us complain about governance) is possible strictly because our systems include an (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes. But fraud is a crime against you that takes PROPERTY away. I tried to kill this one once but Matt is right, without the "you have the right to have property" right, this one is slippery and he can keep wiggling all day long. I can claim (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) I should point out that I accept "life-affirming" as a test for whether something is good or bad, not for whether it exists. (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) That's fine, but I am going to try to show that life-affirming REQUIRES property rights because of the nature of man. That is, to not recognise them is to be anti life affirming, or in other words if you want to be human, you have to recognise (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) <nitpick> reason is ONE of the tools we have </nitpick> I may take a stab at this too, but like you I have no idea when. The coming weeks are going to be busy, with war coming up. James (URL) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) Can you at least quick state your answers to the first two questions I asked, so the problem is clear? (If you don't want to argue from a natural rights basis, I need to ask some different questions.) (...) I will be there. But, I'd rather (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) I think I've addressed these to some degree in my other message. If there's more you'd like me to say, let me know. (...) Both property rights and morality are only meaningful in a social setting. A human being alone in the universe has need (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"? —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) I'm not sure at what level of detail you want these answered, but I'll take a stab at it. (What does it mean to manipulate matter?) It means, at the most basic of levels, that I am exercising my will on my surroundings. (What does it mean to (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
