Subject:
|
Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 9 Jan 2000 00:40:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
370 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 22:25:02 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> 2 - While may be a sticking point between me and Jasper, I assert that
> "fist swinging, short of noses" and "can't hit my nose" are resolveable
> rights. Rights can be limited, and it is defining the area where they
> limit each other and resolving it that is the crux of Libertarian rights
> calculus/problem resolution.
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 society,
intersection of possible solutions to each problem plotted on its own
axis becomes a vastly-dimensional object in solution-space.
I want to run another thing by you.
Could it not be said, that by choosing to live in a certain community,
one agrees to abide by a "social contract"? Such things as being
life-affirming are, at bottom, not necessarily present in all people.
The reason most people do base their life on life-affirming basis, is
because it tends to work well, evolutionarily speaking.
Philosophically speaking, does that necessarily mean that people who
don't base their morality on "life-affirming", but rather on blatant
self, and only self, -interest, are necessarily wrong/evil? (assuming
here that these people live in a remote are of land where they're
unlikely to harm the rest of us. Say Australia)
Jasper
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
