To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3441
3440  |  3442
Subject: 
Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sun, 9 Jan 2000 03:31:17 GMT
Reply-To: 
mattdm@*avoidspam*mattdm.org
Viewed: 
519 times
  
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
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?

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 are not life-affirming. These
aren't necessarily good rights. There may even be potential rights which are
anti life-affirming.

These are also not necessarily good rights. For one sense of the word
"rights", only good rights are not anti life-affirming. I don't have a
problem using the word in that sense.

Or are you stating something else?

Yes, there's something else too. If you don't presuppose a property right,
none of the rights I stated are anti life-affirming by the force-initiation
test. (And probably by most other tests. Some or perhaps even all of them
probably fail the "increasing overall entropy" test.)

Remember that I haven't granted that there is even such a thing as a
property right yet. That's one of the things I'm asking you to prove. So
it's not a fair application of the force-initiation test if you're already
assuming your point proven.

(See the second part of #3 at
http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=3292)


This may be a long process.

It's worth it if we reach the end. :)

--
Matthew Miller                      --->                  mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us                       --->             http://quotes-r-us.org/



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
 
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
 
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
 
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 (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR