Debate : 3442


Off-Topic / Debate / 3442	3441 \| 3443

Subject:	Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Sun, 9 Jan 2000 04:26:31 GMT
Reply-To:	mattdm@&StopSpammers&mattdm.org
Viewed:	453 times

Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote: > 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. 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 going in a circle! -- Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) 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)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) 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)

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