Subject:
|
Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 9 Jan 2000 04:56:41 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.%Spamcake%com
|
Viewed:
|
418 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote:
> 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.
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 assumptions are.
However I am teaching next week instead of being on the beach like I was
this week so the pace may slacken a bit.
--
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 is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
