Subject:
|
Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:43:50 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm.org/saynotospam/
|
Viewed:
|
820 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
> 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 myself (although where I did it, not
> having property rights to land, isn't clear) and since that food isn't
> my property, it isn't initiating force to take it away from me.
>
> Is that the essence? If so, I'm going to have to think about this for a
> while, because that idea is so obviously "wrong" that it's going to take
> some work to show why.
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 hand, it'll take some effort to remove it, especially
if I don't want you to. That's where force comes in.
I listed this earlier, actually:
"The right to go to your place of residence while you're not home and eat
any food I find there so I don't starve."
And my expansion:
I'm very good at picking locks -- it doesn't require any effort. How is
that "force"? But it needn't even come to that. Say you _haven't_ secured
your residence. (This asks a question about the nature of property -- once
something is someone's property, what makes it remain so?)
I'll make a seperate post with my questions about the nature of property
rights.
> But I think the ground may be shifting on me, I thought I was to try to
> show that all rights are necessarily property rights, not that I had to
> justify the very idea that a person can have property.
I believe I asked to be shown both where property rights come from and what
makes them privledged rights. Or, as I also said in another post
(<URL:http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=3403),
1) That property rights are natural rights.
2) That property rights are the only natural rights.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
