Debate : 3451


Off-Topic / Debate / 3451	3450 \| 3452

Subject:	Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Sun, 9 Jan 2000 06:11:40 GMT
Reply-To:	mattdm@mattdmIHATESPAM.org
Viewed:	556 times

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote: > That's a different question, and one I'd take rather a different > approach to. Basically, at the 50,000 foot level, I would show that > disallowing the very notion of property is anti life affirming (using > your tripartite partition into pro, neutral and anti life affirming, > although I could debate whether there is a neutral or not) rather than I should point out that I accept "life-affirming" as a test for whether something is good or bad, not for whether it exists. -- 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"?
(...) That's fine, but I am going to try to show that life-affirming REQUIRES property rights because of the nature of man. That is, to not recognise them is to be anti life affirming, or in other words if you want to be human, you have to recognise (...) (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, 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)

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