Debate : 3452


Off-Topic / Debate / 3452	3451 \| 3453

Subject:	Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Sun, 9 Jan 2000 07:08:38 GMT
Reply-To:	lpieniazek@novera/saynotospam/.com
Viewed:	574 times

Matthew Miller wrote: > > 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. 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 them. However I don't know WHEN I am going to try to do that. Are you coming to the confabulation in Waltham Monday? My schedule cleared I should be able to be there. If you are itching, why don't YOU sketch out a try at it, you know how I think. Here are a few tidbits... what does it mean to manipulate matter? what does it mean to create something? if an animal is amoral, can it have property? if things are required for survival, how does one obtain them by reason, as reason is the tool we have? -- 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 has 4 Replies:

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) <nitpick> reason is ONE of the tools we have </nitpick> I may take a stab at this too, but like you I have no idea when. The coming weeks are going to be busy, with war coming up. James (URL) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) Can you at least quick state your answers to the first two questions I asked, so the problem is clear? (If you don't want to argue from a natural rights basis, I need to ask some different questions.) (...) I will be there. But, I'd rather (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) I think I've addressed these to some degree in my other message. If there's more you'd like me to say, let me know. (...) Both property rights and morality are only meaningful in a social setting. A human being alone in the universe has need (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) I'm not sure at what level of detail you want these answered, but I'll take a stab at it. (What does it mean to manipulate matter?) It means, at the most basic of levels, that I am exercising my will on my surroundings. (What does it mean to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) I should point out that I accept "life-affirming" as a test for whether something is good or bad, not for whether it exists. (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