Subject:
|
Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:04:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
509 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi Guys,
This is a good read so far. Thanks.
Matthew Miller wrote:
> It still shows some strange attachment to the concept of property. For one
I think the deal is that everything we collectively value about our
modern social technology (even if some of us complain about governance)
is possible strictly because our systems include an approximation of the
'right' to own property. If we hadn't agreed to that 40000 years ago,
we'd still be dressed in bear skins grabbing sandwiches from one another
instead of curing cancer.
I suppose that's the same as what Larry says when stating that
"life-affirming REQUIRES property rights because of the nature of man."
I don't like 'life-affirming' as an ideal so much as
'happiness-affirming' or something, but I suppose that's a small nit to pick.
I doubt that you'll be able to derive the right to own property from
whole cloth. But, since it's obviously quite important, why not assume
that one has the right to own property and go from there? There would
still be a tremendous about of work to do.
Who can own property? Who can't? What is entailed in owning property?
(answer Matthew's five questions from
http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=3405), What counts as
property, etc.
> 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.
If the right to use your body as you see fit is a property right (it's
your meat (which is largely why I don't eat meat - it's the most
personal kind of thievery)) then clearly initiation of force is a
property related issue. To get that ice cream cone out of your hand
(whether or not the food is your property), I might have to damage your
hand (your property) to get it.
> 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'm surprised that Larry didn't come back at this with a claim of fraud.
Fraud is a flavor of force - isn't that the libertarian take Larry?
I'm not sure what the other flavors are, I think that means that we need
to define force too, not just 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.
As with all rights, we agree that there are property rights, and voila,
they exist. Since it's to everyone's benefit we've had weak property
rights for ever. Privileged as compared to what? Aren't any rights
that we might agree to privileged.
My $.02,
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
