Subject:
|
Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:28:00 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.SPAMLESScom
|
Viewed:
|
598 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> Matt said:
> > 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?
Yes. But fraud is a crime against you that takes PROPERTY away. I tried
to kill this one once but Matt is right, without the "you have the right
to have property" right, this one is slippery and he can keep wiggling
all day long. I can claim my intent is that you not have access to my
goods, and that is the customary meaning of a lock (a door, for that
matter) in today's society, but we're rather removed from reality, up in
the realm of abstract ideas, so that's not going to work without the
premises. Matt is way way back at square 1 (heck, square -37) so...
Besides I already said that disproving specifics doesn't disprove the
negative, I was just doing it to try to find defining principles to be
disproved which is the way. you have to show that everything you can
construct requires that principle, which you disproved, and thus nothing
can be constructed, thus proving the negative.
Proving the negative is hard (look how long it took to prove fermat's
last theorem)
Let's get the right to HAVE property established first.
> I'm not sure what the other flavors are, I think that means that we need
> to define force too, not just property rights.
Yes.
>
> > > 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.
That's not my view. The fact that we dilute a right (violate it, in
other words) does not mean that the person who had the right actually
LOST it, merely that it was usurped. No sanction of the victim was
granted when the majority voted to defraud.
Last post on this till I am in a different state.
--
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
|
|
|
|
