To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3461
3460  |  3462
Subject: 
Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sun, 9 Jan 2000 16:39:12 GMT
Reply-To: 
mattdm@mattdm%IHateSpam%.org
Viewed: 
617 times
  
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
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.

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.)


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.

I will be there. But, I'd rather reserve that for Lego and .off-topic.fun.
First, I doubt everyone there will be interested. And second, I'm more
comfortable arguing [1] here. We can spend some time thinking before each
post so we can express what we want to say more clearly. And we're able to
refer definitively to what was said earlier.


[1] in the positive sense of the word


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?

Ok, you're basically going at this from Locke's mixing-of-labor theory, yes?

I don't actually have a strong belief in natural rights. And I'd rather hold
off on discussing the other ways people might have rights until we arrive at
that point. I will post something in reply to my questions on property after
lunch, though.


--
Matthew Miller                      --->                  mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us                       --->             http://quotes-r-us.org/



Message is in Reply To:
  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)

29 Messages in This Thread:










Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR