Subject:
|
Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:33:24 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
MATTDM@antispamMATTDM.ORG
|
Viewed:
|
792 times
|
| |
|
|
I'd like to introduce some terminology. The rights [1] in my earlier message
I'd like to call "basic property rights" [2]. That is:
* The right to, through interacting constructively with things in the
universe, mark those things as mine.
* The right to have a voice in what happens to your property.
The first here is, as I said, more basic than the second. That's good to
keep in mind. But for simplicity, I'll henceforth call them both basic.
By "basic" I don't necessarily mean natural or a priori. Just basic.
If we want to move beyond this [3] and establish other property rights,
those could be termed legal or social or moral property rights. It depends
on what mechanism we want to use for establishing what rights people have.
Until we get to that point, I'm going to refer to anything beyond what I
accept as basic as "constructed property rights". It's possible that it may
become useful at some point to classify some further rights as basic, but
until that's determined, I'll assume the default of constructed. [4]
1. Excluding the two I note as more basic than property rights.
2. If you disagree with my conception, you could make that "mattdmian basic
property rights".
3. See the comments in section 2 of
<URL:http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=3467>
4. How appropriate for a Lego forum!
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
