 | | LP POINT 2
|
| LP POINT 2 Larry If an individual were to find him/herself in your propertyist dreamland with no food, no water, no education, no money, no property and starving. What rights would he/she have? Which right would be strongest: 1. The right of the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: LP POINT 2
|
| (...) One point at a time, sorry. But in the meantime, you can either apply first principles and derive your own answer, or you can read old threads, where something very like this was discussed, at length. Check your assumptions, though. They (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: LP POINT 2
|
| (...) This is an easy one Larry - One or Two, whats is gonna be? Would a starving man/woman have a right to food? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: LP POINT 2
|
| (...) What's so hard to understand about one point at a time? Did you want to give up on your other two for now and talk about this one? I am taking them in your numbering order. This bears repeating, though... (...) as does this... (...) ++Lar (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: LP POINT 2
|
| Larry, you are deleting my points rather than answering them. Scott A "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G4p2qs.K9o@lugnet.com... (...) with (...) What (...) give (...) your (...) was (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: LP POINT 2
|
| (...) Quick answer, for closure. Under a property rights analysis, there is no right to sustenance, per se. There is a right to offer to trade for or pay for or ask for charitiable sustenance but no requirement that anyone in particular actually (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
