| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > 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 property owner to shoot him/her for trespass
> > > 2. The right to sustenance?
> >
> > One point at a time, sorry.
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...
> > 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.
as does this...
> > Check your assumptions, though. They aren't clearly stated.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
6 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
|
|
|
|
