Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


Off-Topic / Debate / Search Results: all rights are property rights

Results 1161 – 1180 of about 12000.

Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Former Iraqi General
(...) That may be one of the reasons, but it's no more insidious than the NRA's big-business pro-gun lobby, which has much less to do with personal freedoms than it has to do with lining the pockets of the gun industry. That's not to say that the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.256)

		Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
(...) These two paragraphs are the crux of the issue, for me. We might add a third permutation and ask: if the author creates a work intended to stir social change, but it doesn't, is it still propaganda? That seems like a suitable opposite of your (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.253)

		Re: Former Iraqi General
(...) Isn't that the real reason behind the "gun control is good" lobby? "Support gun control and give up your fundamental rights today." The Tyrants that actually believe what they do is for our own good, are the most dangerous of all. (I know, I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.253)

		Oral Argument: Eldred v. Ashcroft
For more check out: (URL) I of the U.S. Constitution states the following: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" (...) (22 years ago, 21-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.249)

		Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...]
(...) Not at all. Blacks did have serious civil rights issues. Most of the country has been able to get beyond simple racism. Today many blacks face many social and economic problems (as does everyone else!)-- but to continually blame racism is (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.248)

		Re: Vote against/for...
(...) Have you never read the bible John? Was Goliath not MIGHTIER than David? It all depends on how you measure "might". Ghandi demonstrated where the real power lies. He was stronger than the then British Empire. (...) Let me guess, the USA is (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.245)

		Re: A word to the international community... (Re: Vote against/for...)
(...) Well, he can assert that a majority of the estimated 39% of eligible voters chose to vote Republican, and beyond that he's welcome to believe whatever else he likes, of course. But I think he'd come across as less of a stereotypically boorish, (...) (22 years ago, 6-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.245)

		Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
(...) I don't agree with your view. The Israelis gave up a very small part of the land they stole a few decades ago - its legal owners want all of it back. In order to keep it, the Israelis [in the form of the rather heroic IDF] oppress all manner (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.239)

		Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
(...) You're injecting another issue into the discussion, which I will address in a moment. In any case, let's consider what you're saying: You're claiming that conservative talking heads can't be called demagogues as long as they are open about (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.239)

		Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
(...) I'm curious as to how you think the BT is worthwhile to a Christian by showing that what they believe in is silly (I can see why is it useful to you-- a "creative" expression of your rejection of your perceived silliness of Christianity, and (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.238)

		Re: Idiots, Part Deux
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) That's right - he didn't mention the relationship at all - he made claims about contracts and agreements. (...) What 'property is involved involved in the relationship' is not my concern. (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 2.238)

		Will Bush Jr pardon whomever Kissinger sheds some light on?
Bush Jr on announcing Kissinger's investigation into the September 11 attacks: "This commission will help me and future presidents to understand the methods of America's enemies and the nature of the threats we face... Dr Kissinger will bring broad (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.236)

		What does a Republican have to do to cause outrage? [was Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian...]
(...) I fear the strong pro-liberal media in the USA has struck again. I read this yesterday: It's a dirty business (URL) then it is extraordinary what you do and don't hear in the US at present. Last Thursday, as predicted in this column a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 2.236)

		Re: People are idiots...
(...) I agree. But I'm not one bit surprised. ;( BTW: Who is the bigger worry: the buyers or the sellers? I expect at least some of the parts for sale will be “Ford” rather than “NASA” ;) (...) Indeed. In a way this is different to those who were (...) (22 years ago, 4-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 2.230)

		Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
(...) Or they have to recognize their desires as destructive and seek to curb them. (...) I agree, but I don't see why stewardship rather than ownership necessarily decreases your ability to enjoy privacy. (...) You are in effect saying that the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 2.230)

		Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
(...) Wicked, yes, probably; good? arguable I suppose; just? Hmm.. hard to say. I think I would call it just. (...) Well-- here's an issue, obviously. If you could create humans who didn't have an innate desire for control, then sure, the system (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 2.229)

		Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
(...) Not a right to support (at least in any but the vaguest of senses) just a right to a place. In what I understand of libertopia, it would be theoretically possible for one person to buy up all the land and not allow anyone else to be there. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 2.229)

		Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
(...) Yeah, that baffles me, too. For any physical entity or object, it seems that "existence" doesn't simply imply "a place to exist," it expressly includes a place to exist. Not necessarily this plot of land or that particular country, but (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 2.229)

		The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
(...) Buried in that other people aren't contributing their thoughts because they're too wrapped up in the more emotionally satisfying debates about unsolvable situations in the Middle East? Or buried in that _you_ are too busy in the other thread? (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 2.229)

		Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
(...) I think we need to hold people to some standards. Let's assume that the right to exist does require us to provide minimal support to all. Now, take someone who takes their monthly check and spends it all on booze. Should we give them a bigger (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, property
(score: 2.229)

More: Next Page >>