Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 561 – 580 of about 12000.

Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		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: 0.802)

		Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
(...) To expand on my late-night thoughts: If the way we gain property is through "mixing of labor", or interaction [1], minds can't be property. I don't labor on my mind, and I don't interact with it. I am it. You might ascribe some sort of (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 0.802)

		Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
I realized that last night I failed to address an important question I'd raised earlier: (...) The ideas I've expressed <URL:(URL) apply only to the physical universe -- that is, matter (and potentially energy, because of that equivalence thing). (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 0.802)

		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: 0.802)

		Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
Ok. Here's some thoughts on answers to my own questions. I should start by saying that I'm not here assuming that property is a natural right -- it seems to be constructed. Nonetheless, much of this applies either way. I'd still like Larry and (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 0.802)

		W
I don't care how much of the Bill of Rights he's trashed, I don't care if he engaged in insider trading at Harken, I don't care that he's wholly in the pocket of corporate interests, I don't care if he sorted coke, or drove while under the influence (...) (22 years ago, 7-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 0.802)

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) Me: Right R exists. You: Right R interferes with property rights and therefore can't exist. Me: Wait, you haven't show that property rights exist. You: Yes I did; it's proven because (of a string of logic assuming) R doesn't exist. That's (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 0.802)

		Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
(...) That's not clear at all. The mind-as-software concept is one way it may possibly be, but that's actually a fairly radical view. It's something I'm agnostic about until we've got further information. In the meantime, this is such an important (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 0.802)

		Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
(...) I agree with you. I don't think that's the argument, though. I would expect that a defense of "we truly believed this was a good insulator, our research aligned with everyone elses" ought to carry some weight. Not get the company off scot (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 0.802)

		Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
(...) Well, if you are meaning a mind as different than a brain, I think it's safe to just call it an idea (in the context you use above). It's a complex bit of software. Whatever intellectual property rights arise from this whole discussion would (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 0.802)

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) It still shows some strange attachment to the concept of property. For one thing, what's this "trade" stuff? But more deeply, I think you're assuming that force necessarily relates to property. I don't think it must. For example, if it's in my (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 0.801)

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) I think I've addressed these to some degree in my other message. If there's more you'd like me to say, let me know. (...) Both property rights and morality are only meaningful in a social setting. A human being alone in the universe has need (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 0.801)

		Re: What Censorship Isn't
(...) From what (and how) I've read no-one has claimed that murfling is eroding anyone's rights. They have claimed that the term is a euphemistic way of saying censored and that the use of euphemism is bad (at least from my reading). From your (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.801)

		Re: What Censorship Isn't
(...) Todd coined it. Altho it has since become a "bad" word, he intended it to sound a little silly. The rest of the admins loved it, expecting that the community would accept it as a compromise between no cursing and free speech. It still amazes (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

rights
(score: 0.801)

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) For clarification -- I do assert that all the rights in my initial list pass the force-initiation test [1] (as Larry asked that they do) in the absence of at least one separate and additional property right. [1] although not necessarily any (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 0.801)

		Re: Liberalism: "Trojan-horse fascism without the jackboots"? [was What has to be the worst...]
After doing some 'brief' research... I just get more and more set that people are idiots (part 3). I'd include myself in this category 'cause I have done and said some very stupid things... but in here, in o-t.d we throw around ideas, we discuss, we (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights
(score: 0.801)

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) I'm not sure at what level of detail you want these answered, but I'll take a stab at it. (What does it mean to manipulate matter?) It means, at the most basic of levels, that I am exercising my will on my surroundings. (What does it mean to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 0.800)

		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: 0.800)

		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: 0.800)

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) Again, I'm not sure that I agreed that I had to show property rights exist... Let's put a pin in this whole discussion and go back a level. I may start a new thread and come back to this one when (if) we've satisfied what I feel the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 0.800)

More: Next Page >>

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