Debate : Search Results: all rights are property rights


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

Results 81 – 100 of about 12000.

Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Misperceptions of America (Was: Conversation w/ a LEGO Rep)
(...) I don't mind the US government helping other countries in time of need, I mind people, such as yourself, calling the US selfish because we will not finance everyone's desire. Like I said before, it is the taxpayers money, not the governments, (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.268)

		Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
(...) Yeah, I snipped a bunch from of things from here, the problem seems that the message's length grows exponentially as more and more points arise that we want to respond to... then everything gets included for reference... etc. There was a bunch (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.268)

		Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
(...) My original point was to figure out your stance on morality. Your initial posts seemed rather ignorant of charity, and focused on justice solely. More specifically, on consequences of actions. Anyway, yeah, the point modified itself. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.265)

		Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
Warning: LONG MESSAGE! (...) Yep. As I said before, I was curious as to whether or not this was more a straight consequentialist argument or one of both consequence and underlying morality. I didn't see the morality put forth directly, just kind of (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.264)

		Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) on (...) don't (...) it (...) and (...) migrated. (...) in (...) OK, your original point was to show that morally we could decide which person deserved the bread, and I pointed out that it is very hard, with (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.264)

		Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color))
<37D44B67.BC996AD6@voyager.net> <FHtIB8.M2G@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I'm replying to you in this thread so it may seem like I'm picking on you. I don't intend that it seem that way (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.264)

		Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color))
<37D44B67.BC996AD6@voyager.net> <FHpz7x.MKI@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Good, I am glad that you feel that way, it's a stance I've sort of started to take without getting a lot of (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.264)

		Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color))
(...) But Larry appears to be making what to me look like some rather strange connections. Leaving aside the question of the morals of taxation - which I'll comment on below, we have: 1. I have consistently argued that it is right for Governments to (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.264)

		Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
(...) This is why Libertarianism breaks down because mean people suck. Not all people are good. If everyone had a good heart, people would be able to respect property rights AND each other's needs as well. But as it is, a heartless Bunghole is (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.261)

		Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
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 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.257)

		Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
(...) No no. I didn't agree to that at all. Your question was "What sorts of rights are not property rights but do not require force initiation?" Eliminating answers simply because they fail the force-initiation test is begging the question. I (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.255)

		Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
(...) Well, I think my view on it is that it's required in order to be moral... We don't 'require' people to be moral, but if they're not, then people like me call them jerks. They're not unjust, per se; they are certainly within their rights, but (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.254)

		Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
I see at least four distinct potential abilities related to property. I don't believe that any of these can be derived from any other. These may or may not be things that one can do with property (or, ahem, properties of property), and there may or (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.252)

		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: 4.248)

		Matthew jumps in (was Re: Goodness of Man?, etc.)
(...) I don't understand the basis for the assertion that property rights are the basis for all other rights. Where do property rights come from? What makes that a privledged right above any other I can imagine? Arguments for this I've seen that I (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.247)

		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: 4.246)

		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: 4.246)

		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: 4.245)

		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: 4.245)

		Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
(...) OK, it's as voluntary as anything ever is. I don't feel responsible to make things better than they can be. (...) Well, I don't think anyone is harmed - unless I spend so much that I can't buy groceries. So the net benefit of the transactions (...) (25 years ago, 18-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

all, rights, property
(score: 4.245)

More: Next Page >>

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