[at-l] Property rights, aka showing my own level of ignorance

[lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Parker)]

Phil,

You were headed in the right direction...

> What is "right" is defined by morals and ethics.  Something higher and
> greater than most of us can agree on universally.

But then you lost it...
 
> "Rights", however, are defined by law.  Laws are defined by 
> governments,however fallible they may be.  

[SNIP]

> The government will define my rights, and redefine my rights,
> according to some structure that is at least acceptable enough to the
> general population for the government to maintain itself. That doesn't
> always satisfy my own preferences as an individual, but it is 
> necessary for the continued existence of a relatively stable society.

This part is simply not true, it is close in a somewhat nihilistic way, but
still not true. "Rights" as in "The Bill of..." are defined by the People.
The "government" did not exist when this was written. The government did not
define those rights. They were defined by people, like you and I. Those same
people also built in some protection mechanisms whereby it is extremely
difficult to change those rights without the agreement of a LOT of people.
They realized that failing to do so would produce that "unstable society"
you were alluding to. The words of Patrick Henry were probably fresh in
their minds...

Yes, you are right that some individuals (such as yourself perhaps) will not
always be satisfied, but there was also something in there about the "common
good".

> We all live on stolen land...

Of course we do, that has been true of every person since people existed. So
why cry about it?

Lee I Joe


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  application/ms-tnef
---