Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] The Local Gov't Fair Competition Act.

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Scott Chilcote <scottchilcote AT earthlink.net>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] The Local Gov't Fair Competition Act.
  • Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:38:50 -0400

Phillip Rhodes wrote:
I never said the Constitution made property a fundamental right, and I never will. And that's
because I hold that Constitutions don't grant rights, they simply affirm a subset of them.
Rights, such as the right to property, I personally property ownership hold to be such a fundamental and
inalienable right that it transcends the issue of Constitutions of governments. I believe
that all individuals are inherently sovereign and own what they own, and that all other rights
extend from property rights (eg, I own my body, so if you kill me you are damaging my property).

I'd argue that it takes an organized, cooperative society to recognize and respect individual property rights.

Without such an arrangement, what you own is highly negotiable. It consists of what you are capable of protecting, while you are conscious and present. Anything else is fair game for any competitor.

I don't think it was an accident that we and most other places that have high standards of living wound up with notions such as common good and fairness. These concepts may be heavily exploited and manipulated, but this doesn't negate their essential value.

If people did not band together to put out fires or chase off invasions, regardless of whether those threatened were able to pay for the honor, I think we would be a far less evolved species than we are today - if we existed at all.

So why should the notion of individual property, which is granted by a civilized society, have more value and meaning than requiring that each individual who benefits from their society should make a contribution to its continued success? If some or all of those members decided that they were no longer going to do anything to ensure that the society continues to prosper, then it will likely fail. And at the point at which it fails, then the property rights that it granted become moot.

--
Scott C.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page