Chomp Chomp Chomp ...
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
> > Jim Choate wrote:
> >
> > I disagree. Life <> Property. One can have life with absolutely no
> > property. One can not have property without life.
>
> Simple proof using reductio ad absurdam:
Your example is absurd, I agree. And easily proven to be false.
> Let us assume you are correct, and the right to life does NOT imply any
> right to property.
An individual has a right to life, they have a right to eat, sleep, etc.
> Consider the following hypothetical (but feasible) scenario:
But now you've changed the game, instead of talking about the rights of
the individual you are now talking about the consequences of n-party
interactions. Not the same thing at all. Your argument is a strawman.
> A stalks B. Whenever B acquires food or drink, A deprives him of it. B
> has no right to property, so A has done no wrong.
Ah, you agree then that 'property right' has to do with self defence which
requires two (2) parties. If there is no second party to take the property
there is nothing to defend against and hence the concept of 'property'
within the context of the individual becomes moot.
Hence, right to life is not congruent to property rights (which is an
individual right even if no other people are around). But rather
property rights ARE congruent to self defence rights (which makes no
sense if no other people are around).
In other words, a single individual has no property rights but rather
those rights come out of the interaction of one or more individuals.
--
____________________________________________________________________
James Choate - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ssz.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
