[MD] Coerce me? How?

[blue-jay maple]

Interesting M K.  What do you mean here below for law is moral.

M K
> Arlo's "property" is an abstract extension of Nick's "natural rights".
> 
> Logos and Bios are duelling for the hand of Ethos. A classical 
> moment brought to us by the Moq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 8:08:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Coerce me? How?
> 
> [Arlo previously]
> Let me try again. What makes your land YOURS, Nick. Just because 
> you say it is?
> 
> [Nick]
> Yes.  As simple as it sounds, that's the whole point and always has 
> been for centuries.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Oh, Nick. So close and yet so far. So its YOURS just because you 
> say it is. Let's say your neighbor says it is HIS? Who is right? 
> What legitimizes YOUR claim and makes his WRONG? C'mon, Nick, 
> you're close... you can do it.
> 
> [Nick]
> That's called stealing, but since you don't understand what 
> stealing is in the first place it's easy to see why you would 
> conclude this.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Why? You bought the land in a monetary transaction from me? Why 
> isn't it YOURS? So close, Nick, you can do it...
> 
> [Nick]
> But since you advocate government take-overs and stealing you would 
> repeat history.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Right. So its okay to benefit from stealing and murder, as long as 
> you didn't pull the trigger. But if someone tries to take what 
> you've acquired through murder and theft, that would be wrong. Got 
> it. Your NAP sounds mighty whacky, if this is what it preaches.
> 
> [Nick]
> Oh, so they didn't like stealing.  They recognized property.  Thank 
> you very much.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Ah, Nick, you keep coming so close, then falling back into your 
> haze. They didn't have a concept of "stealing". They didn't 
> recognize "property" in any manner similar to what you claim is 
> "natural". It was communal, tribal, things belonged to the tribe. 
> Their social agreements revolved around "need", not "mine". If you 
> needed that bow, you took it, used it and that was fine. "Land" 
> didn't belong to the tribe, the tribe belonged to the land, and 
> they defended it because of their spiritual history being part of 
> that land. It wasn't '"ownership", it was "being part of". This 
> keeps eluding you, but keep at it, you might get it one day...
> 
> [Nick]
> Read up on natural rights.  I posted a good article.  It will help 
> you understand.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I could read up on black helicopters and aliens under the ice cap 
> too, but that doesn't mean anything. Since you avoided my question, 
> I'll ask it again. Try to answer it Nick, you may learn something.
> 
> Do animals have a "natural right" to property? They are part of the 
> natural world, aren't they? They exist as biological beings just 
> like we do, don't they? If no, then why do humans but not animals? 
> Again, since you need a clue, the words "social" and "intellectual" 
> are in the answer. If yes, then why do you keep stealing land from 
> the animals, Nick, give it back. "Rights" are intellectual 
> patterns. They come from "man", not the natural world. And, in 
> modern times, these intellectual patterns have formed the basis for 
> our civil governance, a governance we created to give legitimacy to 
> our claims (of property, for one).
> 
> You are close, Nick, real close, keep at it... I have hope for you yet.
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

>


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com