lookin' for common ground
 

a little exercise in commonality

questions: I ask, you answer

no war: just a sequence of statements & inquiry to find a little commonality

-----

An individual has a right to his life, his liberty, his property.

Don't nitpick & dissect now (we can do that later), just -- as you like -- gimme a 'yes' or 'no'.

I don't see a question.

:P

restated, for the disabled
 

Define 'property' - without that definition no sensible answer can be made.

for the nitpicky who already know this...
 

Property: that which a person owns acquired through trade (your chair for my flute?), transaction (your chair for $50?) or manufacture (go pound sand, I made my own chair).

Life: the existence (the day-to-day comings and goings, the activities and pursuits) of an individual human being, the singular, on-going event that is the individual, the person.

Liberty: the quality or state of being free (to come and go, to be active, to pursue goals as one sees fit in accordance with one's conscience), unregulated by the other.

Property acquired through inheritance is not acquired through trade, transaction, or manufacture. Property can also be acquired illegally. Property can also be acquired illegally and subsequently acquired through inheritance.

If you're implying that these rights would be "under all circumstances, without exception," then I have to say no.

Of course, everyone agrees that there are exceptions, but we don't agree what the exceptions are. That's why it isn't simple and that's why simplistic models fail to describe reality, and therefore fail to provide an adequate roadmap for navigating reality. Consideration of nuance is always going to be necessary.

for the nitpickers who already know this...
 

Property: that which a person owns, acquired through trade (your chair for my flute?), transaction (your chair for $50?), gift (here, have my chair.) or manufacture (go pound sand, I made my own chair), but not through theft (gimme your chair!).

Life: the existence (the day-to-day comings and goings, the activities and pursuits) of an individual human being, the singular, on-going event that is the individual, the person.

Liberty: the quality or state of being free (to come and go, to be active, to pursue goals as one sees fit in accordance with one's conscience), unregulated by the other except where one physically interferes with another (unjust regulation or deprivation of another's life, liberty, property).


c'mon, you legalistic bastids...nitpick some more...I can take it...I'll outlast all you sons of bitches

Your slave for my coin.

[eta] Saw your post after I posted mine :P

Ok. Define theft - rather, define the statute of limitation on theft?

In most respects I agree there are fundamental human rights - of which the right to life, the right to pursue 'happiness' - I use that in the original sense of the word - and the right not to have either your property unfairly taken, or your liberty unfairly constrained are fundamental

But - as has been pointed out, people draw the lines very differently when it comes to delineating what is or is not fair, what is or is not reasonable.

We are social animals and profoundly complex ones at that. We exist in a social compact - multiple overlapping and competing compacts, some chosen some inherited and often contested.

We can boil these things down to a sentence or two, or a list enshrined, but each one will have a library of books of interpretation - and they should.

"Your slave for my coin."
 

[b]An individual has a right to his life, his liberty, his property.[\b]

That some choose to violate the right of a man to his life, his liberty, his property (through theft, through murder, through slavery) doesn't invalidate the (moral) principle, the statement.

It simply means some folks are low down motherfuckers and a person really needs to keep his eyes open and watch his back.

In other words: your little observation ("Your slave for my coin.") is already addressed in An individual has a right to his life, his liberty, his property.

So: no gold star for you, lil Miss Nitpick.

Oops! 13 posts later, and our perfect society has devolved into a free-for-all hellscape where the strong openly prey on the weak. Sorry, weaklings, life/liberty/property is reserved for the mightiest of the mighty--try again next life.

"Define theft - rather, define the statute of limitation on theft?"
 

I defined theft (broadly and simply)...go take a gander.

And we haven't even got out of the startin' gate cuz of all the *nitpickin', so I won't be forced to jump ahead into limits on theft.

Work with what you got, or take a flyin' leap.

#

"Sorry, weaklings, life/liberty/property is reserved for the mighty--try again next life."

Doesn't have to be that way, and you don't need 10,000 laws/regs to get sumthin' better, but if you think you need to straightjacket yourself to straightjacket the bad actors then that's what you'll do (as I say: you trade off autonomy to preserve autonomy).

Can't reason with crazy.

#

"We can boil these things down to a sentence or two, or a list enshrined, but each one will have a library of books of interpretation - and they should."

Yeah, sure, but you can't even get out of the starting gate (or, rather, you can but just don't wanna). And: I asked a question...not seein' that I enshrined anything. I asked a question that you all have a ready answer for ('cept you won't offer that answer cuz -- as I say below -- you're fuckin' with me).












*which I don't believe is real...none of you are stupid...you all know exactly what i'm askin' about...all this legalistic crap is you just fuckin' with me...fine by me, dipshits..we'll play it out to this thread's sad little conclusion (consultin' my crystal ball: there ain't no common ground [cuz you don't want there to be any])