Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
The post I replied to (from goodsamaritan IIRC) suggested that rights didn't matter, he had $100, no longer has it, and wants it back.
If getting it back is the important thing, and rights are unimportant, then he shouldn't have any problem getting it back in the easiest way possible. Dollars are fungible, and there's no rational reason to prefer one $100 bill over another.
[/ QUOTE ]
I already debunked this false dichotomy and yet you just keep repeating it.
He may want the $100 back because he wants to live in society where people don't take $100 from each other by force. Not because there is some "natural right" to that $100, but merely because he knows such a society leads to more prosperous and safe existences for most people. Letting people go around taking $100 with no consequences will not lead to this type of society. Nor will taking $100 bills from sleeping old ladies to make up for the $100 taken from you lead to such society.
It is mind boggling that for someone who pops off so much about "consistency" can't see the consistency in such action. When I first started posting here, I thought you were relatively intelligent but the more you post the more you disprove my assertion. Is this argument really so deep that you still fail to grasp it or are you intentionally being obtuse because you don't like that it challenges your axiom regarding property? ... An axiom which you often claim you don't purport but your posts show otherwise.
|