Now I understand what Mike Lorrey is so upset about. I believe that the
concept of "Property Rights" is a fictional concept, more of a social
convention than something that exists whether we like it or not. Mike
Lorrey believes that Property Rights exist whether we like it or not because
of Natural Law. Because our difference of opinion, he considers me "evil"
and seeks to demonize my opinions and get me to stop discussing them on this
list as quickly as possible. Sounds like a good basis for a rational
discussion...
Related Philosophical Discusion:
As far as I can tell, all my concepts about the world are "fictional", in
the sense that I made them up as a convenient way of organizing my
experiences. I believe all concepts are essentially fictional for the same
I assert that the concept of property rights is a fictional concept, and I have backed up my assertion with the argument that all concepts are essentially fictional. I ask those who believe it is not a fictional concept to back up their positions, and since the position is that "Property Rights" exists independently of human thought, they must cite emperical evidence which supports the existence of "Property Rights". In other words, what evidence can we see around us that demonstrates that "Property Rights" exists?
I say "Property Rights" is a social convention, Mike Lorrey says it is Natural Law. I would appreciate it if Mike Lorrey would explain the concept of "Natural Law" to us, so we are clear on his meaning. However, I suspect it is essentially another fictional concept which Mike Lorrey finds convenient to justify his political views. Perhaps he can convince me otherwise. (and then I can have his "evil" label removed from me)
Thank you for your attention,
David_Musick@juno.com
our concepts about the world are not the world itself