My first post was fucking with you. My second was a genuine attempt to discuss the question.

I should have the ability to get a restraining order on my emotional abuser. So, still no.

Henry, you think the world is black and white and every person who points out a shade of gray is a nitpicker.

Maybe not, but you do need some. Deciding on the range between "zero" and "ten thousand" is the conversation we must have, in order to maintain a civilization. There's no way to avoid that.

Dana: My first post was fucking with you. My second was a genuine attempt to discuss the question.

Thanks for admittin' that. I'll address your 'genuine attempt' down-post.

#

clod: I should have the ability to get a restraining order on my emotional abuser.

No. You have the ability to end abuse (emotional, physical) right now. You just won't take the bull by the balls and 'do' it. As you like.

#

glatt: Henry, you think the world is black and white and every person who points out a shade of gray is a nitpicker.

Nope.

#

Flint: you do need some (laws/regs).

Yeah, I know.

I've said the same, more than once ('sensible, minimal': ring a bell?)

##

Genuine attempts: I was pretty hot when I signed off. 'Hot' cuz I was certain I was bein' fucked with. I chilled and realized I wasn't bein' fucked with. Dana's comment about her genuine attempt concreted that realization. You folks are't nit pickin'.

No, things are much worse.

See, when someone asks me a question, I just answer. I don't ask for defintions or clarifications cuz I figure if the questioner has narrow definitions he'll incorporate them into the question.

What I expected when I asked Does an individual have a right to his life, his liberty, his property? were for folks to just tell me what they thought. I expected some to say 'yes', some to say 'no', and some to drone on. Instead I got folks clarifying to me, assuming what I meant, and bein' clever tryin' to trip me up.

Not one actual answer, not one actual 'this is what I think'.

You're all intelligent, well-read, educated folks. Unfortunately you're all also 'consequentialists'. When it comes to 'life, liberty, property' you have no moral principle. Rights, except as legal matters, don't exist for you. It's all 'utilitarianism' to you.

So: no, we have no common ground, no commonality.

Maybe not in politics.

I like pizza. Do you like pizza?

If it had been life, liberty, and pursuit of punani, I would've been all in.

Property; however, is something you can lose half of if you get divorced. Then there's that gov't right to eminent domain confliction (kinda like the gov't divorcing you). Other than that, possession is 9/10ths of the law.

glatt: Maybe not in politics. I like pizza. Do you like pizza?

See, this thread ain't about politics. That you think it is, that you think 'life, liberty, property' is political...well, that's what utilitarianism, communitarianism does to a mind.

As for pizza: yep.

#

sexobon: If it had been life, liberty, and pursuit of punani, I would've been all in. Property; however, is something you can lose half of if you get divorced. Then there's that gov't right to eminent domain confliction (kinda like the gov't divorcing you).

Ain't no right to pussy.

Divorce: pick better, be nicer, or cover your ass in advance.

Eminent domain: theft (or, coercion), pure and simple.

But there's a right to pursue it, as I said.

Most people aren't clairvoyant. Shit happens even in the best of scenarios.

Your property rights are limited to the market value of your property. Try filing an insurance claim, on something that's lost/stolen/damaged, and demanding to be compensated for sentimental value.

It's not a yes or no question, so the only yes or no (no) answer you got had the caveat "under all circumstances, without exception".

You stipulate that laws are needed, however minimal. Laws may protect life, liberty, and property, but they necessarily also restrict liberty and usually do so by threatening life, liberty, and/or property.

So, I'll agree with the previous yes or no answer- are they absolute rights? No. And add the converse: Are they rights of people subject to due process of law? Yes. The disagreement is in what the laws are.

But that's what everyone's been saying in this thread.

et tu, sex? all is lost! despair, all who enter!
 

"But there's a right to pursue it, as I said."

Yep, my mistake.

#

"Most people aren't clairvoyant. Shit happens even in the best of scenarios."

Yep, that's why I said 'cover your ass in advance' (pre-nup, anyone?)

#

"Your property rights are limited to the market value of your property."

Indeed, but irrelevant. Eminent domain isn't gov askin' to buy your land. E.D. is gov takin' your land. You get 'market value': big deal. If you didn't wanna sell, you were coerced, you were robbed (of choice, of dignity, of volition).

"It's not a yes or no question"

Not for the consequentialist, no.

#

"The disagreement is in what the laws are."

The disagreement (between us) is far deeper and wider than that.

1. Property doesn't make the priority cut to be in the same category as Life and Liberty. It didn't make the top three in the Declaration and it doesn't today.

2. If you're that dependent on property, you're not as independent as you think you are. You're not as independent as I am.

3. Adapt; or, fall by the wayside.

/------------NOTHING FOLLOWS-------------/

Or for anyone who recognizes the need for laws.Your language is more grandiose, I suppose.

"/------------NOTHING FOLLOWS-------------/"

bye

#

"Your language is more grandiose, I suppose."

bye-bye