(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 31
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
danldo at gmail.com
Tue May 19 17:07:46 PDT 2009
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
> My position is that it is that people should be secure in the possession
> of their property, and if you are going to change the definition of
> property you need to compensate those who will lose by it.
Perhaps you can bolster this by
A) defining "property," and
B) explaining whence the right to have and be secure in it derives,
particularly if you can do so without reference to any government or
contrait sociale.
--
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
More information about the Urth
mailing list