Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:15:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <tim@x22> To: ML Duke <mlduke@resumes-by-duke.com> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970725235739.203A-100000@x22> In-Reply-To: <33D97B7E.D1648961@resumes-by-duke.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, ML Duke wrote:
> I found your response difficult to believe, which is to say it
> challenged my imagination to actuallypicture someone in my mind
> who could say it. The point should be self-evident, but I'll try.
I don't believe jkh is the first to suggest such a thing. How
serious he was can also be questioned, too.
> What is it that you like to do, want to do or enjoy doing that, were one
> special interest group or another were to manage to have a law passed
> against it, (the point of the gun) that it would cause you distress?
Jordan was trying to convince a sufficient majority of the
population of the US that they should enact a law preventing the 50%
- 1 minority of the US from having children. If Jordan were, by
himself, trying to have a law passed against reproduction I would
agree with you, however, this is not what he was doing; rather, he
was trying to convince a majority of people that they, as a
majority, should enact this law. If we were to believe that any
person espousing a minority view is not allowed to speak, then this
would be, well, ...bad.
> It is compulsory that we do not kill another human being, that we
> do not violate anothers natural property rights nor interfere in
> anothers activities as long as that person is not harming another
> (and acts of mutual consent do not apply here).
If you and I were to live on a 10x10 metre island, and you were to
go and have 15 children, I would probably be tempted to accuse you
of violating my natural rights. Or does this not count? Is it that
you are not allowed to take rights from me by means of force,
threats, etc., but if you do it by having sex, it's ok?
(Addendum: this is a single-story island :)
> The above are in keeping with the natural goodness of our natures,
> not to say that many do not violate their own natures on a regular
> basis. Those would would pass into law compulsory measures, for
> example.
I absolutely love the term "natural goodness of our nature". I
mean, some people just thrive on terms like that! It is natural for
people to start killing each other when they are overpopulated.
This is natural, and it is good (since it prevents even more deaths
due to overpopulation). Therefore, it would seem that your
paragraph previous to the above is wrong.
I'm not sure how much I should say in response to "natural property
rights", either. :)
--
Tim "let-the-thread-die" Vanderhoek
OPTIMIZATION: the process of using many one-letter variables names
hoping that the resultant code will run faster.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970725235739.203A-100000>