Re: Definition of "rich"?

Just Cocky <just@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:28:47 +0200, peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Bjørn
Perlsø) wrote: > >Just Cocky <just@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >>
Posession of natural resources is a natural relationship arising between
humans and the land/resources. Nothing untoward about that. >> >> >
I don't deny the natural relationship between Human and
Nature. What I >> >> deny is that there are moral arguments for the
completely exclusionary >> >> use of natural resources at all times. As
such, this relationship >> >> cannot be interpreted as a right, in the
moral sense. It can still be >> >> a right in the political sense for the
reasons outline above, though. >> > >> >My question is just this: Who
would you have stewarding the equal >> >distribution of, if not the
resources/lands themselves, the the rent >> >value or part of the profits
from the resources/lands? >> > >> >> Ultimately, whoever has the biger
guns! >> >> In an organized society, I'm pretty sure the people would
delegate >> that job to whatever Government they had. > >I'll make sure I
have a rocket launcher for when the slavers come >knockin' >

I have no moral objection to that.

I have no moral objection to killing slavers, either. Not even if they
say they're from the tax department.

-- regards, Peter Bjørn Perlsø
http://haxor.dk http://liberterran.org http://haxor.dk/fanaticism/
.

Quantcast