Re: Definition of "rich"?




"Peter Bjørn Perlsø" <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1he5giq.1wu1x1fts9l5iN%peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:28:47 +0200, peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=) wrote:

Just Cocky <just@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:07:13 +0200, peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter
Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:

First come first serve is perfectly adequate justification for me.


The problem with "first come, first serve" is that it is arbitrary as
"second come, second serve" given that there is no moral
justification
for either.

I agree that there is no moral justification for taking something
others
own and have initially appropriated.

Because you have not thought the matter through.

And you alone are the one to share your all-knowing wisdom with poor me?
HA!

whats the matter ? can't address the actual point ?


Besides, the alternatives (collectivisation or government
intervention)
are repugnant.


In a libertarian world, it's only "Government intervention" *IF* the
people delegate to Government that job.

What makes you think that government wont damn well do what it pleases?
Do you really think government answers to anybody?

Oh, I get it. This is just more "me hate government" spew.

-- Roy L

Anybody who values life and liberty dislikes the government. If you
don't dislike the government, youre merely another thug who doesn't give
a *** about the Non-agression principle (NAP).

utter crap. you've already dis-qualified yourself, bullet-head.

--
R'zenboom


.

Quantcast