Re: Historical comparisons
- From: royls@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 04:27:43 GMT
On 9 Mar 2006 15:40:59 -0800, "William Mook"
<william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[hissy fit deleted]
Translation: you know have been demolished, and have no answers.
Please answer this question with something more than, "I already stated
the obvious" or some similar nebulous claim;
If a free and open and diverse and robust market exists in the buying
and selling natural resources how can any one person or group in that
market be privileged?
As I said before:
Everyone who owns them is privileged, because others must pay them for
access to what nature provided for free -- and which they have every
right to use, because they have rights to life and liberty. The
owners are thus getting something for nothing at the expense of
others, the very essence of privilege.
As I already explained (and you deleted unanswered, and apparently
unread) the existence of a market in privileges does not mean they are
not privileges. The existence of a market in slaves did not mean that
their owners were not privileged. The existence of a market in taxi
medallions does not mean they are not privileges. The existence of a
market in licenses to steal would not mean they were not privileges.
And the existence of a market in private titles to natural resources
does not mean they are not privileges.
Answer this fully and honestly with peer reviewed references and I will
take back all the bad things I said and thought about you! lol.
?? "Peer-reviewed references"? LOL! Are you really unable to
understand the self-evident and indisputable facts I identified above
unless they appear in a peer-reviewed journal? Which peer-reviewed
journals do you think focus on research into what's privilege and what
isn't?
Geez...
-- Roy L
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Historical comparisons
- From: William Mook
- Re: Historical comparisons
- References:
- Re: Historical comparisons
- From: royls
- Re: Historical comparisons
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Re: Historical comparisons
- From: royls
- Re: Historical comparisons
- From: William Mook
- Re: Historical comparisons
- From: royls
- Re: Historical comparisons
- From: William Mook
- Re: Historical comparisons
- From: royls
- Re: Historical comparisons
- From: William Mook
- Re: Historical comparisons
- From: royls
- Re: Historical comparisons
- From: William Mook
- Re: Historical comparisons
- Prev by Date: Re: Bigelow launch vehicle mistake
- Next by Date: Re: Lunar Space Elevator simply isn't for everyone
- Previous by thread: Re: Historical comparisons
- Next by thread: Re: Historical comparisons
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|