From: GBurch1@aol.com
Date: Sat Oct 19 1996 - 06:45:43 MDT
In a message dated 96-10-19 04:08:19 EDT, Oliver Seiler writes:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Ian Goddard wrote:
>
> > >From an Extropian angle, the self-animated theory of ownership may
> > be problematic because it invokes a kind of spiritual basis for rights.
> > But since rights are a mental construct, and so is, perhaps, the soul,
> > no big deal. ? Any ideas?
>
> I would also claim that ownership is a mental construct. In fact I
> might be pushed to argue (I'm kind of tired as I write this) that many
> of our "rights" follow from that concept we call ownership.
Up until a disk crash last weekend that has caused the loss of my mail
archive at least for the time being I would have been able to reconstruct the
dialogue we had some months ago about "rights". (I recall it was going on
right before the list changed platforms ...) I recall the dialogue had as
focii the "rights" of sub- and super-human entities, Ian's discussion of
rights and claims and others' commentary about the _recognition_ of claims by
others. Reference to the previous discussion is not made with intent to say
this is completely covered ground for previous subscribers, but I wonder if
anyone could unearth any of the posts from that earlier dialogue: Many of the
core values that make up the commonality that is "extropiansim" implicate
concepts of "rights". Discussion of this concept will inevitably come up
again and again. Perhaps someday we should attempt a manifesto: "The Rights
of Post-Man"?
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com> <burchg@liddellsapp.com>
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 or http://members.aol.com/gburch1
"If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us." -- Francis
Bacon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:48 MST