🚀 go-pugleaf

 
 
In ca.politics dlow@ppg01.sc.hp.com (Danny Low) said: 
 
 
>Jim Barrett (jimbar@tuna.hooked.net) wrote: : I'm not exactly sure what
you are  
>saying here. It seems that you believe 
>: that it is ok to take something as long as the concept of being "took"
is 
>: not understood by those from whom you are taking. This would seem to
imply 
>: that taking the proverbial "candy from a baby" is morally acceptable. In
my 
>: ethical system the opposite is true.  
> 
>You are wrong. The concept is that taking require the other claim it as
their  
>own. This REQUIRES UNDERSTANDING of the issue and a decision that it does
not  
>matter. So your "candy from a baby" is totally wrong. If we both see $10
lying  
>on the ground and I decide that it is not worth it for me to pick it up
and you  
>pick it up, that is not a taking. 
 
 
 
The "American Indian" certainly had a different understanding of property
that we do. You seem to imply that they really didn't want the land. This
is false. 
 
 
 
>: Secondly, the notion that the Indigenous peoples of North America were
ever 
>: "justly compensated" for what was taken from them is not true.  
>: ...In the 
>: 20th century the U.S. federal courts decided that the land had been
stolen 
>: and the treaty had been illegally broken by the US.  
> 
>Justice was certainly served by the ruling. As for the "justness" of the  
>compensation, that is still an open case. So you cannot make any
definitive  
>statement about it yet. It may be impossible to make "just" compensation  
>without imposing an injustice to others. Creating an injustice to make
"just"  
>compensation is injust. 
 
 
 
---- 
If there is no "justness" to justice it is unjust and therefore not
justice. What are you talking about? 
 
 
---- 
 
 
>: What we have is a sequence of events characterized by injustice, greed, 
>: shortsightedness and absolute disregard for other humans and the planet.

>: The only time the notion of private property is important is when it is 
>: your property. When the property belongs to others, especially those of 
>: other cultures, or when the property belongs to all of us it is often of

>: little relevence.  
> 
>The problem with environmentalists is they consider anybody's property to
be  
>theirs to do with in the name of saving the planet. Private property is a 

>restraint that prevents them from running over everyone in the name of The
 
>Cause. It is a needed restraint as I have not seen anything that indicates
 
>environmentalists are infallible. 
> 
-------------------- 
 
No I don't. I think that we can use private property to protect the planet.
This statement by you contradicts much of what I said. Who ever said that
anyone was infallible?