Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (89432)	11/23/2004 2:10:28 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I argue that rights are pretty much whatever society says they are (they are, after all, imaginary human constructs- unless one believes in objective rights that exist in some sort of Platonic fairyland- I can't say I believe that). The history of American property rights, while fascinating, really didn't have much to do with the general argument I was making. I am saying that their could be two groups of people imagining they have a right in this area, the actual history of property rights probably doesn't affect the feelings and beliefs of the people engaged in imagining their rights- it might affect what government does, but then again, it might not, since governments make some pretty wild departures from the existing order ever now and again (and actually there could be more than just the two groups, but let's confine ourselves to what has passed on this thread). There are 1. People who feel they have the right to hunt (on private property, on government property with permits- whatever- throwing in the notion of private and public property rights was not in my equation, and it's just another layer of legal make believe. After all, if the government comes with tanks to say you have no property rights, effectively you have no property rights. So, again, you have the rights given to you, the rights you can exercise- that's all I'm saying) 2. People who feel they have the right to protect animals- on private property, on public property- where ever. I say these two groups are in conflict, and that they could each imagine they have rights, and, if they could affect legal change, they both could have rights. That's all I'm saying. Nothing more. And yes, it's complex. I don't know if you'd have to compensate people for a failure of an opportunity to hunt because, for example, the deer were on birth control and didn't need killing. Selling that would be tough, imo, but then farmers get subsidies not to plant, so go figure.