tell, his logic is that the founding fathers, owners of only a tiny portion
of the property in the colonies and later the United States, made an
agreement that is legally binding for everyone, regardless of whether they
consented. Not only that, but the agreement binds all future residents and
visitors of the United States.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of kiddleddee
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:59 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity
--- In [email protected], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And your's fails where you assume that collective property is a
legitimate concept. There is no such thing as collective property
absent an initiation of force. And initiation of force is contra-
moral, and contra-libertarian.
>
> BWS
______________________________________________________________________
Partnerships, condominiums, etc. are a legitimate form of "collective"
property and that's all well and good. That's not the kind
of "collective" property Paul is talking about, I'm afraid.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
