On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:23 PM, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> wrote: > > “…Broadly speaking, laws defending ownership stimulate economic > growth.” – DJ > > Don, quit true! And, let us not forget the rest of that equation, laws > defending ownership stimulate poverty.
Nein. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/05/12/leif-wenar/we-all-own-stolen-goods/ Very long but interesting. Trashes Bush and America in general. You should enjoy it. ;-) dj > > > On Jul 30, 3:43 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't know the show or the character of the investigator but I'd >> guess it was just a way to differentiate his victim(the one he's >> assigned to) from some other murdered person. I don't see it as >> claiming ownership. My brother, my sister, my school, my band, my job >> etc. Doesn't so much claim ownership but more like claims belonging >> and/or allegiance. >> >> I have learned it's generally not a good idea to grow attached to >> 'things.' The only thing I might dash into a burning building to >> retrieve is my guitar. A Gibson acoustic given as a wedding gift from >> my wife. Beautiful mellow tonal quality. Superbly unique as well. >> I'd never seen anyone with one until The Edge played one just like >> mine at a late night U2 appearance on The Conan O'Brien Show a few >> years ago. Judging by the serial number mine was the second one made. >> I wouldn't take 10 thousand for it but I'm sure it's probably only >> worth 2 or 3. I love that guitar and it is MINE. >> >> Now, when we get into property rights or Bush's theme of an 'ownership >> society' we are talking about a whole different ball of wax I'm >> assuming Fran wasn't really referring to. Someone has already stated >> the relationship to freedom. This link helps describe some of the >> reasons I happen to agree with this connection. Broadly speaking, >> laws defending ownership stimulate economic growth. >> >> http://www.heritage.org/index/Default.aspx >> >> dj >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:50 AM, deripsni<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I repeat, its the teams job, with the help of the community. If the >> > lead investigator wants to the take the input and help of others and >> > make it his/her own, in my mind thats the actions of an insecure >> > person enforcing their position. If you prefer to see it differently, >> > thats okay ;-] >> >> > On Jul 29, 7:47 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Could it possibly be you are taking that innocent little phrase a >> >> tad too far? The lead investigator is in charge. I am grateful that >> >> they take a strong personal responsibility to find out not only what >> >> happened but to catch the murderer. To bring in the OJ case seems an >> >> odd support piece of your argument. Catching the suspect with enough >> >> evidence to go to court with is the guy's job, and that is the >> >> beginning of justice yes, but not the final result. >> >> >> On Jul 29, 1:00 pm, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > A homicide investigation typically involves many people, not just the >> >> > lead investigator. He/She gets assigned to the case and its a team and >> >> > community effort, not one persons. There is no "I" in team. Calling >> >> > the victim "mine" seems to negate the involvement of the team and the >> >> > community, without which many crimes would not get solved. Although >> >> > the investigator may be on a truth finding mission, unfortunately >> >> > justice isn't a police function, but a function of the court. Police >> >> > worked very hard on the OJ case, but was justice a result of their >> >> > efforts? >> >> >> > On Jul 29, 2:38 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > Although I agree with your view on ownership, I do not agree at all >> >> > > with the following: >> >> >> > > On Jul 29, 5:04 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > For example, on the "First 48" show the other day, the lead >> >> >> > > > homicide detective referred to the person who had been murdered as >> >> > > > "my >> >> > > > victim". Pesonally, I would think that if ownership of the victim >> >> > > > were >> >> > > > allotted to anyone, it would be family members. I think it would be >> >> > > > safe to say that the person who said this is dwarfed by insecurity >> >> > > > and/ >> >> > > > or carried away by a need to reinforce his position of power. >> >> >> > > I don't see it that way in the least. This is a guy who is >> >> > > commited to finding the killer of this person. He has made it his >> >> > > personal mission, he has "owned" that responsibility and takes it >> >> > > very seriously. Nobody else is going to do that job but him. The >> >> > > family is not equipped to do it. He is providing a service of truth >> >> > > finding and justice. Saying it another way might actually make it >> >> > > easier to not take it so seriously. "It is just another victim" for >> >> > > example.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
