Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 31

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 20 May 2009, 00:07 · from 2009-May.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 17:07:46 -0700
Subject: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 31
In-Reply-To: <9798.67.142.130.18.1242777917.squirrel at brunians.org>
References: <mailman.69196.1242771110.12296.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
	<ccc836b60905191514j159ebb14if6202d36f1f092db at mail.gmail.com>
	<12105.67.142.130.18.1242771658.squirrel at brunians.org>
	<93d4039f0905191525k3932cd2qfc00117804dc6ea9 at mail.gmail.com>
	<7505.67.142.130.18.1242771998.squirrel at brunians.org>
	<93d4039f0905191537n66f10eeftcae2f5763cb1eb2f at mail.gmail.com>
	<9798.67.142.130.18.1242777917.squirrel at brunians.org>
Message-ID: <1f7617370905191707p379be3a3g61bb203df9ebf06b at mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM,  <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

> My position is that it is that people should be secure in the possession
> of their property, and if you are going to change the definition of
> property you need to compensate those who will lose by it.

Perhaps you can bolster this by

A) defining "property," and
B) explaining whence the right to have and be secure in it derives,
particularly if you can do so without reference to any government or
contrait sociale.


-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net