Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
I don't really have any commentary to add specifically on property rights, but i think it's important to comment on this statement.
How is it not useful to a political discussion to note how rhetorics are constructed? Property rights, or any other idea, does not naturally have a framework in place to discuss it. In the west, we primarly have chosen to operate on an assumption of indivual rights to ownership as negotiated by law. This doesn't stike me as a particularly "natural" assumption...and i see no reason to treat it like an invented concept. This of course, does not mean it is without merit. It may be the best invented concept among many...though i happen to think otherwise.
So yes...i think it's entirely appropriate to see how these concepts are justified, explained, and constructed. That is the debate...
A pity you got flamed back on that response you gave, but to be honest...i think your dismissal was a bit quick.
|
I think it is indeed useful. But as I read and understand his post, he seem predisposed, nay scornfull, towards any framing that goes against what he considers to be the proper framing:
Quote:
one plausible way seems to be blaming the activist judges. or the overreach of the federal government or judiciary.
how this is handled and rationalized is most interesting to me...
|
At least, that is one way this passage could be understood.
But instead of taking a step back and looking at how else his post could have been reasonably intrepreted, he chose to flame.
The funny thing is, that I understood his post perfectly and could have agreed with most of it. How a debate is framed is half the battle in any contest, but without more clarification from him, I don't see why he got so huffy when I intrepreted some ambiguous lines of his in a particular way.