-- On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Riad S. Wahby wrote:

...

Not at all. The distinction is in the same vein as the distinction between talking about something and actually doing it.

At 12:15 PM 9/28/2000 +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote:

I.e. you both evaluate actions as such, I tend to evaluate them based on their consequences.

Then, as other people have pointed out, you should evaluate yourself as a mass murderer.

I see that as an axiom which need not hold. OTOH, no point in debating axioms...

I have a theory that when people claim to adhere to moral axioms that manifestly they do not hold, they are up to something. At best, they are psychopaths, who lack moral intuition. At worst, they have done something or are about to do something, and are blowing smoke to cover their past actions or contemplated actions.

If everybody around you decides your shop is now a shared resource, it will be, by your definition. Since I view rights as highly relative, you cannot even call this thievery.

Like I said, psychopathy or evil. Is thievery. And in the past governmental theft of this kind has been accompanied by governmental murder about as often as private theft has been accompanied by private murder. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG azW5sqKyo2o4UImzIMwo0ftmf+HfnD8UzGRV8k+w 4O39UA5jNpTaa+M548Bq+iRNSiQrifrBls2fZ5DsJ