Right, in this sense, aren't inherent. They're essentially limitations and obligations on the government and other tools of society.

In Britain we have the option to go for private health care. Private insurance costs a lot less than American health insurance. A huge 3% of the population take that offer.

Tessarakonteres was 128m long. And that had the requirement to be functional as a vessel rather, than just stay afloat. There are other possible reasons that the Wyoming had problems. The fact that the builders hadn't worked out the issues doesn't mean it's an engineering impossibility.

Would it be possible to build 4 vessels of 1/4 of the size of the ark? Would it be possible to link them together such that the flex is in the linkages. If so then it's at least theoretically possible to build a wooden vessel the size of the ark. Perhaps this is inconsistent with Genesis. But your claim is that it is completely impossible to build any wooden vessel of that size when obviously it is. You are now making a more specific claim, and using one failure to attempt to prove it.

I completely agree that it would have been impossible for Noah to have built the Ark at that time, but I don't accept that such a large wooden ship would be impossible. Can you prove that the Chinese treasure ships never existed?

It's way past time the US got rid of their government and replaced it with one that works for the betterment of society. Obamacare is a halfway solution that only exists because the government cares too much about business.

This is really a power that should be the responsibility of the states, not the federal government. But whoever does it, trying to apply it as a patch for the existing fully private system, when that system is completely dysfunctional is terrible. A sensible process would be to wind down the private insurers and replace them with a proper public health system.

You do, after all, just own your body and nothing else... everything else is provided by general consensus.

That's not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there's a consensus rather than an inherent right to own property in general, and land in particular. I'm happy to go along with that consensus since that more or less tallies with my view on ownership and property rights, as well as a societal responsibility to contribute to society.

Some people with a more Libertarian mindset don't accept this concept of society, yet still seem to want society to recognise the subset of those rights that happen to be beneficial to them.

But you didn't answer my question.Who was the original owner of the land, and how did they make it?

if you want or need something, you feel entitled to that item regardless of my wants and needs.

Only if I need it. If I want it then I'm out of luck

If you are in such a pickle that you are dying from thirst, you can ask me for water first and foremost, most people (including myself), will not deny you water because you are dying from thirst. You are not talking about me making a voluntary decision here, you are talking about using violence on the level of government to steal from me and to use all force needed to prevent me from protecting myself from this theft.

So you don't think the government should have power of life and death over you, but you are quite happy to have power of life and death over me. I'm not talking about government violence. I'm talking about personal violence. And I don't believe your claim of the abstract notion of "property" is greater than my claim on the abstract notion of "right to not die of thirst".

You can sell a kidney and buy a house,

From whom? Who did he acquire the land from? Who did the previous owner acquire the land from? The person before that? Who made the land?

there is no 'lease granted by government'

I didn't say it was. I said it was leased from society as a whole, but a leasehold is a specific legal concept, so it's more of a analogy. Society as a whole can ask for it back.

It has nothing to do with "government". The government is a bunch of people who are either working for the common good or should be removed, and replaced by people who are. Something I really think is long overdue in the US.

- obviously a system based on rule of law, private contracts, private security and private courts.

An intriguing idea. How does all that work? My initial thought would suggest that that means that justice is limited to the wealthy. After I steal your water, who do you go to for help?

Do your kidneys belong to you or not? If they do, then whatever time you spend working on things is time that your kidneys had to support as well

I don't see how the second follows from the first. The right to something isn't about who spend most time on it. If I am dying of thirst, and you are the only source of water, I have every moral right to acquire through any means short of killing you. I may own just compensation afterwards, but the compensation would be the minimum cost of replacement of a bottle of water.

Land is property like any other, it can be bought in exchange for your productive output

How do I produce more land? What do I make it from? Who made it in the first place? How did they make it? Who is the original owner of the land?

- you are not part of the state, whatever 'state' you are born in, you are not its part, you are not its property either. If a state takes your productivity against your own will (not by voluntary exchange), then it does own you.

Take the people from a state. What do you have?

I don't condone democracy, by the way, the rule of mob is not to my liking, the mob always ends up ruling the individual, stealing from the individual.

Neither do I. But it's a useful mechanism for allocating limited shared resources, such as land, and avoiding a tragedy of the commons type affair. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.

No. I made the case that society can terminate the lease of the land's current tenant under terms that are considered fair by society as a whole.

Since you would consider it unfair to turf the old people out of their hovel, and I agree, I think we can speculate that most of society would. Therefore we can't do this without paying them just and fair compensation for the termination of their use of the land. The societal benefit of the shopping mall is fairly minor compared with the societal benefit of the hovel to the old people so typically we can't do this even if we do pay compensation.

The problem here is you considering the government to be your rulers rather than administrators. We are the state. Not them.

Is it completely impossible that there would be some rubber-like pitch that it could be coated with that would solve this problem?

Just to be clear, I don't want to prove that this did happen. I'm just not convinced by claims that such a vessel would never be possible not matter how good a shipright you are. At the very least, you could construct it as several independent self-contained watertight sections, and allow for any flex in the joins between the sections. The problem is engineering, but that's largely limited by imagination.

I really think basic income is a completely different issue from the right to be forgotten. But I think it is an excellent idea in its own right. And I do agree that it deals with a symptom.

I wonder if you could deal with #3 by only supplying a first name and a unique business-only identifier. It wouldn't be secure against a determined effort to break the law, but casual curiousity would be more difficult, and a company at least wouldn't be able to have a policy of doing this.

Your private property is merely extension of your time on this planet, extension of your living self.

No it isn't. That's a ridiculous claim. But really I'm talking about ownership of land. This is what I usually understand by private property.

If the society does not accept that people must have the right to own and operate property without government interference,

The government is just administrators of the state. I am part of the state. The state doesn't own people. The state is people. If the government isn't working for you then I propose you get rid of it and replace it with one that will. If you live ina democracy, then that's great! You can vote for a new one. Otherwise you'll need to arganise a revolution. If you do that I'll write to my MP urging my government to keep out of your national uprising, but I can't make any promises about how everyone else in my country feels.

I believe I have the right ot private property based on a consensus of opioon of society. That consensus also says I'm obliged to pay taxes.

Ownership of manufactured goods, I see a rationale for. What about land? I didn't create it. Nor did the person I bought it from. As far as I can see, any land belongs to society as a whole. We give some people exclusive rights to their land for indefinite periods, so in that sense it belongs to them, but we as a society have the right to charge them a reasonable amount for the use of it.

Between Government ...

Now I'm confused. You're fine with people mooching off the state now?

It seems, your "starving" people are too stoned to realize they are hungry.

Well, they're not. They get government handouts. If we're giving handouts to those who don't work and can't work anyway, I see no reason this makes a difference.

Having been unemployed a few times myself, and not spent any money on pot, and not been able to get a job I was overqualified for, I kinda feel that your projudices aren't based on real world experience.

And yes, I realise that 99.9999 etc was an exageration. I just got a bit irked by your claim that the actual figure wouldn't be storable. This is Slashdot though; You should expect some pedantry :) Sorry.

4.6 billion, 46 billion - it's still only a few orders of magnitude we're talking about.

Give me reasonable estimated numbers for the size of the universe, and the habitable volume of the universe that makes your (100-10^-77)% instantly lethal even remotely accurate.

I addressed the volume of the universe. This is a value we have a reasonable accurate figure for. 4,600,000,000 ly or 440,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000m. That gives a total volume of 4/3.pi.r^3, which is 35 with another 79 zeroes after it. 1/(10^77)% of that is smaller than many buildings.