|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 1, 2007 13:29:37 GMT -5
Tryin'a make off with the Property Rights thread right under Tharrin and my noses, are you? Ain't gonna happen. We'll just come squat over here if you pull that stunt, dude! ;D
We don't need no stinkin' licenses!
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 1, 2007 14:52:01 GMT -5
I posted the image for the message it contains. But as to this "anti-capitalist", well me thinks I am one!   I like this phrase "another's real property is acquired without compensation"... where most land titles today did just that! (when one is willing to take it back far enough and equitably enuff) refthe Private Property thread/Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice/Proudhan's What Is Property?--or-- stay with the Capitalist's = Statist/Statust form Stat-US quo (and being "anti-Capitalist" does not necessarily equal "demand what I want"... yet today's land titles do! ie "demand what I want" = "defend what I've claimed/titled"?) seeVoltaire's admonition regarding "Capitalist" of course, of course~ |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 1, 2007 15:13:54 GMT -5
Six Simple Rules for a Complex World, by the Chicago law professor who's name escapes me at the moment, had some really interesting thoughts on the conundrum you espouse, 2i2. I did not agree with a lot of his conclusions, as I recall (it was a long time ago) but I found his thinking on the subject to be very worthwhile.
(Richard Epstein is the name.)
One of the points was that whatever happened in the past is over. Now is now. So how do we deal with what exists, since we can't change the past.
I think there is great wisdom in that idea.
Now all we need to do is to take Tharrin's plan and put it into action! ;D
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 1, 2007 15:44:46 GMT -5
One of the points was that whatever happened in the past is over. Now is now. So how do we deal with what exists, since we can't change the past.
I think there is great wisdom in that idea.
Now all we need to do is to take Tharrin's plan and put it into action! ;DI agree with that wisdom. Your quoting of it though, for me implies a mis-understanding of my point. I do not wish to "go back" in any literal form. I feel that going back far enough simply allows the mental "shaking" loose of a long buried dishonorable foundation. The "property" issue will be dealt with just as the State issue will be. I'll quote you for the answer: "There are only individuals". Add to that of course, honorable and dishonorable individuals... (where generally, dishonorable ones are simply one's that haven't thought through their position? where said thinking is usually more group think? including then group-education systems? State gets the mark?) |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on May 1, 2007 15:47:50 GMT -5
Just a quick reminder, the question is not "what was [im]moral in the long distant past" (i.e. stealing the land from the injuns etc.) but "what is [im]moral in the present -- which we can actually do something about". In other words, by being "anti-capitalist" these anarchists are anti-propertyrights (which is by extension anti-liferights, since property is an extension of your life force). Feel free to quote me ^ and destroy my position -- IN THE P.P. THREAD. |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 1, 2007 15:51:44 GMT -5
I'll quote you for the answer: "There are only individuals". UNFAIR, UNFAIR!!!! - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on May 3, 2007 10:21:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on May 3, 2007 12:25:12 GMT -5
Add to that of course, honorable and dishonorable individuals... (where generally, dishonorable ones are simply one's that haven't thought through their position? where said thinking is usually more group think? including then group-education systems? State gets the mark?) Stressing Honorable & Dishonorable. Cain & Abel. this is where interaction educations begin. I've said b4, how do you appease society when dealing with "one of a kinds"? I sure don't know how to even begin the structure for influencing a non- jealousy society. These things we know and desire have capability of influence to violence. I wonder if Molyneaux has an idea path of civility to trek. we do know that religion is a great tool as far as guidance strongholds go. can we structure something like a bill of rights ie: "Stay Beautiful and Keep with Earth" type of doctrine for all humanity to follow. How are fates decided when one does not meet these "Stay Beautiful" standards? Could you call it religion if it aligns every living entity. so in a world raised with no killing, no hardship, could it possibly muster a grain of selfishness? One of a kinds could get you there. P.S. right now, just concentrate on the hard-heads |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 3, 2007 13:28:13 GMT -5
...I wonder if Molyneaux has an idea path of civility to trek. Just in case you haven't got 'em: Stefan's Freedomain Forum & his Freedomain Podcast websites [<<===clik the links, of course]~ |
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on May 3, 2007 15:38:45 GMT -5
"The way I see it, logic is just a way of being ignorant by numbers."
Didactylos, Small Gods.
|
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on May 3, 2007 15:45:06 GMT -5
that's pretty good, Lummox2
true to a degree
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on May 3, 2007 15:46:54 GMT -5
"The way I see it, logic is just a way of being ignorant by numbers." Didactylos, Small Gods. i disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 3, 2007 16:06:47 GMT -5
he says, once again eloquently! - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on May 3, 2007 16:18:04 GMT -5
I agree.  |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on May 3, 2007 19:32:19 GMT -5
Darren Dirt appreciates your appreciation. Darren Dirt does what Darren Dirt can. Darren Dirt is channelling the spirit of Bob Dole (oops, is he still alive? :-\ ) ...gotta stop taking those allergy meds...  |
|
