|
|
Post by dvishnu on Feb 24, 2006 11:44:36 GMT -5
aLISTAIR mistook his shift key for a cow bell and that was the last note it rang. :-) - NonE OUCH! |
|
|
|
Post by dvishnu on Feb 24, 2006 12:02:02 GMT -5
Theres nothing wrong with fiction as long as everyone understands that it's fiction. The problem with the state, as I see it, is that it's adherents have been more or less totally succesful in convincing people that the "state" is synonomous with reality. There are taxes to pay for GWB's dinner, his suits and a great big helicoptor for him to swan about in. There are also taxes to pay for having your streets lit. Remove the fiction and one set of these expenses is going to go. The other will probably remain, although it's my guess that it would be a damn sight cheaper. ------------------------------------ Stewardship is one way to ensure that "common" land and property can be looked after almost as well as by an individual, because of the responsibility inherent in such a role. Also don't forget his fancy schancy private jet that everyone knows as asswipe air force one...Fuel and secret service are expensive as well...And don't forget we all need to be watched; and we need to be slowly poisoned as well...I'm so glad he doesn't have to pay for all of this...It would be too much of a burden for the pretend president...I realize now that involuntary servitude is for my own good...    I'm so glad they're there to control help... |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Feb 24, 2006 13:30:34 GMT -5
The problem with the state, as I see it, is that it's adherents have been more or less totally succesful in convincing people that the "state" is synonomous with reality. There are taxes to pay for GWB's dinner, his suits and a great big helicoptor for him to swan about in. There are also taxes to pay for having your streets lit. Remove the fiction and one set of these expenses is going to go. The other will probably remain, although it's my guess that it would be a damn sight cheaper. Also don't forget his fancy schancy private jet that everyone knows as asswipe air force one...Fuel and secret service are expensive as well...And don't forget we all need to be watched; and we need to be slowly poisoned as well...I'm so glad he doesn't have to pay for all of this...It would be too much of a burden for the pretend president...I realize now that involuntary servitude is for my own good... I may be way off the "mark" (money) here, but I really don't think the purpose of taxes is to "pay" for all/any of these "things"... I mean, really... all "they" have to do is print a/o make book keeping entries, if such needs to be "paid" for, no? Rather, as aptly noted, there is illusion going on here; first, The People (of The State, of mind) believe there is money (ie believe their debt instrument frn's = money) and thus hourly trade their lives (energy) for them, etc. In this illusion (delusion) they then THINK they are paying for such things (where as legally noted, they are only "discharging the debt"; aka passing the buck/debt... to present & future generations). Point being: The issue is not that "they" (the power holders) need the "money" (to pay for jets/suits/dinners/surveilence/etc); rather, They need those ("us"/U.S.) believing in it's power to not have it.A money-less people is a power-less people. ("less" being relevant to those seeking empowerment) The last laugh being to have the blind/dupes money-less AND FRN-less. What a "USPC" (u.s. perfect con). Reality meets actuality; the united states of minds manifests The United State. my "two cents" worth, of course, of course~ 2i2 |
|
|
|
Post by scottinalaska on Feb 24, 2006 14:14:52 GMT -5
Yes, Iraq had contracts to sell oil for euros to a couple of countries in early 2001. France and Germany. Hmmm, those names ought to ring a bell. And then Iraq's leaders had to go and attack the US later that year as if dropping the "dollars for oil" wasn't enough?  Boy, are they mean! It must be tortuous in that country these days, for all of that meanness. Good thing we're over there setting up a new "free" government where everyone benefits, all is voluntary, private property is restored...and if they don't like it, we'll kill them to get them to swallow this benefit. Now Marc et al, isn't the FRN a promissory note to pay another FRN on demand? scottinalaska |
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Feb 24, 2006 17:31:51 GMT -5
The importnat part to examine is the word "note". The FRN is not a "note" at all. There may be a promise to pay FRN's back at a certain interest rate, that does not make the FRN a real "note" though.
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Feb 24, 2006 22:04:02 GMT -5
coin of the realm. dollars used to be backed by gold. now it`s all promissary notes backed up by the future efforts of our bodies.............fiat currency. marc's comment: FRN's are not promissory notes. here's some gleanings fyc: [emphasis mine - 2i2] What I gather from the above, is the "note" aspect is simply noting the equity of the security collateral. The collateral simply being each person's "word" (promise) as to the property posted with the bank for loans (debt equity/collateral). Thus, technically, FRn's are " collateral notes" aka " security notes": "A note for which security in the form of real or personal property has been pledged or mortgaged" - Black's Law Dict 6th So is a collateral "pledge" a "promise", thus a "promissary note"?!? Well, we are after all, Alice, In LegaLand~ shall we ask Humpty Dumpty? Maybe FRn's are akin to Post-it Notes?!? The Fed's post-it note has on it then: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" [hey, it's in all caps on the note...] sing it Elvis: " love me tender..." ;D "tender - an offer of money" - [ibid] ah, but Humpty Dumpty said "LEGAL TENDER"... so back to Black's: "Legal tender - All coins of the United States ( including Federal Reserve notes and circulating coins of Federal Reserve banks..." [so, Humpty, is the word "including" statutory in nature, or street lingo? ie is it inclusive or exclusive?!?] "promissary note - A promise or engagement, in writing, to pay a specified sum at a time therein stated, or on demand, or at sight, to a person therein named, or to his order, or bearer. An unconditional written promise, signed by the maker, to pay absolutely and at all events a sum certain in money, either to the bearer or a person therein designated or his order, at a time specified therein, or at a time which must certainly arrive. UCC 3-104" -[ibid] fwiw~ 2i2 |
|
|
|
Post by tharrin on Mar 1, 2006 15:40:46 GMT -5
On the perpetual merry-go-round again, NonE. Simply and with reason, I restate...there is no such thing as real estate ownership. It is a pleasant thought, but nothing but a thought with a dangerous outcome. Defending the thought of it. What will a person or a group of people do to defend their belief in owning a piece of land or a house? History has pretty much told that tale, accept we're not having any of that on this forum. No reason and thousands of years of recorded history that have reshaped those imaginary lines we draw around ourselves countless times cannot sway our need to believe in owning and proving we own at the cost of others.
You're all correct; we can own things without having to defend them we just need to get rid of the rest of the people so they can't steal it from us, or kill us for it, or believe differently than we do about our belief in what we own.
By definition, defending one's property implies violences or coercion. So the belief in property must be the driving force of the violence used to defend that property, at the cost of another or even ourselves. Seems a pitifully beating of the ground with a stick which monkeys do to ward off suspected intruders. I appreciate your creating the thread but there is a major need of the contributors to this forum to defend their need to believe in property, I have come to believe that it makes no difference whether or not I believe in property (though I don't) time will take care of any beliefs we have and in the end we will own nothing not even ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 1, 2006 16:11:15 GMT -5
... and in the end we will own nothing not even ourselves. Hi Tharrin, Nice to see you again. I just spent last weekend at a seminar with Byron Katie (author of Loving What Is) and really enjoyed it. I think you might as well. Check her out. Please elaborate on what you mean by the part of your statement that I quoted above, if you will. "Eventually" we will all be dead, so naturally once we're dead we no longer need anything in the nature of "property" or food or air, water, or anything else. I assume that you do not mean THAT kind of eventually. So what DO you mean? Since we all DO need food, water, a place to sleep/stand/dance/fornicate/let our babies rest/cook our food/have conversations regarding propterty  , how do you suggest that we can agree on how and when we will each use the various spaces on the planet if we don't use the concept of property? Or are you only filled with thoughts in the negative, leaving the solutions to others to find. (That's not intended as an insult although it might be a valid criticism if it applies.) - NonE P.S. If property implies force and coercion, then are you using force and coercion simply by being? What if I want to eat you? Am I using a violence that you would reject by simply refusing (using whatever force is required but no more) to let you (or a lion) eat me? It appears to me that your beliefs ultimately are anti-life rather than life affirming/enhancing. But I may be simply not seeing this as clearly as you and so I do appreciate if you can help me understand. |
|
|
|
Post by tharrin on Mar 3, 2006 9:04:01 GMT -5
Why do you think that I operate in the negative? Just because death is the conclusion of this existence does not make it a negative thing. It is what it is so I accept it. I also accept the FACT that I do not own anything nor does anyone else in my opinion, transient beings do not need to own anything in order to live.
Yes we all must eat, drink, breathe and as long as it doesn’t stand in the way of others doing the same thing, if that is the case then we have no problem. The conflict begins when we think that by claiming something like a piece of land with the only water source for miles and forcing others to pay to receive something they should be able to get for free. (Please don’t waste time talking about wells or other such sources of water, I realize they are an option but not in all scenarios, this is just an example). This is especially true in urban areas, where it is very difficult to live outside of the system. (But then look at the water wars in the West). California, Nevada, Arizona and a few Northwestern states are in constant conflict with each other over who owns water rights. Within that system there are smaller squabbles between cattlemen and farmers over who should have control over water to grow crops or water livestock. It all becomes a commercial nightmare with flaring tempers. Then there are the residents who would like to drink too.
Yet listen to the argument. Who owns water rights? Who has the right to own water? Does that person by verbally or in written form establish a superior position over every other person? Do they now have the right to deny you water? If you say ownership exists then yes they do have that right. Who can own the earth, the sky, the waters of the planet?
So what is the answer? It is simple yet we refuse to allow it. Respect each others space. Don’t be greedy and claim something that you cannot possibly defend as yours without having to considering violence against your fellow people in order to maintain the tenuous grasp of property. Share or cooperate with your neighbors to make the space you live in beneficial to all. Realize EVERY OTHER PERSON on this planet has exactly the same needs to support their life and the basics should not be withheld at a price, which the concept of ownership allows. It allows one to lord something (hold a superior position) over another.
As for anti-life, if I were anti-life you wouldn’t be debating with me. I quite believe my views are life affirming because I believe every person on this planet has the exact same basic needs that I do and need to fulfill those needs on a daily basis. I should not interfere with their basic needs and neither should they mine. Claiming property, as in the above scenario, means I can interfere with those needs and that is a violation of life and is anti-life.
Wars are part of the ownership philosophy. You have (own) something on your side of the imaginary line that we (don’t have so don’t own) have little of or none on our side of the imaginary line. You don’t want to share so you defend. We would like some but you are not having any of that, so we must use force in order to get it. Instead of supporting life, the concept of ownership actually debases life by giving superior position to one group of people over another or one person over another. If we worked together and respected each others space then less conflict would arise. There in lies the rub, Horatio.
P.S. When did we have babies and where are they resting.
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 3, 2006 10:10:59 GMT -5
Didn't we have babies? What is all that pain I remember? (oops, that was in another life I guess) Hi Tharrin, I think that I mostly agree with your sentiments, which is why we are probably still engaged in this dance. (And you are either really stupid, tolerant or must see something in my thinking worthy of the waltz also.) But (you KNEW that was coming, didn't you?)... BUT you still fail to satisfy me on the issue of reality. It appears to me that you simply wish the world were perfect and then everything would be nice and shiny and people would smile and there would be enough chocolate for all of us and none of us would get fat. Come to think of it, I probably think the same way or I wouldn't be in this debate. Let me ask this differently. I will presume that in your perfect world you can still envision that there might be occasional conflicts. If so, absent some conceptual framework in which individual preferences can be weighed against each other and the merits of one solution to the conflict can be chosen over another, how can peace and harmony be maintained and conflict resolved without resorting to something that looks suspiciously like property rights? You say above that "wars are part of the ownership philosophy." I see your point, in a way, but then I also think that you may be failing to address the reality that there is and always will be a conflict of personal preferences. If we both accept that as a reality then the next project is to try and find the most efficacious means of smoothing out those conflicts with the greatest satisfaction to all parties. You pretend that if we don't have the lines of division then we won't have the conflicts. I don't see that to be the case. Please show me what I'm missing. - NonE (wondering still about all of those babies) added later: Please also see my post here which ultimately seems to deal with the same issues and on which I'm on the OTHER SIDE  |
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Mar 3, 2006 13:43:36 GMT -5
On the perpetual merry-go-round again, NonE. Simply and with reason, I restate...there is no such thing as real estate ownership. It is a pleasant thought, but nothing but a thought with a dangerous outcome. Defending the thought of it. What will a person or a group of people do to defend their belief in owning a piece of land or a house? History has pretty much told that tale, accept we're not having any of that on this forum. No reason and thousands of years of recorded history that have reshaped those imaginary lines we draw around ourselves countless times cannot sway our need to believe in owning and proving we own at the cost of others. You're all correct; we can own things without having to defend them we just need to get rid of the rest of the people so they can't steal it from us, or kill us for it, or believe differently than we do about our belief in what we own. By definition, defending one's property implies violences or coercion. So the belief in property must be the driving force of the violence used to defend that property, at the cost of another or even ourselves. Seems a pitifully beating of the ground with a stick which monkeys do to ward off suspected intruders. I appreciate your creating the thread but there is a major need of the contributors to this forum to defend their need to believe in property, I have come to believe that it makes no difference whether or not I believe in property (though I don't) time will take care of any beliefs we have and in the end we will own nothing not even ourselves. Tharrin and NonE, I would have to mostly agree with NonE's post just prior to this one. The issue is not whether we own anything or not. I agree It's is merely a nice illusion. By definition Taking something you did not mix your own effort with or offer to trade implies violence or coercion as well. So the belief that no one owns anything can be a driving force of the violence used to take what ever it is one desires, at the cost of another or even ourselves. But You see whether we talk about ownership or that no one owns anything we still are using words like COST that implies OWNERSHIP. There is a PRICE to be PAID. If no one owns anything then its all FREE is it not? You can believe you are "Owneverythingus The Divine" for all I care. You can even claim to own everyone and everything. The problem throughout history is not the belief in property or ownership. It is the use of violence to take and control while causing harm to another of your own kind. I do not disagree that folks are fighting over "water rights"; however, In FACT and REALITY No one is in actuality prevented from going to lake Michigan or anyother "commons" water source with a bucket. I have went to so called "State Land" and carried water home from the lake with a "Ranger" watching me fill the bucket. I didn't need a license didn't get a ticket, and heck I wasn't even questioned. He just waved and smiled while he watched me fill the bucket with water from the "State lake". Folks who choose to live in an "urban" setting find it more convenient to pay someone else to supply them with water. Other folks must use their life force to deliver that water should they not receive something in return for that effort? If the received nothing for that effort they wouldn't provide the service and people wouldn't pay for it. We learn by the first few years of our lives of being dependent upon others for our care and rearing, that cooperation,trade, and respect for imaginary boundaries, facilitates getting basic needs met with the least possible effort. (When we grow up we call that economic efficiency through division of labor). As a really smart guy round here said, "it's not a matter of what you are forced to ingest or not, it's being forced that is the issue". "[the concept of ownership] allows one to lord something (hold a superior position) over another". Well you can use force against me to try and control or change my behavior, but until such time as one can magically jump out of their own body/mind/spirit and into another at will I'm pretty confident as supported by empirical evidence that I DO have a superior position over the particular body I inhabit at the moment. Na na .. na na naaaaaa. Give it what ever name you want I don't care. The only thing you can do is attempt to bring my transient existence here to a end sooner than I may want and that is the root of the problem. The Belief that it is ok to use violence to get one's needs wants desires met. It's like this guy I watched on PBS last week. It was his desire to reduce meth usage and thereby make society better, more peaceful, save the children etc. (he said so himself he felt this was a disease that "plagued society"). He was instrumental in getting FDA/congress to make you sign your life away just to get some sudafed tablets to relieve congestion when you have a cold. He could believe all he wants but the minute he picked up the FDA/Congressional cannon he became a criminal and a tyrant for whom I have no respect. When we talk about ownership, I think we are discussing the wrong issue. Here is the discussion redirected into action/consequence cause/effect format.
When you are talking about preventing others from accessing basic necessities of life by force who otherwise have done you no harm, that is a problem. Am I now justified to take . . . by force if necessary?
When you talk of taking from others the basic necessities of life by force who otherwise have done you no harm and collected such things by their own effort, that is a problem. Am I now justified to defend . . . by force if necessary? I don't care what you call it. If you initiate force to prevent me from accessing basic necessities, then I will respond. If you initiate force to take something from me I require I will respond. If instead you offer to trade something in hand peacefully then we are both better off. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some Thoughts from SERENITY (Firefly the Movie). "The war was devastating, But the Alliance's victory over the Independents ... ensured a safer universe." - Video, Serenity. "And now, everyone can enjoy the comfort... and enlightenment of true civilization." - Teacher, Serenity "Why were the Independents even fighting us? Why wouldn't they look to be more civilized?" - Student, Serenity "We meddle. People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome." - River Tam, Serenity "I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin." - Assassin for the council, Serenity "I ain't gonna kill you. Hell, I'm gonna grant your greatest wish. I'm gonna show you a world without sin." - Mal, Serenity. |
|
lummox
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by lummox on Mar 3, 2006 14:25:47 GMT -5
The issue is not whether we own anything or not. I agree It's is merely a nice illusion. By definition Taking something you did not mix your own effort with or offer to trade implies violence or coercion. So the belief that no one owns anything can be a driving force of the violence used to take what ever it is one desires, at the cost of another or even ourselves. But You see COST implies OWNERSHIP as well. There is a PRICE to be PAID. If no one owns anything then its all FREE for the TAKING.
Hmm.....if you can't own anything, why would you bother taking it?
You can't own it either so there would be no point.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Mar 3, 2006 14:33:50 GMT -5
Lummox,
talking of necessities there. I may not own it but may require it to sustain continued existence. i.e. Food water etc. One would "bother" to do it to survive, if not then lay down and die.
Do you drink liquid, eat, breath? It's like you're asking, if you can't own those things . . . Why bother doing them? What's the point?
My point is: while i agree ownership is an idea, and we really can't in reality "own" something; the idea of ownership is not the ONLY or "end all be all" motivation for taking or doing things as is implied in Tharrins comments.
I do not think ownership is the issue here. It is dancing around the edges. Ownership is like a hammer, It can be beneficial or detrimental. It can be used to build or destroy. What is the core issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 3, 2006 14:59:56 GMT -5
"What is the core issue?"
Conflict resolution/avoidance.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Mar 3, 2006 15:05:11 GMT -5
NonE,
You have just won and all expenses paid trip to Sagasland.
|
|
Boy, are they mean! It must be tortuous in that country these days, for all of that meanness. 
, how do you suggest that we can agree on how and when we will each use the various spaces on the planet if we don't use the concept of property? 
