Private Property

[eye2i2hear]

Is another way of looking at the societal/"social" "duty" involved here, to consider indeed, first (as essentially) whether the "right" to land as "property" is indeed a "right"? As, if it's not, then one (drunkard/slackard or otherwise) seeking shelter (in the case of housing/food in the case of farming/etc) at any given time might simply be requesting their own "right" in/to said land...? Where then the one, having by holding to individual "right", understood the inherent debt (to said claimant "at the door") when they built a "permanant" structure on the land? [where is the "law" of "first come, first own(er)" of land in Nature (vs "human nature"/selfishness)? Much less so-called "right" to pass as inheritance? noting first and foremost that historically, any such "American" land ownership was gained by shear force a/o violence (aggressive force) via Statism/"right of king"]

In other words, to claim land as to possession/ownership/"personal property" brings with it an inherent obligation to any other equally created human as to his equal right to claim? [Thomas Paine worked from this understanding... as I understand it ] (then is it the same as to profit sharing gained from any "first come" possession claim?)

As to pre chance any thought of labeling (my presumption, of course), let it be known this does NOT agree with my "nature". Just the opposite. But presently, I can't say whether my "nature" is from my Statist programming (public "schooling") or inherent. I only purpose to allow reasoning to settle the matter, no matter the cost(s). It always seems easy enuff to allow labels (in this case, "socialism"/communism) to fog our reasoning, when said labeling is selfish-serving/supportive...?

Then I personally hold that regardless of how close to a volunatry society (people) we come, there will always be an element of sloth/selfishness. But that said, I think we must be careful in missing the individual prosperity just eleminating the State/Collective Government holds, as to "freeing" (emotionally and materially) the majority to indeed aid said "element" of society we sadly see rampant (?) among us as among Statism.

[tharrin]

Well said Eye.

The societal problems we deal with have a great deal to do with our belief in private property ownership. It is an exclusive instead of inclusive relationship. As long as it is exclusive those excluded will always envy those that have. It doesn't have to be about position (even though it is) but those that cannot obtain equal status will always suffer with less than the elite. I am only talking about the basics. Food, water and shelter are the basics I refer to.

If each person cannot obtain those basic elements in the various financial arenas they are presently in how can they get equal footing with the haves. If you work for McDonald's at McDonald's wages it is virtually impossible to financially purchase or rent a home without some form of financial aid.

If that is all the higher one is capable of going you are on the ragged hem of society without public assistance. Sure many can try for a better life through education but that in its self can be a huge financial burden that would make money for shelter unavailable and so the cycle spins.

Then there is always the percentile that cannot cut it in the academic and corporate world. They may have no inclination to do so anyway. Should they not be allowed the "american dream" because they are not driven to equal those that can. Not everybody wants to be engineers, chemist, doctors, lawyers or any of the high end wage earners or are capable mentally to be any of the above.

These are the people who provide the basic services we ourselves don't want to do. Just because they are happy to do the menial jobs should they be forgotten in the scheme of things?

[tharrin]

I am not advocating socialism but in an economy where the have nots haven't a chance to come to a nominal stance with the haves then government will step in to equalize or redistribute the wealth, which is how it is.

Basically, the have nots have the political ear and the politicians are looking for somebody to vote them into office. They seek out those that have a beef and play to the cause with the most players.

AARP as an example. The aging have huge political clout. Does it mean their cause is more worth than that of the handicapped that have a smaller body of constituents? No. It is only because AARP has the numbers to sway political opinion. Which basically means AARP feels their cause is worthy of sticking a gun in the face of all of the rest of us to fund their different agendas. Of course they don't see it that way but it is essentially the same thing.

If the voluntary society does not address these issues then the voluntary society will eventually revert back to the way it is now. The haves (a much smaller group) will be put upon by the have nots (a much larger body of people) to help resolve the inequality they feel keeps them from being a have. The haves, on the other hand, will feel it is not their duty to pull the have nots from the financial mire and the haves probable feel their status is somewhat sacred and what will become of them if everybody was a have.

It is a delusional spiral to believe that mutual and common wealth is not attainable but to build your system entirely around a scheme of exclusivity is just as delusional.

By the way Denizen, don't sweat the "Ism" reference I made. I was just having some fun back and wasn't offended. I am not so thin skinned as that. If I was I have no business on this forum anyhow.

[eye2i2hear]

so in a voluntary "state" of being... a human's being in a "voluntary society"... how is the term "property" to be defined? ("right"fully... vs wrong-fully)

is it not simply what one (each) can: 1) prove one has endowed and needs (by "nature"), as to then own, when one can 2) prove no other had an equal right of or to endowment. ?

land then can surely be endowed (improved, labored over, made more productive, etc) but it can not be held ("vested"/"worn"- see definition below) as one's "own" (exclusive) as to do so creates natural inequality (think of the other children's game, "musical chairs" here?). [ie again, where does the "right of kings=first come, first serve" come from (where both require power/violence to en"force"/in-force)?]

thus for one to "endow" (invest their time as labor in/upon) land is to first and always assume a debt inherent potential, payable upon request (by an equal inheritor aka any other human being, with said equal inheritor acknowleding the first investors value as his/her own), thus requiring that "right" (vs wrong) understanding in one taking "the risk" (as actually, additional/"natural" risk) of "improving" (investing/endowing) said land.



interesting perhaps, that the word "investment" includes the word "vest"; as then from Webster's 1913 definition: "vestire to clothe, vestis clothing: to put garments on; to clothe; to dress; to array; to surround, accompany, or attend"

where I could easily entertain as legimate ("legal"make), the question: can a person "put on" land, as to "wear" it like a garment? surely one can indeed be said to "dress" land; but is said dressing then only to be understood as an equal right to=claim by any other to "wear" (or to otherwise be compensated their fair share)?

eye
(thanks for letting me "think aloud" with you here... "2i2hear"!)

ps: it seems perhaps significant to consider just how many major religions- other than the largest world religion, Statism, typically -hold that no "one" owns/is to claim property ("possessions")... so, land (or otherwise)?!?

[eye2i2hear]

As perhaps a side-bar to this debate, the "right of king(s)" seems to ring me back to another consideration, when considering the "right" of one to garner (by either religious belief or payment) others to "in force"/enforce their said "land=property rights".

Where I think of the reasoning regarding one of The State "wrongs"-- as to said State having it's "power" invested to it by "The People" --where it is then reasoned that no collective (State) can do anything an individual can't (has no right to) do, as said State gets it's "just powers" from the individual.

So today, a Statist individual appeals to a "majority"/"higher power" (aka The State) to enforce it's "right(s)", and we reason that to be unjust power ("force"), correct?
So in a voluntary association, can one rightfully appeal to (hire/pay for) a "majority" (an equally hired "police"y force) to protect his land "property" as his right/what he sees as right?

How does one collective, as paid, force for "right" (vs wrong) enforcement differ from another?
And so yet another wrestling point for me, as to a "right" seeker... ?!?

[NonEntity]

2i2,

I'm enjoying the conversation.

I suggest that maybe you are getting hung up on the term "right." My suggestion is that there is no universal "right" or "wrong," but that these terms refer to something that is different in each case with each circumstance. If you look at it with my perspective then you may see that there is the possibility of adjudicating each conflict in a manner in which the "more right" is determined over the "less right" and that just that kind of adjudication is what lead to the generalized rules that are known as "common law."

Life is very complex. Trying to tie it all up in pretty ribbons of law and certainty are bound to create the "unintended consequences" that everyone acknowledges result from human hubris.

Voluntary association tends to minimize conflict, but of course there will always BE conflict. EnFORCEment implies the idea that someone knows THE TRUTH and will force others to follow his dictates. Can you KNOW that you know the truth? But then how do you deal with someone else who also KNOWS the truth, and who's truth is different than yours?

The concept of compromise and respect has an entirely different flavor than the concept of TRUTH and enforcement. The first assumes "we," while the second splits us into "us" and "them."

Since you suggest that you are a "right" seeker, isn't this an admission that you don't know what is "right?"

Perhaps because there is no such thing. At least not as a universal for all people at all times under all circumstances.

Just consider that what might be right and acceptable behavior when the sun is shining and the world is good and the harvest is full - may NOT be what might be allowed for someone who was in a desperate survival mode in the middle of Katrina's wrath. To break into a store and take food to feed your starving family when there are no other options is quite a different thing than to take that same food under normal circumstances.

Do you think you could codify where one situation ends and the other begins? I doubt it.

But is not that EXACTLY what you want when you say that you are trying to find what is "right?"

- NonE

[NonEntity]

This little snippet...

Therefore, Society is not an end but a means, the means by which each individual member seeks to attain his own ends. That society is possible at all is due to the fact that the will of one person and the will of another find themselves linked in a joint endeavor. Community of work springs from community of will. Because I can get what I want only if my fellow citizen gets what he wants, his will and action become the means by which I can attain my own end. Because my willing necessarily includes his willing, my intention cannot be to frustrate his will. On this fundamental fact all social life is built up.

...seems beneficial in this conversation. It comes from Ludwig von Mises' What is Society?

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

so are... are... "we"... saying... "our" hero... Superman was "wrong"?!? as to that "truth, justice, and the Amerian Way"...?!? lol

ok, let's see... perhaps I would first note, that tho obviously inconsistantly (as my brain too often flutters like a bird upon a window glass), I do try to catch words that I don't necessarily find as appropriately expressive (accurate/precise) by including them in "quotes"-- " " 's; thus using this word "right" is one that falls short for me, as I think I grasp and thus agree with your posted expression, including the snippet, NonE. Good points noted~
and as noted in other posts, this medium needs it's Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry moments... ala "A post reader has got to know his limitations..." well, actually, both post"er" and post reader's limitations...

thus for me, I find it good that a question of meaning regarding "right" is asked; as for me, "right" is indeed, not a formula or a "code", but rather is fluid as to allow for individual, situational instances (called "life", or known as "living"... consciously, of course ) Common "law" arrived at via Common Sense, as the 5 common human senses as to human "being".

it's sort of like I often say regarding this "either/or" goal of the present State mindset, where often it is only allowed to be this proverbial two-sided coin; ie you're either "right wing" or "left wing" (republican vs democrat, cowboys vs indians, winner vs loser, etc). When said coin is not only two sided, but every thing in between. Thus a coin is only one-sided when that's the side one is observing (in the combative State-meant-state of mind, again, only one or the other is allowed). Point being, there is the equal requirement of the middle... or perhaps better put, "a" middle. Where one might consider: where does the "left" side end and the "right" side begin*? When we begin in the middle rather than being forced to choose a side, it seems we come to how we should approach defining "right".

Ok, see what I mean as to that brain that ='s a bird fluttering?!? lol

Again, I agree that holding to what is "right" must be noted as situational... or what I might prefer, as to being personal. As, afterall, persons are (life is) situational~

This word "right", then, is to be grasped akin to what "Life" means... as then requiring conjunction with "Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (where then, like "right", this word "property" is substituted for "pursuit of happiness")...
point being, often one is restricted by time and space, as with the case here in e@land, and so one often uses words, less qualified, simply because a "higher" concept is being sought. Hopefully, the visual "inflection" of words in quotes can be helpful~

2i2

*btw... for me, the right side of our coin ends, and the left side begins, as what I see as Voluntary... aka "right"... hehehe (we can agree that voluntary, is "right"?!?) [who's on first, what's his name's on second, and I dunno's on third...]
noting then, that as you move away from center, at any point that you then stop, you find that the point that prior to the move was, say, the left, has now become the right!?! Indeed, it is a matter of point by point determination (assessment)~ but there is still "the right" (vs its opposite... the word we use being, "wrong") as to a need to communicate, aye?

[eye2i2hear]

But is not that EXACTLY what you want when you say that you are trying to find what is "right?"

perhaps I mis-type as to mis-speak as to word choice... ie, again, using "right" as a conveyance word...
as then any "EXACTLY" for me would be "the" goal... as to any given situation presenting a "right" (common law right) vs a "wrong" (commonly sensed wrong/evil/lawlessness*); eg:

To break into a store and take food to feed your starving family when there are no other options is quite a different thing than to take that same food under normal circumstances.

first, interestingly, doesn't one have to be "EXACT"ing to say "there are no other options"? I mean, gosh, who knows whether at the "exact" next moment, why, a helicopter pops over the horizon with disaster relief...?!?

but then, perhaps more to point, i would say that when I "say" (type?) I'm seeking "right", what you describe as to distinguishing your hypothetical's options, is "exactly" what i'm after by using the word "right". Am i "right"?!? lol

I feel I do hold to the premise captured (or attempted to be captured) in "The Golden Rule"; where "do unto others" is to do "right"; to be "right"; human "being" as "human rights", etc. [Life after all, is but an attempt... at "right" via "rights"?!]

I suppose what I intend by expressing a desire to be "right", as then knowing "right", is that as to life's actions (facts), my decisions behind them, are upon foundational premises as to what guides my situational decisions to be (the most?) "right".. the highest option... the common "good"... (the family gets fed/the store owner is restored/we live happily ever after...)

duly recognizing that inherent in even "happy ever after" is that it was not so happy at some point prior... "once upon a time"... as that indeed is the Nature of "life" (imperfection=no "EXACTLY")~

Where "right" then includes not just the law/code/"cold" facts, but the situtational facts and the motive(s)... (as i2hear you express conceptually in your comments, NE)

*side bar: interestingly, to me, this word "lawlessness" seems very apropos; as it implies not an all encompassing, every situational, solutional, "law" (code) but rather a recognition of inherent degrees; "law"-lessness...?!?

now... back to "private property" (the thread topic)... and "right"... lol

2i2

[NonEntity]

"as my brain too often flutters like a bird upon a window glass"

What I want to know, is how can you have quoted me when I had not yet said that?

- None :-)

[eye2i2hear]

tiz perchance a common spirit per a common state of mind... or perhaps a shared State of Con-fusion... lol

as to not risk "ass"umption, i'mhear+ing you say you had thought the same-- as to me having the fluttering brain --but I said it before you wrote it?? (as I didn't think or mean I'd quoted you, otherwise...)

e-gads, this e@gab is tuff as to eye2i seeing...

[NonE: perhaps we should move this over to a pm form...?]

[tharrin]

The world turns and there is little you can do about it and why would you want to anyway? What is property? If the planet can be owned even in pieces who ultimately decides what part of it you can own? Is not the "decider" the obvious owner of the property? If you cannot decide the fate of a property you believe you own, do you own it? If you cannot build, alter, change the characteristics or disposition of the property without permission from a supposed "authority" do you own it? My belief is no you do not own it and that is painfully obvious in the statist society in which we live. If you refuse to come to grips with reality, reality usually comes knocking in the form of repossession. Examine the word repossession. It indicates a prior state of possession. Even the house fully paid for can be repossessed. So what did you possess?

Remove the statist beliefs and you are left with either barbarism or a voluntary interaction with a side of barbarism. Why? Because it is historically obvious people just won't leave other people alone. So the voluntary society will be set upon by those that just want to take what they want by force. Either the voluntary society will succumb to the force or they will respond with a like or greater force to defend their society and belief system.

So is there a happy medium? In a perfect world (which this is not) I cannot imagine what would be the answer to this obvious enigma called ownership.

I cannot dream it away or ignore ownership because some where, some how, some time I will trespass intentionally or by mistake and the supposed owner will (if he is so inclined) remind me of his and societies belief in the concept of ownership by incarcerating me, killing me, shooting at me, litigating against me, or attacking my financial status because I have obviously crossed his trip wire called ownership. I will have done nothing physically, financially or truthfully wrong to him except crossed a mental line that he found intolerable. I will either limp away, be poorer, be injured or dead because of a concept that exists only in his and those that belief likewise, head.

Justify his actions.

It is the belief in ownership that ultimately allows one person or persons to lord something over another for so long as they should live.

[eye2i2hear]

tharrin said:

What is property? If the planet can be owned even in pieces who ultimately decides what part of it you can own?

So is there a happy medium? In a perfect world (which this is not) I cannot imagine what would be the answer to this obvious enigma called ownership.

Perhaps we should note Voltaire's admonition, paraphrased here... "If two wish to effectively communicate, first agree to the meanings of the terms used."

First and foremost, "belief" is an instru"mental" aspect of Life (society). For we must believe what words "mean"; then we (voluntarily) agree as to said mutual "belief". Thus "own" could just as easily have been/be "widget", if we simply agreed to it (aka "believed").

I don't know that I hold that the word "own", then, means (or that we should "believe" it to convey) anything more than "possession". As an appeal to a standard, in support of this, I offer that Webster's 1828 has this for the "word" (a sound or scribble that conveys belief?) origin:
"Own - G. eigen; to possess."
"Possess - L. to sit" [side bar: Webster's 1828 even refers in it's introduction, to the "Philosophical And Practical Grammar Of The English Language"; noting "philo" = brotherly love + "sophia" = wisdom... which sounds "societal" ala Golden Rule-ish as to wise belief agreement? "pratical" conveying this but a tad farther, as to day to day?]

Nature (creation order) surely presents witness that we can honorably ("rightfully"/inherently/logically) "possess" (hence "own") two beginning/essential "parts": 1) our biophysical beings (where "i"-- my consciousness "touches" "dust to dust"+water) and where that biological "part" touches any further physiological "parts" (where one stands, sits, lies, clutches, embraces = "possess" = "owns"?) "The Law" (aka gravity) witnesses such as "right" (order)~

Now as to history, I think it easily agreeable to find that possession is, to borrow from you, either backed by a Statist belief or a voluntary belief. Historically, at least as what State sponsored historians have recorded most generally for "us", "own" has come with aggressive violence initially; the ole "might makes right" and possession isn't physical (ie it's mental pictures... images... imagi-Nation).

So as to this all, we are dealing with belief(s). Or better, examining beliefs as to ensure we find optimal ones. With hope being in enuff folks agreeing as to one day become the "majority" that honors them.
What I hope this site (and others) continues to do is stimulate thought that examines belief(s).

Land as property, as a human "right", is a belief I find worthy of examination. As I've noted elsewhere, I wonder if this was being acknowledged in those drafting The Declaration of Independence of 1776, as the common phrase was not "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but rather, "Life, liberty, and property". [whether those motives were honorable/"right" or Statist/Socialistic, I don't know]
"Property", as a belief, as to be parcels (elements) of the earth particular (apple/food, trees/wood, clothing, shelter, etc), I hold distinguishable from land (mass/continents/"nations"/"states"/"countys"/tracts) as to "possession" ie owning. In this position, I do hold (ie believe presently) that one, or a collective, can freely/rightfully=honorably possess (own) land mass areas, its just that in doing so they then take on an (inherent) obligation to their equal beings if and when a claim is made (perhaps we should/could think in the term "profit sharing" here?!?). [note: I do not see this as "Communism", as I see that term = with Statism simply in one of it's several forms; fwiw I see the U.S.Inc. as very Communistic (some might prefer Socialistic) presently, again by degree]

So as to "ownership", as possession, it seems we still philosophically find ourselves with the choice as to how its maintained... individually... collectively... forceably-- or whether its "turn the other cheek/if asked to walk a mile, walk two"... or The Golden Rule's reverse question as, "would that I do the same to you, as you are to me?"... as to how/if we can honorably defend our possessions/ownership.

i do not know if my beliefs are honorable/just/"right" as to Property; i do not know if i find the ability/courage to live by them ("walk the talk"/type). i only know i find a heart's passion to do so... and find that having another seeing "eye2i" often enables me beyond my selfishness. [for the Harry Browner's, I distinguish "selfish" (as destructive) from "self-centeredness" (healthy)]

"What is property? If the planet can be owned even in pieces who ultimately decides what part of it you can own?"

That is our focus here. As to the "parts", it seems possession is akin to being honorable... to one's self... and other's as equals.


2i2

tharrin: if i "hear" you here, as to the present halluciNation State Of Mind, Inc., "property ownership" (the legaleze term for a belief regarding cars, homes, land, etc) is certainly a con(stitution) game* as to what too many "We The People" believe; it seems clear to me that the people United as the force behind The State "OWN" ALL property (including human bodies). These United States of Mind simply allow "tenents sharecropers" as mere improvers to what "they" clearly believe, and demonstrate, to be theirs~ [/li][li][/size]

[tharrin]

I have to concur that what is...is, however intolerable. In my philosophy Horatio, I have come to believe nobody owns anything (including the statists, whom believe otherwise), especially when it comes to land. Either we all share it collectively and have equal claim to live upon it for the length of our days, in agreement with the other inhabitants or we use show of force to fence in our particular claim.

This, however, does not support or substantiate our claim because every other human on the planet can make an equal claim and be just as justified as any other to make that claim.

The first order of action is to change the opinion of the statist as to their belief we owe them tribute to exist on their supposed property. The error of their ways is their opinion. As long as we cooperate and agree in their dominion, we are effectively in their domain and agreeing with them they are lord.

If we counter their argument, it is the opinion of their constituents (who see some form of benefit from this arrangement) that their duly elected officials are in their rights to cage, beat, steal from or kill us into submitting to their belief system.

So now it falls to us to alter not only the opinion of the statists but also their throngs that find this arrangement beneficial at our expense.

It is historically obvious many believe in this system and want to play along at the expense of those that do not; even (dare I say) when those that play along don't really know the game. They have been purposely duped into believing one thing when another thing is actually true.

They are constantly amazed when the system turns on them and doesn't follow the rules they thought actually ruled the system. They will constantly reject evidence that clearly states exactly how the game is played for the bogus rules that make them comfortable playing the game.

They will then cry foul when the bogus rules are broken and it is painfully obvious those rules are not governing the game; yet the true insanity is they still believe the bogus rules rule, in spite of the evidence otherwise.

So in my continuing education called life, I follow a simple set of rules and do not amend them for my or anyone else's benefit.

I do not harm another to get what I want.

I negotiate for all the rest.

I respect other people and their space (property is imaginary and therefore I try to respect their idea of property, even though I do not believe in property ownership).

Which brings me to, I do not harm somebody because their belief systems do not fall in line with mine (that is the unfortunate state of religion (ideology) these days).

I ask that others not harm me but I have no control over that other than to defend myself physically to continue living. I will avoid this at all cost but depending on the situation I may find myself in an irreconcilable situation that may place me in a position to alter my passivity. As of today that has not occurred.

In my belief, our transient nature does not allow for ownership, for who can own the mountains, seas and sky? No one, not even by force, because force means you did not gain it a civil manner and therefore it is the spoils of theft and violence, which proves nothing more than what one or a group of people are willing to do to other people to get their way.

[eye2i2hear]

tharrin said:

I ask that others not harm me but I have no control over that other than to defend myself physically to continue living.
...
In my belief, our transient nature does not allow for ownership, for who can own the mountains, seas and sky?

Perhaps if you clarify for me how another can harm "you" and how you can defend your physical self without there being property ie the property possessed by "you", I can better understand this aspect of your philosophy...? Why is not this you (as "non-property"?) any one's to do with as they desire/see best/define as not "harmed"?

I don't grasp (looking from our literal equality/nature) how another can possess/own your body via the Golden Rule agreement (the "ask" and "ask not" as to harm, etc), as its just not "natural". Thus we have the natural higher claim, each to ourselves. Another thus can only trespass up"on" it (hence, what you'd defend as to- my assumption -kidnapping, rape, etc; and thus "right"fully so). Forgive me if I'm missing your point as to "ownership", but this is the foundational reasoning point I find in definition/usage of "own".

Where from this natural (elemental) foundation, equality (including ownership=possession of life sustaining elements of property, temporal- or transitory -as they typically are) "rules" (guides) as to respecting another's "space". [duly noting again, as imperfect as it "is"... naturally]

As again, I would hold that mountains/land, seas, sky, and air are indeed not ownable as they are not possessable; one can not "sit" on "the land" or "the sea" other than the Law of Nature requirement via gravitational force (measured by the body's physical dimensions ie approx 2 "feet"

to 6'-0" avg). An apple, or a tool are property and "rightfully" ownable as parcels (elemental aspects) of these wholes as distinctly as your defendable-worthy (right-full) body is ownable from mine. Anything beyond this moves into the profit-sharing-to-make-equitable via equitable (only) "title".
??

Also, upon this first reflection, I don't know that a "transitory" nature is a valid consideration as to ownership (as I intend by the term)? "Nature" being what it "is", then as what "we" are, as to what's "relative"... (ie isn't it hypothetical/religious to deal beyond what "is" as to "us" as to transient relevence?)

2i2