Private Property

[eye2i2hear]

dentistsugardust said:

Yeah, Ouch!

Imagine these 2 as Kings................this could escalate into war and a million fatalities...

Obviously not knowing how sarcastic versus individually/personally specific this is as written--

But just in case: regarding "these 2" as the two individuals specific, such "imagining" would be more akin to sheer fantasy (ie unfounded conjecture), imho. At least as to how I judge them from ALL their responses here in the forum (and take them at their "word" etc). For first, neither would seriously contemplate any such State position as a "king" nor secondly would either* resort to violence as enforcement of position.

Thank doG/_od...

---meye's2cents-worth

*[my only reserve being if somehow it got around to involving "land property", where then King NonE might-- emphasis on the "might" --and equally now, on presently-- turn (or is it "resort"?) to violence as he'd say it was "surely" agreeable (ie with all the king's men) when such is in "defense" of said/claimed "property"...?!] ;D

[eye2i2hear]

I would like to *bump* here within this thread this post and ask regarding it:

a) is it too confusing because of the author's writing style to even try to read, much less grasped?

b) is it too confusing in its points expressed to be grasped?

c) is it simply nonsense and not worth debating?

d) it invalidates what I want and so I'm just ignoring it?

e) none of the above, but rather because [fill in the blank]...?

I might bear saying too, that I offer this *bump* regarding this thread's title specific primarily, but then also in hopes of helping with our ongoing conflict regarding conflict resolution.

ty4yc~
--eye2i2hear+here

*bump* = bring up my post (again)

**modified to correct incorrect hyper-links**

[NonEntity]

Well, 2i2, both of the links you provided took me to the top of this thread, not to any particular post you have made, so I don't know what you are talking about. Once you resolve that problem then the questions posed might be able to be addressed.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

With perhaps obvious belated apologies regarding response time here...

nonentity said:

Well I actually don't believe in "rights" at all, as I've said many times in many places. But I DO believe that things work better if we act* AS IF they exist. So the key to that is to move from the entitlement mindset (I have RIGHTS!) to the contractual mindset (can we come to an agreement on this?)

Where I DO believe in rights... my primary point being, that's the very center of "agreement" to begin with, is it not?! "Believe"? (as agreement is non-factual, nonE 'it'self, thus it is belief)

I do not believe (aka I do not agree with?), however, that said rights have said "entitlement"-- IF --if said entitlement comes with a requirement of any other(s) to achieve such where (or because) it is my natural responsibility to obtain or fulfill it. Though I'm not sure I can articulate this distinction, I can "see" it clearly enough to then believe it to be valid, thus respect-worthy and honor-worthy aka "agreeable". Even "common sense"?!

Actually, I would express it along the lines of: "I do not believe rights having such entitlement can be empirically, naturally supported." Thus making them "legal opinion" rather than a valid concept.
?

So, a specific example:
my right to eat
[or even expressed as my right to work-- with the implication of eating as why; where then said "food" is my rightful property... ]
Key to this being: a valid right (as contrasted with the typical "legal right"; ie valid = common) is not that you or anyone else must feed me, and if/when you don't you "violate my right"; rather simply it is that in you exercising any other right you don't prevent any natural/common order relative to my eating. Does that clarify it any? It is akin to the oft stated aspects regarding freedom: "Your's ends where mine begins" etc. Naturally~

Oh, and inherent in my saying "my right" is the common sense awareness that "my" = "you" as well; any right that is mine is equally yours (your equity interest). Akin again to freedom.

Looked at from that perspective, I'll agree that NONE of us has property rights. I do believe that, as Stefan Molyneux describes, we have certain universal expectations. (I may be paraphrasing him very poorly.)

Again, I see no difference conceptually and principlely, and so feel this is sheer semantics. (primarily, an attempt to make legal = opinion agreement, as synonymous to common/natural agreement = empirically reasoned).

Though I would reject this universal as a "mere" expectation. Life, thus common/natural rights centered upon it-- again, centrally as relative to you or any other, in "living" your life thereby ceasing mine --is more than expectation, imho. It is certainly essential. [noting that Life is all we "know" to start with; much less end with ]

Ok, that out of the way (at least as to my responding to this post specific), these next parts I find very insightful and thus worth *BUMP*ing here:

Tharrin, for instance, for all of his declaiming property rights, seems to think that people should respect that the chair he frequently uses in the abode that he frequently inhabits will remain there until he no longer desires to use it on a regular basis. (Please feel free to correct me, Tharrin, if I'm mis-stating your view.) Now the common term for this is "property rights to the chair," but maybe that term, like "anarchy" has so much baggage attendant to it that it has become unworkable. But regardless, it does seem to me that we humans and most animals seem to have a universally prefered behavior of understanding the nature of one critter's expectation as regards those things and places that other critters habitually use and frequent.

Where I would first wish to say I duly note your mention of the significance of the abused word "right" (again, chiefly imo because our typical sloth regarding the use of apropos adjectives, or the lack thereof) making it to be synonymous with "legal" daffynitioning (ie "entitlement"), then being 'right' on target = agreeable to me! It seems we have the challenge of either reclaiming it, reestablishing it, or simply abandoning it as a word, indeed. I would propose that historical record being on our 'side' we can simply (?) choose to reclaim it.

Where interestingly to me, the appeal to "universally preferable behavior" is simply a re-wording of the words "natural law"-- where what is "universal" is simply that which is "most common" in our 'nature', no?. Thus, eating, sleeping, breathing, sheltering/protecting, relieving, etc. Of course we have the same obstacle here that we do with the already covered phrase! But at the core, this "behavior", I offer, is simply what comes naturally, and commonly, no?

Central in the mentioned chair, is a key aspect of establishing property for me, as offered. And that is, that no one using common sense, could say simply because the chair is vacated, that it is not still "private property". Our calling it a chair rather than simply "wood" reveals that (recognizes investment, acknowledges time spent). Our even calling it "metal" or "plastic" would further clarify a valid property claim, tho less essentially, as those are less virgin* natural states. Ultimately then, any claim at that point would require the claiming party to validate equity, aka equal time invested in said "chair"! *[since we're often noting word usage & sloth, the use of the word "natural" is yet another; often some speak as if man is not natural or is somehow distinctive from nature; where the actuality is, man is inseparably a part of nature and as such is "natural"; only the aspect of his higher mental capacity and its impact/influences leads to the desire to separate "us" from nature; thus my use of the adjective "virgin" regarding a chair, etc]

But it is the "universal" nature of our recent societal understanding of property rights which is less than effective.

Thus my *bump*re-offer of an appeal to "the commons" (call it the "universal preferable behavior" here if you prefer... a synonymous phrase.) ;D

We claim (most of us) to have universal control/ownership over a thing or place, but we would not generally forbid the UPS man from using our sidewalk to deliver a package, nor a bird from nesting in "our" tree. So the reality is, it seems to me, that our conception of our "property rights" is actually different from our actual behavior. For the most part, people generally have a pretty workable behavior regarding property, ours and others, it seems to me. It is only when we decide to codify it that things get all testosterone laden and bizarre. And of course those who wish to steal from others are always twisting things to help them in their deceit.

But the natural tendency is to know one is in error when walking off with the pen you just used to sign something, when that pen was just lent to you for the purpose. There is no question about this. It is universally understood.

Very appealing insight, to me.
Could, for emphasis, I restate that first part regarding the UPS guy as: "We would not commonly forbid the UPS man from using our sidewalk to deliver a package..." ;D

Where of course "the rub" of this all is in dealing with "the twisting" (and no, Pepermint, this is not a retro slip back relative to the 60's prudish assault on Chubby Checker/Elvis The Pelvix) That less common "nature"-- at least beyond the perhaps too common initial impulse (temptation)!?!

And as such, then my offering (now *bump*ed) for consideration: an appeal to

a.) "the common sense"-- as what's commonly (universally) sensed, literally first, then deductively last, via the 5 natural senses most in common/"universal",

coupled with

b.) time, the only other social life commodity in common ("common odity"),
Being our best, most logical appeal for conflict resolution... de-twisting?

apologies again, NonE, for not catching the keen insight I've noted herein, the first go around~
--e2+i2=here

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

Well, 2i2, both of the links you provided took me to the top of this thread, not to any particular post you have made, so I don't know what you are talking about. Once you resolve that problem then the questions posed might be able to be addressed.

- NonE

drat----
(que the Maxwell Smart .wav clip here X)

should be correct now, Chief...

[NonEntity]

Okay, I see your post. I tried to read it. You may have something to say, BUT, it is so DAMNED frustrating trying to make sense out of your interminable equivocations, and cutesy diversions and so on that I simply am unwilling to do it. If you have something to say, PLEASE SAY IT.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

I want to say as well, to those who've either back-shelved this thread because they see it as frivolous, or perhaps in feeling that a no State = V society will inherently resolve this conflict, it is my opinion that this very conflict's core issue is what creates the most appeal to HAVE The State to most people (skewed in its logic as it is)!! This core issue for the most, I propose, is what justifies the "lesser of two evils" in most's mind.

Thus, I hold that until we can present a empirically reasoned basis and foundation to support regarding the concept of property (as claim or right or ownership or whatever you wish to call it) to the common masses, we will not have a V society as we will inherently and perpetually have The State. [we might have some degree of less State, but not "no State"]

The settlement of who's "right" (or makes the most sense, common) regarding protecting property claims (or such as "legal rights") seems obviously THE paramount reason most folks call for The State to be accepted/needed/tolerated. It goes something like: "If we didn't have The State/Government, who'd protect us from invasion?"... where "invasion" is essentially a property issue of degree (be that individual ownership or more). [and again, the attaching illogicals not considered regarding The State violence against property]

*[not to even get into, that with an immoral basis for property, the protection/defense thereof IS (nothing less than) The State-- in some form, as to some varying degree/decree]

[eye2i2hear]

Property

Pierre Joseph Proudhon was one of the most famous philosophers to have articulated thoughts on the nature of property. He is known for claiming that "property is theft," but is less known for the claims that "property is impossible," and "property is liberty." According to Colin Ward, Proudhon did not see a contradiction between these slogans. This was because Proudhon distinguished between what he considered to be two distinct forms of property often bound up in the single label. To the mutualist, this is the distinction between property created by coercion and property created by labor. Property is theft "when it is related to a landowner or capitalist whose ownership is derived from conquest or exploitation and [is] only maintained through the state, property laws, police, and an army"[aka use of violence to enforce/defend]. Property is freedom for "the peasant or artisan family [who have] a natural right to a home, land [they may] cultivate, [...] to tools of a trade", and the fruits of that cultivation - but not to ownership or control of the lands and lives of others. The former is considered illegitimate property, the latter legitimate property.

Proudhon argued that property in the product of labor is essential to liberty, while property that strayed from "possession" ("occupancy and use") was the basis for tyranny and would lead a society to destroy itself. The conception of entitlement property as a destructive force and illegitimate institution can be seen in this quote by Proudhon,

Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; then if property is a natural right, this natural right is not social, but anti-social.

Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property. If property is a natural, absolute, imprescriptible, and inalienable right, why, in all ages, has there been so much speculation as to its origin? — for this is one of its distinguishing characteristics. The origin of a natural right! Good God! who ever inquired into the origin of the rights of liberty, security, or equality? ( What is Property? published in 1840)

[/blockquote][/color][/size][/quote]
Property section under " Mutualism" entry on wikipedia

highlight on the "published in 1840"...

[emphasis on the recognition by Proudhon, implied in his usage of them regarding two types of property, ie "legitimate" and "illegitimate", of using distinguishing adjectives when using key central words!]

[NonEntity]

Sorry, 2i2, but I cannot answer you because I have no clue what it is you are wanting to communicate. If you care to clearly ennunciate your ideas then I may be able to respond.

For instance, in the post above you say this, "... a no State = V society ..."

I assume you mean something by putting those letters on the screen, but they are not in a form that presents any meaning whatsoever to me. So how can I respond?

This statement:

The settlement of who's "right" (or makes the most sense, common) regarding protecting property claims (or such as "legal rights") seems obviously THE paramount reason most folks call for The State to be accepted/needed/tolerated.

leads me back to the idea that there is no "right," as each person has different needs and desires, hopes and dreams, joys and pains. So the very premise is doomed to fail. It is only when we recognize and respect that these differences are part and parcel of living, and come to accept them and to create a respectful system of dispute, or conflict, resolution, that we can live in joy and love rather than fear and hatred.

At least, that is how it appears to me.

- NonE

[tharrin]

I hope Eye2Eye, I catch your drift and if I do not then it may be my biases blocking the view.

NonE appears to agree that nasty things are done to the earth by careless people but NonE does not appear to understand the underlying theme that those careless people normally act upon.

Example: NonE and I live adjacent to each other. NonE changes the oil in the vehicle NonE uses. NonE carelessly dumps the oil in a hole dug on the "property" NonE believes he owns and therefore believes he has a right to do. That oil gets into my and the rest of the neighborhoods drinking water supply. Is NonE liable for his actions? It's his property (supposedly), he should be able to do with it as he likes, right? Because he owns it,right? If you say yes then you nullify the factual existence of ownership. Why? Because, following that logic, I should be able to stop NonE from dumping toxic waste on his land, where it can affect mine. I should also be able to take None to task for his effect on my land, but wait...how can I when NonE owns the land and has a right to do with it as he will.

If you say, you agree that NonE does not have the right to dump toxic waste on his piece of earth then that nullifies the property ownership NonE believes he has as well. So ownership becomes logically none existent.

Furthermore, NonE lives East of me and Eye2Eye lives to the West of me. They both build skyscrapers that blot out the sun to my garden and basically cause me to be reliant on a farmer instead of the yield of my supposed property. If they have the right to do that then it nullifies my right to not have skyscraper's blotting my sun out, which is not equal in any way shape or form.

If you come up with the snide retort, "Well you should move if you don't like it." Then you really don't care whether ownership exists or not as long as the benefit comes only to you.

Why should I have to move when in it's natural state, skyscrapers would not exist on any land and therefore NonE and Eye2Eye living next to me would not necessarily have deleterious effects on my land but it would tread on NonE's and Eye2Eye's property "rights" to do with their land as they see fit. So that also nullifies the "ownership" model.


This amplifies as the stakes get higher. Like if I had the only spot around that had water, or was capable of supporting a garden or a number of variations on that theme.

So if property "ownership" doesn't exist why do we try so hard to make it real? Simply because it gives us power over others we would not have without the enforceability needed to make it real to each other. On our own (individually) we cannot respect each other as sentient beings that have equal claim to the earth and therefore must hammer in the concept of ownership to force others to respect us and our claimed space.

A waste of time because there are always those that will not or care not what any one claims and will stick a gun in our face to prove our claim impotent.

"Ownership" is all about power and adds nothing to improve the human condition or raise it up from the muck in which it resides. It's my say over your say and the courts (made of of people like you and me) decide who say is reality and for how long.

So NonE the next time you think my post doesn't add to the discussion or to improving the human condition remember your arguments trying to sway people in to pretending "Ownership" exists also offer nothing positive but reduces us to squabbling children over who owns the toy.

The law is only there until we no longer need it to fairly interact with each other, without making ludicrous and insane claims we cannot factually support. That kind of behavior falls into the same category as claiming Elvis is still alive but living on the moon and the Empire state building is made of cheddar cheese. They are factually unsupported claims that can only be pushed into the minds of our neighbors by proving it or using a gun to change their minds into believing it.

Those that do this superbly are those that comprise the state and they do it because it validates their existence and gives them a power they would not have otherwise.

[NonEntity]

Quick, cut down all the redwood trees - they might cast a shadow on someone's garden!

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

Sorry, 2i2, but I cannot answer you because I have no clue what it is you are wanting to communicate.
For instance, in the post above you say this, "... a no State = V society ..."

doG damb it, son!

geesh, let's see... we have "no State"
hint: what replaces The State and so = "no State"?
then we have the word "society" with the letter "V"
what else here on this forum connects most with the word "society"?
hint: "starts with the letter "V"
(eyes off of Vanna White here and buy a vowel...) ;D
anything here coupled with "society" any more repeatedly than "Voluntary"?

where ok, I admit, I found it communicative to connect the movie "V" in substituting it for the more typical "voluntary" (and honestly, couldn't imagine any one that didn't, not catching the "v"oluntary)

Is it possible you've allowed a tad-- just a tad, mind you -- a tad of preconception/prejudice that tends to inherently tilt my posts towards being Non-graspable?

Meanwhile, like with the "as" and "then" before this, I respectfully take your feedback under consideration~

[NonEntity]

Well, it's up to you, of course. I was corresponding with someone else who pointed out to me what you may have been trying to say, and she said, "I wonder who else reads him?" or something like that. I can see that you have interesting thoughts, and that is why I try to understand what you say, but the level of frustration I feel in trying to decypher your coded messages is extreme. Not meaning to be an ass here, but think about the word "c0mmunicate." It means to convey information from one point to another. If you care to communicate it would seem that you would wish to make your message as clear and easy to follow as possible. I don't know what it is that you are trying to do, but communication seems to be way down on the list. Most of the time I am simply not up to giving a good ... Damn. Occasionally I notice a comment that appears worth trying to unravel. And then I get pissed off again at being seduced into... Well, enough. I will simply say to you that if you wish to have a conversation with me, would you be willing to try and speak clearly and concisely with respect to the fact that I cannot follow all of your codes, and diversions and equivocations, nor do I wish to. And if you don't care, that is fine, too. I simply will continue to ignore most of what you post, as I normally do, and as several others that I am aware of do. You seem like a person I'd like, that's why I sometimes make the effort.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

Tharrin,

You posted this: "Ownership" is all about power..."

Would you explain how you feel about what typically would be considered "your" things relative to this statement? Is that all about power?
Examples might be a computer you bought, a refrigerator, an automobile, a pet, clothing, housing, tools for your profession. Is that all about power? And regardless of whether you label it with the word "own" or "property" or "worthy of respect"? Is it still all about power? Then lastly, is it still "power" if you grant it equally to any other, to respect as "their's" on the same basis and they do likewise?

Granting of course that perhaps you intended a particular aspect of ownership, more along the lines of land specifically...


All (if there is any "all" that reads my posts) ,

It seems obvious we have a conflict regarding property/ownership ("duh!").
It appears to be pretty broad based, including the likes of land all the way to transient, more temporal things.

Of course we are here dealing with the conflict hypothetically or principally and not so literally. But if we agree to "take it to the street", to flesh it out, then we do get to physical conflict, no?

I think its been established generally that most if not all agree that private property is a concept and thus does not exist. This is also expressed as it is not factual. Perhaps simply in expressing it as conflict, covers or implies that it requires agreement.

And so we can not come to any agreement. Now what?

The land is here. "Things" are about us. Needs and desires won't cease. Now what?

Isn't the next agreement whether or not we will use or employ violence?
Now what?

And may I ask you to validate-- or might it be phrased as how do you "re-enforce" --your personal choice? Might makes right? Majority rule/vote? Historical precedent? The lesser of two evils?

How is your personal choice honorable? Respectful? And what if we don't agree?
Does any resort to violence, call it what you may, inherently betray honor and respect? And if not, upon what factual-based/empirical reason? (or perhaps like the property "agreement", its just something you hold?)

How then does your position differ factually from The State as a position held valid, honorable, respectful, or the lesser of two evils, etc? [one specific example being the power to enforce the meanings of terms; one term being to call the use of violence, "defense"?]

[tharrin]

Leave it to NonE to post trite comments instead of addressing the truth of it. Cutting down the Redwoods has nothing to do with my previous post but artificially altering the land so that it damages it or causes harmful consequences is what we are really all about.

Eye2Eye, here is my answer to my stuff. It is only a concept that it is my stuff, without any factual basis in reality. It may presently be with me but I can only retain it for as long as nobody else decides to take it. The fact that it is in my possession does not impart I have claim to it.

Would it bother me that you came and took my supposed stuff? Probably. I would probably be more upset because I worked to get it and you did not but again I have not factually proven I own it and if we took it to those called the " state" they would have a differing opinion about who owns what but ultimately it is only an opinion.

For Example:

If I find your bike while hiking in the mountains and decide to ride it down the mountain have I factually proven that the bike is mine just because it is in my possession? If you see me riding on the bike and stop me to tell me the bike is yours, how do you factually prove to me you own it or that it was ever in your possession? What if I don't believe you?

It now comes down to how passionate you are about retrieving your bike and how passionate I am about keeping it. One of us has to make the move to determine the future use of the bike. If I push you down and ride away have I committed a crime? In your mind I have but in my mind I found the bike and no one was around it at the time I found it so I used it. Your claim is ineffectual as you have no proof that it belongs to you any more that I have proof it belongs to me. So the end effect is who is stronger, more cunning, or passionate to retain the services of that bike and what lengths we are willing to go to keep it within our possession. Ownership has not been proven and the only thing that has been proven is what each of us are willing to do to each other to make the other believe in our opinion.

So when a person breaks into the space I inhabit the only thing that has been proven is what that person is willing to do to get pass the devices I used to block his access (locks, alarm systems, barricades, etc). If he shoots me, then has factually proven what he is willing to do to me to take what I claim to be my possessions. My claim is factually unprovable with out the aid of some kind of document (receipt, deed, etc (all can be manufactured falsely), the leverage of some agency, a weapon, etc, however the only thing that has been proven is what lengths I will go to, to impress upon the other party my earnestness to shore up my unprovable claim.

So my stuff is as much a fiction as your stuff is. If you come to where I live and I am home I will try to prevent you from removing from me things I feel I have paid for (which again is illusionary as the money we believe we are paying with) but that scenario can go many directions and none of them have proven anything as factual.

So if you need documents or the power of numbers to lay claim to anything then you will have to recreate the system or something very close to it, that we presently live in. That system will be susceptible to corruption and again you have a similar situation as to what we have now.

So a cultural change is necessary to greatly reduce or eliminate the rampant capitalism (and the materialism that it generates).

In Amsterdam there are bikes for public use. If you take the bike and ride it home, nobody calls you a thief or comes after you with clubs. If somebody takes the bike from outside your door and rides it elsewhere nobody calls that person a thief. The bikes are communal. They are for the use of every one.

I rode such a bike while there and left it outside a cafe. When I came out that bike was gone but another was there and so I took it and rode it back to my hotel. An hour later the bike I rode to the hotel was gone.

Is it a perfect system? No. Do people carry the concept of property there? Sure. It is an example of how things could work and nothing more.