Private Property

[NonEntity]

tharrin said:

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.

You made a statement about building a skyscraper and blocking the light from a garden. This would have been the act of a human being in the process of living. Humans are part of the natural landscape, they are not imaginary. A redwood tree is another part of the natural landscape, and in the process of living they ALSO will construct a structure which blocks the light from a garden.

It is exactly the same thing, not trite, it is spot on the issue.

- NonE (another natural part of reality)

[tharrin]

An artificially created thing (such as a skyscraper) does not occur in nature. Trees do. If I choose to place my garden in the shadows of trees, then I am pretty sure I will fail at my gardening endeavors. If I put a garden in an open field and then you and Eye2Eye throw up buildings to the East and West of me blotting out the sun then you have caused me damage by your actions and should be held accountable. Problem is if you truly own the land then any thing you do to it should be allowed. If I can force you to remove your sun blotting structure then I have effectively nullified your claim to own your land because I have limited your use of it. You had to make concessions to appease me. Again owning the land has not factually been proven and all that has been proven is what lengths we will go to, to get our way or force our opinion on each other. That was the point NonE, I was trying to make and your frivolous cut down the Redwoods statement proves my point exactly.

We feel we have the right to change the landscape to whatever we wish it to be based on...could it be "Owning it?"

So people believe that cutting presidential faces into the side of a mountain in South Dakota all on the public dime is okay, without ever consulting the people that fund it or for that matter what it may do to the area ecologically. We control it so we do with it what we will and damn the ramifications.

The logic that we own any thing falls apart if we have to consider any one else in the decision to alter our supposed property. So if I move in next to you and get the grand idea to erect a three hundred foot totem pole, which upon completion, you find repugnant and subsequently form a committee to have it removed and are successful. How do I factually own that piece of land if I cannot control the disposition of my supposed property.

We have to think communally or we end up fighting the battle of who's will is strongest and what we are willing to do to each other to get our way.

I remember reading about the Manhattan project. the scientist involved were not sure exactly what would happen once they exploded the atom bomb. Some thought it wouldn't work, others thought it would work but were unsure if the chain reaction would stop once initiated, in fact some speculated that it might ignite the atmosphere, yet they went ahead with it anyway because they could. If those scientist had been correct and the atmosphere burned then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The point is they (the scientists and those supporting the project) thought it was okay to make a decision that could have had a decidedly devastating consequence for all of humanity because they had the opinion they had a right too. A right greater than yours to decide your fate.

Property ownership falls into the same category. If I felt I had the right to damn up a stream on my property that once ran through your property I have made a decision that effects you without your having a say in it. So your ownership of the property is a matter of opinion and if my claim of ownership of said property can be litigated away from me because I effected you and you didn't like it then my belief I own the property is just as much a fantasy or opinion as yours.

No factual basis...NO OWNERSHIP!

[NonEntity]

What about a beaver dam? Or a bird's nest? Sorry Tharrin, but I am just as much a part of nature as you are. Deal with it.

- NonE

[tharrin]

Sorry NonE you are still as unnatural as ever. Beaver dams and other such natural occurring things do not add mercury to the water supply or poison the soil with pestcides. Beavers do not make conscious decisions to alter the eco-system to the detriment of other beavers to gain an advantage of them.

[eye2i2hear]

tharrin said:

An artificially created thing (such as a skyscraper) does not occur in nature. Trees do.

[@#$%&!*#!...]

Ok, now that I got that outta my system, you'll now hear the cause: I'm afraid I have to agree with NonE on this one.
( .Y. )
@#$%&!*#! (jus kiddin' NonE)

Ok, seriously, I do feel the overall error too often made here is to not recognize that man-- and yes, even considering his reasoning ability --IS just as much a "part" of nature as any other "part". Hence, I find no factual basis for said building being "artificial".

Ok, an ant instinctively builds a high mound (you know, high enough to cast a shadow/block the sun... or so the bellyaching ladybug tells me) ... is that natural? Is it artificial?

So why is a man doing the same thing, only on a larger scale, and based upon acquired skills, not equally natural?

Point being, I feel we do ourselves a disservice in many spheres of reasoning and discussion (and even `diss cussin') when we try to make this distinction.

That said however, I also feel the SIMPLE use of an adjective communicates the likes of this so quickly. One example here simply being the use of the word: "virgin"?

So after the ant hill build... virgin nature? Nada.
After the human skyscraper... virgin nature? Ditto the "nada".

But the man's actions are natural.
Whether they are honorable/right/wise/considerate/equitable...
or
whether they are disrespectful/injust/stupid/usurpation/nonsense...

Reasoning then, is equally natural!!! (where else did it come from? And if not "from", then same question with instinct?)


I'm still looking for the authority that has the authority to authoritate such... as any agreement "terms" ;D

circle gets the square~

[eye2i2hear]

tharrin said:

Sorry NonE you are still as unnatural as ever.

technicality here... but isn't that he's still "none" as ever? ;D

Beaver dams and other such natural occurring things do not add mercury to the water supply or poison the soil with pestcides. Beavers do not make conscious decisions to alter the eco-system to the detriment of other beavers to gain an advantage of them.

[@#$%&*!]
(again!)
I feel this argument, well... its just not worth a dam. (no slander to the beavers)

Just one parallel is to put yourself just down stream and around the bend from a herd of [whatever beast you'd choose]-- where your thirst brought you there, and so did their's. Ever seen what such beasts do in the water? Call it "running septic line" if that helps. So is fecal matter in "your" (?) drinking water now suddenly "artificial"? Toxic? But is it natural?

How are they not principally the same? And likewise naturally the same?

Upon what basis is to "make conscious decisions" unnatural ("non"natural)? [request for factual basis versus opinion, please?]

I think the argument of "artificial" just doesn't hold water... or maybe it does, its just full of herd fecal matter...

That said, I'm not arguing for land being legal property as right/honorable/respectful/fair/justifiable/logical/equitable(do we get the picture?). [man, but do I just wish we could AGREE that "rights", as a word, covers the concept...]

[NonEntity]

2i2,

As far as I can tell, "virgin" is just an arbitrary point in mental time. Virgin might just as easily be that point where the earth was still dust clouds coalescing, or even before, it might be the infinite density of the pre-"big bang" stuff, whatever that was.

Everything is energy, constantly changing and evolving from one state to another, so virgin can only be an arbitrary definition, just like rights. It is the process which is important, as it is imposible to fix anything. The process of conflict resolution, because it is a process, is much closer to reality than "rights" which tend more to imagine a world which does not change. That's why I like the idea of "rights" as a failed attempt, one which may help to lead us on to a better solution.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

As far as I can tell, "virgin" is just an arbitrary point in mental time.

Hence my inclusion of: "One example here..." in using it.
(I honestly didn't take the time to look it up, it was just the first one that popped to mind; perhaps caused by just returning from one of those rapture religion threads and so having "72 virgins" on the brain...?)

But what of the general premise? ie simply make a concerted effort to use some defining adjectives instead too general ("arbitrary"?) words (like "natural" in this case)?

Everything is energy, constantly changing and evolving from one state to another, so virgin can only be an arbitrary definition, just like rights...

Yeah, you did warn me; sometime back now, in another thread, but you warned me-- that I liked to argue as bad as you! ;D

Agreed, everything is energy... its just that some forms can smack you upside the head with a huge "ouch!" following (along with blood loss and contusions), which we note simply as factual (aka "the concept of facts"?); while other forms have the energy released by yet another energy action resulting in yet another factual, that are then the reaction resulting in said similar smackings. The latter also known as the result of too long unresolved conflict. [Too often caused by failure to acknowledge (with all our energy) beneficial concepts...]

I will let said "arbitrary, like rights" comment slide for now; I disagree with using "arbitrary", as well-- wouldn't you know; its constantly changing and evolving....

So are all concepts arbitrary? And things arbitrary then just too ornery and contrary and cantankerous, thus mere conflict automatics? [me thinks I'll start calling him "NonTharrin-Not!"...]

Point duly taken though, regarding the specific word virgin. We're here to seek agreement after all, so make me a counter-offer...

[eye2i2hear]

from whence we come... (54 pages later)
the crux of this thread's original post:

[T]he quote I chose from the [book] review seems to indicate that there are two choices, government ownership and private ownership. I wonder... Is this view too limited?

If it is, then what other possibility exists. This may be the core issue in my debate with Tharrin. All of us here on Marc's board are in agreement, or at least considering the idea, that the "state" is a fiction. ... But how do we deal with property which is NOT owned by individuals and also NOT owned by "the state" or government?

The "tragedy of the commons" is seemingly the result. Are we missing some other option?

One observation a reread of this prompted for me: Factually, how is "private" property claim different from "Government" property claim? How many does it take to validate any property claim that makes it private, and how does that collective "many" differ from said Government factually? Isn't Government people/individuals? Isn't Government simply either "the majority" of any number of individuals, or any other number of individuals, either of which is willing to use violence to enforce its claim(s)? So that isn't that exact description fitting of most of the predominant Government forms today? Where the degree of violence proportionate to the decrees is the only variable? Where amongst those decrees are what is property-- equally decreed as private?

Maybe I'm missing something here-- but just as the problem with The State OR Government is a resort to violence (Mark's "barrel of a gun"), so it seems it equally is with any and all private claims? As inherently in society, the fact is we're dealing with individuals, plural...?!? How does "Society" differ from "Government" when it resorts to the barrel of a gun to settle claims? Is using the label "Society" for what is otherwise factually Government the same as using the label "defense" for what is otherwise violence relative to property claim/enforced "agreement"?

??

[sagas4]

When society is compared to government (which are both group labels correctly comprised of individuals) and then "Is using the label "Society" for what is otherwise factually Government the same as using the label "defense" for what is otherwise violence relative to property claim/enforced "agreement"?" I can't get out of my head the discussion on all having an equal interest and then it puts us at an impass as it is not possible to get everyone to agree, so where do you draw the line or should one even be drawn? I can see having none, but then what is to be done about the freeloaders who will come take some tomatoes that I have spent part of my life force caring for. Didn't they just take a piece of my life force and sall we label that stealing or since there are no lines is that ok to simply take whatever whenever?

Perhaps there are some good starts in the following works.

" SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness Positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher." - T Paine, Common Sense (1776).

I would recommend reading Our Enemy The State - by Albert J. Nock where he clearly illustrates the differences between society and "State".

Lysander Spooner - (I think it is) Vices are not Crimes. (how do you know what virtue is if there is no vice, and what is vitruous to one in one situation may be a vice to another in the same situation, and virtue to one in one situation may be vice to the same one in a differend situation type of stuff).

Also Do some research on Tragedy of the Commons. I posted some links in this thread somewhere, and links to satellite photo's as well.

On the Steppes of Central Asia is one such vision of how "society" might go about settling disputes.

For some eye-witness info I believe Scottinalaska had some interesting information about some land the state wanted to take and make "public" and some of the issues/problems that were created that did not exist prior when "private".

I don't know for sure what the difference would be if society resorts to a "barrel of a gun" to "settle" disputes, but then; is it the role of "society" to settle disputes? Is the state actually settling disputes, or creating them by using the barrel of a gun to get people to buy and use their services? Would "society" force people to buy and use their services at the barrel of a gun? If so then it isn't society it's another control mechanism, call it government or what ever one desires but it is what it is . . . raw force to control the will of another because one finds it difficult to agree . . . even to agree to disagree and go seperate ways peacefully.

This is a difficult issue, but I think Marc said something bout reading some founding documents where "government" purports to exist to protect rights/property. Then he elaborated and discussin the book, if no one has any property then they have no reason to exist. If one does possess property, then it cannot be protected by stealing it. (Reference senate doc from 1930's that all ownership is vested in and by virture of the "state". Marc listed it in the book, don't recall page# offhand).

This then brings me back to well what existed first People and Rights/Property or the State? I think people, but if property is only by virtue of the state then it didn't exist prior, and therefore the reason purported to be the causal factor for bringing the state into existence is null and void.

Man I'm getting a headache.

[NonEntity]

Aw, MAN! I am SO disappointed. I looked at the list of new posts, and there, on the "Property Rights" thread, it said: Sagas. And all this time I had thought you were too smart to go and get yourself dragged into this one. Just goes to show you that those you hold in highest esteem are just as silly and stupid and lame-brained as all the rest of us at times.

Damn. Another balloon burst.

- NonE

[dvishnu]

tharrin said:

Sorry NonE you are still as unnatural as ever. Beaver dams and other such natural occurring things do not add mercury to the water supply or poison the soil with pestcides. Beavers do not make conscious decisions to alter the eco-system to the detriment of other beavers to gain an advantage of them.

Damnit NonE, I told you not to put mercury in the water!

AGAIN!!!!!!

[eye2i2hear]

sagas,
While I appreciate the (obvious) in depth thought in your reply regarding distinctions between Govt. & Society, I feel perhaps you romped by the central aspect of my question, and then as well morphed another. Duly noting of course, eye'm not known here abouts as being the most succinct of writers, so perhaps we can chalk it up to that.

If I can hone this back, it might be to first note that 'central aspect', where that is: the willingness to resort to/use violence. I don't necessarily see this automatically drafting in "products and services". Unless perhaps we might zero in on those services of enforcement specifically, where that again simply gets us back to the violence regarding property claims-- calling/labeling it "a service" ("protective"). Equally we could morph further here and find the surveillance "products" like security cameras that equally point out "squatters" and "poachers", yada yada.

Thus I'm not so interested here, regarding any additional enforceable 'claims'-- such as "vices" (as yet another potential label only)-- but again isolating the willingness to use violence as enforcement in our defining/usage of labels. Where hopefully here in the forum generally, we're persisting in getting to how the facts are used to validate concepts as well as determine/eliminate "vices" ie "personal" opinion, from immorality/dishonor/disrespect/violation of rights<<== just for you, NonE.

sagas, did you find anything for that headache? If so, pass me a shot/hit/dosage here X.

One additional swing here. It seems one thing "we" folks are prone to do is switch a label, whereby in doing it, we mentally 'allow' that we don't have to examine (or re-examine/perpetually examine) the facts and/or the morality under those labels 'ever' again. Presently, a couple of these labels are "freedom" and "liberty" [ie a label for a valid concept]. George W says we're "spreading freedom; and by gum (or by gun), we're for that! Hand me my patriotic pistol!" etc. George O. (rwell) covered this phenomena. "War is peace".

I suppose that's an inherent negative side of human nature. It seems to me that it spins from a practical and so beneficial need-- ie to not reinvent the wheel --and simply gets 'taken advantage' of as a more natural advantage. Crafty folk, these We The Peoples... Cunning, as well. "United" States means Social "Contract"! r-i-g-h-t.

So for me here, specifically, its not about products and services at the barrel of a gun, per se (or in general), but about the willingness by any group of people to enforce an opinion-- examining along with that, any majority decision, as any contract/oral "signing"-- with said barrel pointing "behind" it. Land called 'private' then being no exception to "The Rule"?

Hopefully it can be gleaned from my (self-proclaimed-to-be) writings, that I hold & argue that ownership and property can be validated claims-- as they are by common sense/natural right/birth right-- "Life rite" empirically established (or arguable). And by using the word "common" with right I do not mean to infer that I hold "communal" nor "communistic" as 'right' [see, if you have the pain killers for it, my offering earlier in this thread of "investment" as a logical, empirical centered attempt to distinguish valid claim/ownership/personal property from mere desire, aka theft, aka dishonor of equity/etc; regarding 'theft' it might be said even, that its less the specific object and more the stealing of a person's life, measured in time?].

And so, the degree to which a decree-- eg "land patent"/"land claim"/"property deed" --will be backed by the use of violence is where the proverbial rubber hits the road (or the bullet hits the bone, Twilight Zone*); regardless of applying the decal of State, Government, or Voluntary Society to the side of the patrol car (as equally provided for in the subsection D) of title 26 of the code that defines "defense of property claim"-- see paragraph "f.u." if you disagree with claim as valid).
??

(Somewhere in a lonely forum thread there's a guy starting to realize that eternal fate has turned its back on him. It's 2AM.) ;D <<== note sagas' post time!

[sagas4]

eye2i2hear said:

As inherently in society, the fact is we're dealing with individuals, plural...?!? How does "Society" differ from "Government" when it resorts to the barrel of a gun to settle claims? Is using the label "Society" for what is otherwise factually Government the same as using the label "defense" for what is otherwise violence relative to property claim/enforced "agreement"?

??

I thought that was the point and was mulling around some of the questions floating around in my head. The reading material was some of the things I reference when my head begins to hurt thinking about this. I think they are a good place to start but by no means complete.

As we have discussed before a voluntary society will not be free from it's ills and problems, and by no means a "utopia", but one would at least in theory be free-er to live as an adult responsible for their own actions.

--------------------

NonE,

Sorry I run around with a stick pin. If you'd quit blowing up them darned balloons I'd quit popping them.

(See hows that for shirking responsibility and redirecting blame?)

[eye2i2hear]

sagas4 said:

As we have discussed before a voluntary society will not be free from it's ills and problems, and by no means a "utopia", but one would at least in theory be free-er to live as an adult responsible for their own actions.

No problem with the theory, here. And I'm clearly not looking for nor expecting utopia (or perfection) by having a voluntary society. Simply recalling that "society" means "people" settles any stirrings of hope of utopia [looking longingly in my mirror].

I simply can't get this knot in my stomach to quite churning, a knot which says that apart from getting folks to agree about property we WILL NOT have a voluntary society as we will not see The State fade into the sunset.

Again, simply because I can not see how changing the labels changes the conditions. Compared to not being able to see how changing from a "monarchy" to a "democracy" changes the conditions-- with due notice of the influence of "the con" (that helps to convince U.S. otherwise regarding the same ole same).

Reading from NonE's flash cards here, its all about agreement-- where lack thereof is conflict, in need of resolution. Where the core of property, most specifically land ownership, centers in agreement. Call it "deed", call it "title". Call it "right". Call it "agreement". Its still a concept in need of having empirically based reasoning behind it, or it quickly slips right over into mere "legal" opinion. Nothing wrong with using the label "legal" of course; other than to the masses, it implies what? Yupp, "enforcement".

What if the utopia-think is in ignoring the issue of property and thinking we can have a no-State society?! I'm more inclined every day to think that's dead on. [one biggie here is "defense", obviously; well, what is the #1 biggie most claiming we must have The State say is the reason? Yupp, "national defense". Defend what is "ours". Call it "The Land of The Free" or call it "The Nation". Its still only a "CLAIM". And just what is that at core "private property"? And as I've further found added to the dung heap, what factually distinguishes property as "private" versus "government"? It seems clear, its only Government-- as nothing more than those having agreed to it-- then diving the spoils up amongst the dividers?!]

You know, I don't know if Thomas Paine "seeing" this core issue is significant or not. Maybe like with so many of us, he nailed one issue (liberty) and was totally off the wall on the other (land as birth right). But I can say I am somewhat-- somewhat, mind you-- able to be grasp what he was up against in another of his on target issues of "holy religions" regarding how it was received by most around him. I start talking to my contemporaries, questioning the "deed = right-to-use-violence-and-call-it-defend" doctrine (indoctriNation?), by questioning upon what or who's authority validated the original claim (invalidating then, other's equitable claims), sorry, but I just see a "call to arms" all over again. Only this time, where the "Colonies" became the "States", The State becomes "The Voluntary Society"! Hip-hip-hooraye! Long live The V.S. of A.!! [hey Betsey, we need a flag, girl!]

Or as Stefan notes: there's still a gun in the room.
Be that the State room or the voluntary society's property "room".
That gun, lying on a "deed"-- aka as a piece of paper, but now replacing "The Constitution"-- to land/acreage on the night stand, just flashes "State" to me. Even if it claims to be The Defense rests [as parties having reached agreement that its "so"].

Utopia? I feel we won't even discard The State apart from finding resolution-- empirically and naturally clear --for this issue. doG, I'm not even sure WE've discarded The State (concept), but instead are merely seeking a new label to white-wash it?!