Private Property

[eye2i2hear]

I might needs add too, that as to working towards a voluntary society, I do not feel our first settling the property issue, which at core is settling the violence issue (called defense/honorable/respectful/right), is as much a real, day to day if you will, problem with a lot, if not most folks.

I find most people to be respectful and honorable-- granting that I give a lot of leeway in my belief that those that tend to act disrespectful and dishonorable do so more because they see The State "get away with" blatantly worse (where then all sorts of bizarre reasoning and delusion influences people's nature; eg "if I don't get it somebody else will").

But is this not the same issue with the "few bad apples"-- they seem to naturally be around, only under this system they go to work for The State? Will that element miraculously see the light and change?

I hold that these will yield proportionate influence in a Voluntary Society and just as significantly. And I hold that unless or until we get the foundation of this property issue sellable-- convincing because it is empirically solid, and as such, morally grounded-- a true voluntary society just ain't gonna happen. In fact, i'm pretty convinced its oxymoronic.

So the question is perhaps:
a) how do we get rid of the immoral gun in the room?
b) do I hold that gun in my hand when I hold my position regarding property?

[sagas4]

I disagree.

Guns aren't immoral people are.

and

exactly what is morality and who is to decide?

Maybe I'm seeing this as too simplistic. I want to be left alone to make my own decisions and negotiations without some big brother telling me I must do this or that or go to jail. I want the same for you. If you don't want it that's fine. My beliefs require nothing from you other than leaving me alone; however if you like the nanny state then you are not leaving others alone. (Note: the use of personal pronouns for clarity, not suggesting or describing anyone here, similarities purely coincidental).

much of the "rules" are subjective in terms of attempting to force folks to be virtuous. Now if you are forced to be virtuous because big brother will punish you (instead of learning first hand from results of vice), can there be such a thing as virtue and if one is forced to do or nor do something does it have any meaning?

If there is no ability to choose without loosing ones liberty in the process because of big brother then how can one learn and grow?

One cannot, which is probably why human kind as a whole has not progressed much in 4000 years from a spiritual perspective.

It seems to me that in a natural state vice is a pretty good teacher with less ill effects than disobeying nanny state. I mean if you smoke some weed get the munchies and realize you've gotten fat, and can't remember stuff, one can resolve to change, but if you take 1 toke of a doob and someone narks you go to jail for 10 or 20 years and learn how become a real criminal.

Seems plain stupid to me.

What you hold in your hand is yours, what I have in mine is mine we can trade or beat the crap out of each other and winner takes all. What does NonE care about that, unless he wants what we both are holding.

Property seems to be fairly well settled today. There's not that many folks running around killing each other and then squatting (lessen you count violence on the haluci-nation level). There are fairly well defined contracts, and lines. I buy and sell all the time. Since there is not much in the way of those types of disputes to deal with the nanny must become involved in the daily lives of it's children to have a purpose. i.e. Turn that music down eye2, I can't stand Rap, if not I'm gonna call daddy on you. na na na na na.

And in reference to the other thread. I do recognize that some folks have not grown up, but again not all people like, want, or need a mommy or daddy to tell them what to do until they are 100 years young.

As a reminder I came across this again today.

www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

[NonEntity]

I've not read the last several posts yet, so this is in that context. What I'd like to respond to is the beginning of the last post by 2i2. He quotes sagas thusly, "As we have discussed before a voluntary society will..."

This just struck me as falacious thinking. Just as there is no "state," there is no "society," and so to say "society will..." this and that and the other, is simply not rational thought. (No insult indended, Sagas.) It seems to me that each of us is an individual actor on the stage, and "society" is the sum of those actions. Just as it is foolish to say, "the voters decided you are a killer if you abort your just impregnated zygote," it is equally foolish to say that "voluntary society" will do this or that or any other thing. Individuals will make choices. Each of us choose how we will behave. That is ALL we can do. I can point a gun at you and tell you what to do, but it is still YOU who will decide what to do in that set of circumstances.

I'm just throwing this out in case it might be helpful in the process of thinking about all this stuff...

There is no "state." There is no "society." We can only deal with individuals as individuals.

- NonE

[tharrin]

Ants and beavers and man, oh my.

Unless we enter the world of horror films beavers and ants don't make conscious decisions to eradicate other species along with themselves. I believe I am still on point by saying we being at the top of the intellectual food chain should use our collective minds to not wipe out other creatures and us along with them.

I remember going to a Ripley's believe it or not museum in Branson, Mo. and saw a picture of a man, rifle at his side and a huge white moose lying at his feet. The article went on about how the moose was so rare as it was truly a white moose that was not albino but just white pelted. Leave it to man to put an end to such a magnificent creature. When asked why he done it he said because he could. There's man in a nut shell or should I say the nut in the shell.

Let's get off the we are nature along with the animals merry-go-round. Last time I looked beavers and ants weren't building skyscrapers that have the ability to blot out the sun and further more you went so far off on a tangent from the argument put forth in my post.

Instead of addressing the nullification of ownership when one or a group of persons can alter your control over supposed property, there is no factual way you or I could own a piece of land.

No two chose to talk about skyscraper building ants and beavers that build dams the size of Hoover dam all with sentient intent.

So I surrender that man is a part of nature, never said he wasn't but because of his intellect he makes choices that detrimentally effect the entirety of living beings on this planet all for monetary gain and selfish reasons (primarily).

It seems no one can prove factually they can own anything without having to defend that belief. To defend a thing does not make it based in fact. It only shows how far they are willing to take the issue to impress their opinion on others.

I am so glad we went into science fiction to defend a non-factual opinion of who controls what piece of earth.

I'm going to have to run for cover from ant's who build ant hills that produce and exude un-natural substances like mercury and dioxins. Will be afraid to go out into the park for fear of civil engineering beavers layin' them logs in competition with the Sears tower.

Gasp! Such imaginations.

Nature left to it's own ends balances. With man in the equation it wastes or is spoiled. But good old natural man doesn't care for the delicate balancing act of nature. He has paving and plowing to do.

[sagas4]

NonE,

(no insult taken and none meant here either, and thanks for keeping me on my toes but what was received was not what was meant nor intended.)

I figure from the discussion of the folks who post in this thread agree society is nothing more than a label for individual behavior done in concert that can be grouped as like or similar , just as government is a label for a different behavior at a group level, i.e. yes all done by individuals but it matters not whether it is an IRS agent, DEA, ATF, FBI, DOJ, or your local Joe policeman sticking the gun in your face and barking orders. Like behaviors can be grouped for sake of discussion.

Now broken down in details. As individuals free from other individuals influence who are grouped together for the seemingly mutual purpose of arbitrarily controlling the other group for the mutual benefit of the members of one group as evidenced by the individual actions of members of the controlling group, a utopia would not result in absence of the influence of members of the controlling group; however, it is my personal thought that to experience an existence free from the controls of a group of violent individuals would be preferable to the present organizations of individuals as what is envisioned among proponents of the former does not include visions or organizational structures that allow for the institutionalization of systems designed to concentrate power and control of one group over another for mutual benefit of the controlling group.

i.e. My understanding of a voluntary society necessarily omits government influence which allows many other organizations to literally get away with murder.

[sagas4]

Tharrin,

great, you have made the case why of all humankind must be exterminated, since we're all evil to the core. I suppose quarrying all them rocks to build pyramids in Egypt, and the ones in south America had Zero environmental impact. (On that note I realize what your communicating in terms of scale and BTW Al Gore's movie An Inconvienient Truth is good).

If we could all go back to living in grass huts that may hold a longing for some, but when I think about it I am drawn to the fact that there are several things nonexistent that make the Vision in Lazer's Short story preferable. Most notably NO Systems of organized control at a group level, or the lack of men and women systematically doing business at the barrel of a gun on an organized and grand scale as is done at present.

In all seriousness, I believe that most folks are decent, who take the path of least resistance to move forward on their journey in this dual plane of 1/2 physical 1/2 spiritual entities that I think we are, and some unscrupulous folks have taken advantage of that nature or natural state (no pun intended) in order that life is made easier for them because there is less work or struggle or effort required to obtain the necessities of existence.

If I can get some tomatoes by picking up a big stick and threatening sagas it sure is easier than tending a garden all summer, especially since sagas will likely take the path of least resistance just as most energy does in the universe.

[NonEntity]

sagas4 said:

NonE,

(no insult taken and none meant here either, and thanks for keeping me on my toes but what was received was not what was meant nor intended.)

I figure from the discussion of the folks who post in this thread agree society is nothing more than a label for individual behavior done in concert that can be grouped as like or similar , just as government is a label for a different behavior at a group level, i.e. yes all done by individuals but it matters not whether it is an IRS agent, DEA, ATF, FBI, DOJ, or your local Joe policeman sticking the gun in your face and barking orders. Like behaviors can be grouped for sake of discussion.

Now broken down in details. As individuals free from other individuals influence who are grouped together for the seemingly mutual purpose of arbitrarily controlling the other group for the mutual benefit of the members of one group as evidenced by the individual actions of members of the controlling group, a utopia would not result in absence of the influence of members of the controlling group; however, it is my personal thought that to experience an existence free from the controls of a group of violent individuals would be preferable to the present organizations of individuals as what is envisioned among proponents of the former does not include visions or organizational structures that allow for the institutionalization of systems designed to concentrate power and control of one group over another for mutual benefit of the controlling group.

i.e. My understanding of a voluntary society necessarily omits government influence which allows many other organizations to literally get away with murder.

Sagas,

I hear what you're saying, but there is this nagging voice in the deep dark recesses of my head that is saying, "YOO HOO! That's the PROBLEM, dude... FOCUS... this is the whole issue, you're using faulty thinking and the errors are all a result of this failure to keep things logically clear."

I'm not saying I've got this all straight, it's just sorta nagging at me that this seemingly simple and minor simplification of the thinking process may in fact be the ENTIRE ENCHILADA of off-trackedness.

Just keep it in mind and see if it triggers anything down the road a piece...

You know, it was REALLY HARD for me to wrap my head around Marc's point. I hadda go over it and over it and then finally the little light bulb went off. Once that happened, it seemed to stay lit, but it took a lot of rubbing of the lantern to get the genie to fire that thing up. So what I'm saying here is that maybe this is the same kinda thing. You don't get it until you get it, and then... WHAM!

(or I could be as big an idiot as Tharrin thinks I am... be your own judge, please.)

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

... there is this nagging voice in the deep dark recesses of my head that is saying, "YOO HOO! That's the PROBLEM, dude... FOCUS... this is the whole issue, you're using faulty thinking and the errors are all a result of this failure to keep things logically clear."

And all this time I thought that was tharrin's nagging voice...

[note to self: check to see if tharrin has access to gov't technology/mk-ultra...]

Just keep it in mind and see if it triggers anything down the road a piece...
You know, it was REALLY HARD for me to wrap my head around Marc's point. I hadda go over it and over it and then finally the little light bulb went off. Once that happened, it seemed to stay lit, but it took a lot of rubbing of the lantern to get the genie to fire that thing up. So what I'm saying here is that maybe this is the same kinda thing. You don't get it until you get it, and then... WHAM!

Why did that seem to make so much sense to me? "REALLY HARD" + "HEAD"?! ;D

[2nd cyber post-it note to self regarding property thread: the word of the day is "patience"... wait... wait... wait for the "wham"... & don't swear you're done with the thread quite yet] ;D

On a less serious note... its funny what you experienced with Marc's insight. Because honestly for me it was more like a second witness, a confirmation; a sigh of "somebody else sees it!" I actually had a friend who also read Marc's book to say that it was basically what I'd been saying "all along" (emphasis on the "basically", and way less the detail). He and I had done many hours in law libraries and listening to semi-patriot-semi legal beagles all the way to the paytridiots off the scale. Where it appears to me that Marc and I differ is when I try to do the in depth plowing, it is so confusing I find myself rejecting it like foul smelling food. Its like some natural sensing of a virus. Well, that and my poor memorization ability + dyslexic side tracks. But then me mum's told me 'bout all my life that I'm "rebellious".

Its odd how different we each are, aye? Ok, let's go with how unique we are instead, shall we?

[NonEntity]

No... difernt works fine for me. ;D

- NonE

[NonEntity]

I just checked in. It's sunday morning. I note that there are no new rants, screams or debaucheries on the P.P. thread this morning. PEOPLE! Please, let's not take all of this for granted. It takes hard work and commitment to maintain a consistent level of insanity.

I'll let you off easy this time, but be warned, this is no laughing matter!

- NonE

[dvishnu]

Tharrin wrote

I remember going to a Ripley's believe it or not museum in Branson, Mo. and saw a picture of a man, rifle at his side and a huge white moose lying at his feet. The article went on about how the moose was so rare as it was truly a white moose that was not albino but just white pelted. Leave it to man to put an end to such a magnificent creature.

No Tharrin....That was ONE man, not all of us...Most of us would not engage in such violent behavior merely for sport...AND not to sound utterly dogmatic, aren't YOU one of US?

[eye2i2hear]

sagas4 said:

I disagree.

Guns aren't immoral people are.

and

exactly what is morality and who is to decide?

Let's see-- you say:
1) I disagree; Guns aren't immoral, people are."
2) exactly what is morality and who is to decide?

Didn't you just decide?
So it seems you answered your own question...

Perhaps a word substitution would best bring out a point here; at least if as it sounds to me the ole "there is no morality" statement is ringing here:
1) Guns aren't widgetoral, people are.
2) exactly what is widgetorality and who is to decide?

Maybe I'm seeing this as too simplistic.

Perhaps I wouldn't go with the word chosen, "simplistic", but yupp, from my perspective, it's too "something". ;D

I feel its a matter of not genuinely looking 'far' enough. Or 'deep' enough.
This biz with property is perhaps like outer space or biology. Space seems simple enough after all; its just suns, stars, and moons with an occasional comet. It takes a proverbial special eye, added by the likes of an equally proverbial telescope and microscope to 'get at' the root of property. The other proverb further allows for expressing that too many want to declare they know all about property's simplicity without looking into the microscope. I hold there's a serious virus in most folks property petri dish called their position. [especially where that position is 'defensively justifiable' aka backed by violence; can such a "defense" be an "offense"? who decides-- but more importantly, can they empirically validate their decision?]

I want to be left alone to make my own decisions and negotiations without some big brother telling me I must do this or that or go to jail. I want the same for you.

If you truly want the same for me, then you'll pull up those land claim fences/imaginary lines until the principle(s) establishing them are validated. From my perspective, we're right back to the heart of what the thinkers both behind and within the American Declaration of Independence were, first regarding being "equal"; where common sense seems to settle that was nothing more nor less regarding authority. And then in recalling that for the day, rather than what wound up in said Declaration, being "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" the phrase prior was "Life, Liberty, and Property". How significant that is is of course subjective. I hold it conveys some serious stirring regarding this claim of definition, held common, of property. Thomas Paine's less notably influential but equally insightful writing of the time duly offered for support.

If you don't want it that's fine. My beliefs require nothing from you other than leaving me alone;

This begs the question, imo. Again, because with "your" property claim there's still a gun on the table/in the room. [the gun brought out of the room if eye is out on "your land" tonight, for example...]
As you asked about "immoral", wouldn't "we" simply ask: who defines "left alone"?

however if you like the nanny state then you are not leaving others alone.

I'm still waiting for a response [from anyone here] as how those with the guns voting together in backing their land claims differ from "the nanny" State? In other words, how far back have "they" gone in looking for trespass? Where WAS the first/original equal claim trespass-- that as such-- if "their" premise is valid, is a claim justified as being violently defended/reclaimed-- as its also "legislated" (aka "agreed to") being termed/ruled "defense"?

It seems to me that in a natural state vice is a pretty good teacher with less ill effects than disobeying nanny state. I mean if you smoke some weed get the munchies and realize you've gotten fat, and can't remember stuff, one can resolve to change, but if you take 1 toke of a doob and someone narks you go to jail for 10 or 20 years and learn how become a real criminal.

Oh, so its 'clear' where the "real" criminal is-- as long as its weed; but its not "real" when its some larger claim ie "land title"?! doG damn. So native tharrin "stakes a claim" for a night (or two, or three, or more?) for himself and his family on some land, that somewhere has this superstitious/supernatural power, called a "land title/patent" (map) and suddenly that's a "real" crime?

Seems plain stupid to me.

You tempted me to say "ditto" and "you took the words right out of my mouth." But on further reflection, for me saying some "thing" (thought) is stupid is too easily taken to be calling some "one" stupid. And so I choose to resist that temptation.

But yeah, upon reading the likes of Thomas Paine, and then principally take any other position seems "stupid" to me. But it most likely just more blindness (aka inability to reason rationally, logically, and empirically) caused by State indoctrination.

Property seems to be fairly well settled today.

Let's see... oh, say, about as "fairly" settled in having The State today?! doG damn. We The People decided and that settles it-- fairly?! Property IS The State today and for most, for sure, that settles it. Does that validate "the settled"? As what is called "fair" property is backed by the same [like it/want it or not] "fair" State. Where only because of this Statement even being made seeming to make it necessary, said State is nothing more than individuals agreeing-- where part of that agreement is to support said agreement includes using violence. Call it "compact", call it "voluntary contract", call it "covenant", call it "constitution"; but call it what it is principally: violence backed opinion.

That said, I initially wanted to agree with you. I guess I might put it that in my gut, I felt like I grasped the core of what you're saying. Where that might be that generally, most "folk" are "good folk". But doG damb, aren't we right back to defining/deciding immoral? As most STATE-think folk consider themselves good and moral? But how many follow that with "good citizens" and "moral christians/muslims/mormans/catholics"?!

Let it not be taken, however, that I'm arguing from a position that says good and moral can not be validated. Foundational is simply in first agreeing to common law/natural law as our ONLY thing-- emphasis on the word "thing" --as the heart of all social matter (emphasis on "the matter") --for it is what we have in common FACTUALLY-- whereupon we can then build concepts (eg morals, ie "murder").

There's not that many folks running around killing each other and then squatting (lessen you count violence on the haluci-nation level). There are fairly well defined contracts, and lines. I buy and sell all the time. Since there is not much in the way of those types of disputes to deal with the nanny must become involved in the daily lives of it's children to have a purpose. i.e.

Me feels the witness is in need of psychiatric evaluation, your honor. He wishes to not see The State yet argue that all that's going on with The State's blessing and backing is not because of (or at least major big time influenced/impacted by) such?!?

This reasoning is about par with saying I "voluntarily" pay my income taxes or get a driver's license, etc, etc. Sure, MOST folk hold that to be accurate, so is that The Case, settled fairly?

I specifically do not "squat" (why is that the word of choice?) today because I know said CLAIM is backed by an individual with a gun-- and a permit to have it!! --or to call his hired gun [there's a "State" on the table/in the room]...

Turn that music down eye2, I can't stand Rap, if not I'm gonna call daddy on you. na na na na na.

You won't call "daddy" even if he's backing your property claim? Even if "daddy" is everybody agreeing with you (with their hand on the collective "gun" known as "defense of property"? Boy, we need a "de" fense alright; de = take down the Collective Power fences literally and mentally; btw, in case you don't see your buddies and yourself as a collective power = A State, please feel free to help me to see my error-- but I'll need just the facts, please)

Btw, you must have been at the wrong teepee if you heard "rap" music (unless by "rap" you mean "r"eally "a"wesome "p"layers?) . More likely to hear fusion, bluegrass, jazz or classic-2-progressive rock here abouts. [you might call daddy 'bout the volume tho...]

--mye2cents worth4what-its-worth

[NonEntity]

Bravo, 2i2. Well laid out and I was able to follow much, most, of that. You've made some good points, too. If that's your two cents worth I hope not to encounter the dollar version! ;D

One issue which I have a complaint with is the equation of agreement with violence. It seems to me the you, here, and Tharrin everywhere, seem to equate agreement with violence, and while I agree that this is often the case, I disagree strongly that the two are inherently linked, for if they are, then there simply is no hope. If agreement cannot be achieved then there seems no other opti0n but to resort to violence. The point is perhaps to focus on inclusion when seeking that agreement, rather than division. Example: If you and Tharrin agree to keep me out, that is not agreement in the inclusive sense, but rather in the divisive sense. If you and Tharrin and I attempt to reconcile our various needs, desires and differences with respect, that is agreement in the inclusive sense, as well as recognition that we each have differences that need be reconciled. Me always getting my way is not realistic if it means that never may you build your building for fear that sometime, someplace, you MAY want to grow a tomato plant which my potential building would shade. And so I come back to where I keep coming back to with greater and greater frequency as if being led by some powerful force: that it needs to all be about process, not principle. Love and respect, not fear and hatred. The former (love and respect) will sometimes get taken for a ride (metaphorically speaking), but the latter, it seems to me, will always create division and destruction. It is the seeking of truth, of a oneness of purpose, which is so destructive. It creates the laws which force "no trespassing" laws and signs, as well as the intransigence of a Tharrin who will grant no slightest bit of respect to another person lest they maybe exceed his particular belief in what is "right." Only when one can accept that there are many paths that can be chosen is it possible to allow for the path of another to partially divert one's self from one's own preplanned route.

As an example I will point to the recent success that some localities have had in removing all traffic signs and controls. There has been a resultant increase in safety and harmony among all users of the traffic ways as each has had to become more congnizant and tolerant of all the other users.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

Love and respect, not fear and hatred. The former (love and respect) will sometimes get taken for a ride (metaphorically speaking)

They have an "f" word for that, right? charades' "sounds like 'duck'..." ;D

[seriously, I'm taking some time to digest what you've written, but just couldn't wait on that part...]

[NonEntity]

Firetruck?

- NonE