Private Property

[sagas4]

NonE asked That I post this exchange. I made edits where I thought appropriate. If this is unacceptable let me know and I'll change it back.

NonE,

Yoo Hoo, help me out here will ya. Where's the river I'm thirsty.



I don't think you're an idiot actually I respect your comments as your a pretty clear thinker on most occasions. Well sound logic and reason, I'm not sure about the pretty part. I'm having a difficult time with this thread cause every time I think I'm getting it someone else tells me I'm not. I'm not sure it's even really that important an issue worth all the time we've invested in it.

You said, "That's the PROBLEM, dude... FOCUS... " Please elaborate I'm not getting it. I don't do business at the barrel of a gun. I don't force anyone to buy the properties I rehab or computer services I offer, in fact it seems that Lummox and or Tharrin think that folks walk away thinking they screwed the other party. I don't see it that way because of the way I operate. I think most folks are decent people even if the lights are on and no one is home. I dislike the system that would turn even the best of us into violent thugs.

I mean, the prosecutor in my recent court case is a decent fellow. I didn't really hold any feelings of dislike or hatred for him nor the judge personally as human beings, of course I don't like the system, even though Marc calls them liars thieves and killers, Not all of them really understand the nature of the beast. I said that when Marc first started this board. I still believe it true especially after my recent learning experience. There are those who know but for most, It's a job, puts food on the table, they have very well defined rules and procedures that everyone follows even the "pro Se / Pro Per" folks handling their own cases are kept in line, everyone's brain seems to be on autopilot and few if any folks like those of us who post here have the gumption to ask a few questions that creates ripples that causes the autopilot to switch off. I don't like the fact that either of them work in a slimeball job, I'd hope that one or both of them realizes it some day and walks away, but my dislike is for the system not the people unless they have done something very terrible. That is the honest truth.

I took to Marc's book straight away. I had to re-read it 3 or 4 times to believe what I was reading. I didn't think someone could publish material like that and still be around to talk about it. At first I thought I was imagining what was written on the pages. I knew something seemed out of order but my whole life could never figure out what it was. Others I have talked to say the same as you. Had to re-read because it was difficult to get their head around Marc's message. MAybe because I have always railed and pushed against "authority" even as a young child. It never really concerned me until orders or force came from on high but at that point I have always resisted. It seemed the natural thing to do. Action - Reaction / Reaction - Action. Yin and Yang.

My recent epiffany about every thing being energy has played a part in this. If I'm a freaking energy source like a few megawatts of electricity, I want to move randomly and freely , I don't want to be shoved down a piece of copper wire like so much amperage.

Perhaps I should ignore this thread and go back to focusing on things that make me happy-er than frustrated-er. It seems everytime I get back into this thread I keep getting pulled pushed or dive into the being forced issue. I can't help it. In the realestate transactions there are certain rules and regulations, and you have to play the game to get anything done and every time I see "property" it triggers those nasty hoops I have to jump through just to be able to hammer some nails, and hang some drywall which is what really makes me happy, especially when passing some perceived value on to the future home owner. Heck that makes me think, I'm gonna start hiding a bottle of Dom Perignon somewhere easily found like in a cabinet or something every time I sell a rehab. A little signature that will bring even more happiness to the hearts of the new dare I say . . . owners?

Tharrin and Lazer want to go back to something that will not happen unless there is some world wide breakdown especially in technology. I full on believe that we can harness technology to live harmoniously with the environment, but there are certain interests, that feed money into the belly of the beast and it can use it's might to keep folks doing certain things in certain ways. For my part I installed a Geo Thermal and use 22watt 7 year bulbs, that put out the same lumens as 60 watters so there! (Next on the list is new tripple pane replacement windows). The money interests seem to have the folks in power believing there will be a system wide economic collapse if alt fuels are pushed but Roy McAlister has laid out a plan that is not only plausible but would likely boost the economy while reaching harmonious balance with ecological systems of the planet.

One has to know about a problem before is can be solved but in order to solve it we must remain focussed on the solution or goal we want to reach.

Regards,
My friend.

I'm not pretty, huh? Humph. Like THAT's gonna get you anywhere!

First off, I'm busy now, so this is gonna be real short.

Second, I wish you'd put this live on the board because everything you've said seems to me very pertinent.

Third. I think you misunderstood me about my beginning statement. I was trying to quote my mind talking to me where I said, "FOCUS!" --- I was trying to say that I have this sense that I'm missing something important, and that something is trying to get my attention.

Fourth. I think that Tharrin is, as I said somewhere recently, seems to be locked into some strange [negative] space from which he will not allow himself to venture out. Stefan Molyneux would probably claim it has to do with his childhood traumas or some such. Could be. But although he has some points worthy of consideration, I find that [his comments seem negative] Its a shame. But, oh well, I no longer worry about it or him.

Last. I'm finding that the discussion causes my mind to think and to go places which it might not otherwise have thought of. I do think that the underlying question is a major one, at least in western thought. But if it makes you pain then stay away. "That which we focus on we give power to."

Feel free to paste this exchange up on the board if you wish. Or not.

I've gotta go now, but take care and smile, it's a beautiful day!

- NonE

First: Feel free to do the same. If you want this public I have no problem with it. I don't have time to edit and post right now.

Second Tharrin is a good guy. It may be his job.

Third, hence my comments in the post above above, we are in agreement. That which we focus on we give power to, which reminds me to take up that discussion with Marc. He must focus on explaining the scam for newcommers; however, I like the shows where he focusses on solutions and positive things.

I have to go to work right now to fulfill the terms of a [dare I say the nasty word . . . ] contract. Thanks for the reply.

[sagas4]

Eye2,

I'm not going to respond to all the detail, don't have time. It was good although I have reservations about some of the comments.

Your first observation was spot on. Perhaps I should word it more clearly,

1. What is morality? Who decides?
2. Can an inanimate object such as a gun be immoral as the word is commonly understood or is the person weilding it the immoral one?

Be careful in making comments about that which is unknown. . . I have no fence around the place where I spend most of my time. If you want to walk out in nature feel free to do so just please don't trash the garden I spend a great deal of time tending; If you want something from it ask, I will oblidge. Be careful though, you may not be able to get there because my neighbors on 3 sides all have fences some with barbed wire.

Many of your comments seem to imply that we have property because of the state but Which came first the idea of property or the state? If the state came first and property is by virtue of the state then the reason commonly given for creating the state (to protect rights and property) is null and void as nothing existed prior in order to spurr the creation of the state. If such ideas do exist then there is a problem because one does not protect rights and property by consistently violating them.

I am not brandishing the "immoral gun". When you call for me to put it down quit using the state and give up property claims are you telling me that I can't have a teepe over my head like you? I have never once forced anyone to make an exchange with me for the things produced by my mind setting my body to action to produce them; however, see the previous post. I like to hang drywall, pound nails, and work on computers among other things, it makes me happy. If people have something they like doing that produced something of value to trade me then all the better; but in order for any of us to trade or support our existence we are all FORCED to jump through the hoops because the state exists.

Are you advising I quit doing what makes me happy and provides sustinence for continued existence or are you advising me to quit following rules of the state and then get thrown in jail or worse shot for disobeying? If the latter then by all means lead the way, figure out how it's done and I'll follow your lead.

As for the RAP if it's the Really Awsome Performers you mentioned then by all means turn it up, . . . but watch out someone that works for the state might hear and force us to turn it down or arrest or shoot us in the process although we came to agreement.

Oh and I apologize to all if my logic and reasoning have not been up to par the last few months; I have been preoccupied especially intense the last couple of weeks; I doubt I'll be focussing on this much longer.

[eye2i2hear]

sagas4 said:

Oh and I apologize to all if my logic and reasoning have not been up to par the last few months; I have been preoccupied especially intense the last couple of weeks; I doubt I'll be focussing on this much longer.

graciously noted and appreciated as having been expressed
(as I await my turn at the same; seems we each have those "times")

[eye2i2hear]

Then he says: "If I am born into the earth, where is my part? Have the goodness, gentlemen of this world, to show me my wood lot, where I may fell my wood, my field where to plant my corn, my pleasant ground where to build my cabin." ..."Touch any wood or field or house-lot on your peril," cry all the gentlemen of this world; "but you may come and work in ours for us, and we will give you a peice of bread."

Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Conservative 1841

I find this vast net-work, which you call property, extending over the whole planet. I cannot occupy the bleakest crag of the White Hills or the Allegheny Range, but some man or corporation steps up to me to show me that it is his.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Conservative 1841

As I am born to the earth, so the earth is given to me, what I want of it to till and to plant; nor could I without pusillanimity omit to claim so much.

["pusillanimity": cowardice; fear--Webster's 1913]

Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Conservative 1841

Whilst another man has no land, my title to mine, and your title to yours, is at once vitiated.

["vitiate": contaminate; void; annul; corrupt etc]

Ralph Waldo Emerson

quote source: The School Of Cooperative Individualism.org: The Land Question

[eye2i2hear]

If any man has a right on earth, he has a right to land enough to raise a habitation on. 'If he has a right to live, he has a right to land enough for his subsistance. Deprive anyone of these rights, and you place him at the mercy of those who possess them.

George Henry Evans, 1841, as quoted by Charles McCurdy in Anti-Rent Era in New York Politics: 1839-1865. source: The School of Cooperative Individualism.org: The Land Question

** If the use of the word "right" hinders you, substitute any form of "deserving of respect", "deserving of honor", or "anarchist claim" etc in its stead **

I would offer that this position regarding land is principally little different from the position that each individual has the highest claim ("owns"/"has proprietary and exclusive control") over their physical body. For apart from inseparable/unalienable position, he literally will sooner or later have neither. Apart from the free ability to live, viz, fulfill all of nature's mandates upon him called Life, an individual is never free-- be that to eat, to sleep, to labor, or to take a dump; much less anything more. To deprive a man of a share of land, and as well water and air, is pure and simple subjection to a higher authority-- an archy (not be confused with the singular word, "anarchy"). It is slavery. How is it not factually/empirically so, other than mere opinion or dishonorable agreement?

[eye2i2hear]

Land is not, and cannot be, property in the sense in which movable things are property. Every human being born into this planet must live upon land if he lives at all. He did not ask to be born, and being born, room must be found for him. The land in any country is really the property of the nation which occupies it.

James A. Froud in Ireland (1880) The School of Cooperative Individualism.org: The Land Question

I do not know the author's intended definition of "the nation", but in quoting him I intend it as the peoples. I find myself a tad uneasy with the way its expressed as "room must be found for him"; I find that settled though when linked back to the condition of "born" ie land certain is a birth-right.

[NonEntity]

Well then, food "should" also be a birthright, and probably education, and, well, health care, of course... and maybe chocolate, too, if we're going to really be a caring and sharing "nation" and all that!

- NonE

(oh, did I fail to mention a "living wage?"...)

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear said:

If any man has a right on earth, he has a right to land enough to raise a habitation on. 'If he has a right to live, he has a right to land enough for his subsistance. Deprive anyone of these rights, and you place him at the mercy of those who possess them.

George Henry Evans, 1841, as quoted by Charles McCurdy in Anti-Rent Era in New York Politics: 1839-1865. source: The School of Cooperative Individualism.org: The Land Question

If a man has a "right" it cannot be deprived of him, for "rights" are not something that can be taken away. Only privileges are revokable, not rights. If a man does not have a "right" to land then it also cannot be taken away from him by those who DO - as they also would not have such a "right."

You can't have it both ways in your argument. Either rights exist or they do not, they cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.

I think any semi-rational person can, with a modicum of considered thought, realize that there are no such things as rights, they are simply magical rubbings on the vessel of the genie, pleading for a magical spell to make wishes come true.

- NonE

[NonEntity]

I must (yet once more!) admit that I've been an ass. (It may happen again at some point, sadly.) I've allowed myself to get angry and nasty at Tharrin. This doesn't mean that I'm now agreeing with him, but it does mean that I recognize that my stupid way of behaving is not beneficial to him or me or anyone else, except maybe George Bush, but he needs no help from me. So, let me once again apologize for my assitude, Tharrin.

Okay, with that done, let me stir up more trouble.

It just struck me that what I have trouble with Tharrin about is the same thing that Tharrin has trouble with me and others about: Proclamations. Tharrin PROCLAIMS that all men have ... well, I can't say he says rights, because I'm not sure that is the word he would use, but RIGHTS is the essence of the idea so I'll use it anyway: Tharrin PROCLAIMS that all men have rights to respectfully go any damned place they please and use anything that is not currently in the process of being used by another. (Such definition of "currently" is conveniently absent, and never backed up when pushed against, but it is part of his belief system, I think.) He never has wavered from this position, to the best of my memory.

I, on the other hand, say that "rights" is an idea with merit. It has as many problems inherent in it's use as it does values, but it at least addresses some substantive issues which Tharrin's ideas appear not to address.

I also go on to say that I don't believe that "rights" "factually" exist absent a specific contract between willing parties to the effect of creating them. So, according to me, you can't just claim you have rights because you sorta feel like it's the way things oughta be.

And as I've said around here before someplace, I'm very much leaning to the idea that the idea of "facts" and "principles" and "things of a fixed nature in general" are part of the problem. Let me rephrase that. I think that having a static view of things is asking for failure as the nature of reality is dynamic.

So what I'm saying is that while Tharrin's view, as I understand it, and the views of all who seem totally counter to Tharrin's view, are actually failing because they are all working from the same thought paradigm even if from different positions within that paradigm.

I can proclaim I have rights, and Tharrin can proclaim that I don't have rights, but we are BOTH OF US in the same mindset of presuming that there is a fixed way of viewing the world that we must accept or reject.

And I reject that view. (Boy doesn't THAT sound like I'm contradicting myself!!!)

So I will repeat: I think that "it" is all about process, not principles. I think it is more beneficial to view the world as a constant state of flux wherein we all must negotiate on a day to day basis rather than thinking that once we nail something down we can expect that the world will always stay the same and the rules we went by when we nailed the things down will still apply tomorrow and next decade.

- end of ramble for the moment...

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

If a man has a "right" it cannot be deprived of him, for "rights" are not something that can be taken away. Only privileges are revokable, not rights. If a man does not have a "right" to land then it also cannot be taken away from him by those who DO - as they also would not have such a "right."

You can't have it both ways in your argument. Either rights exist or they do not, they cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.

I of course agree that FACTS can not both exist and not exist at the same time. But this argument is not a matter of facts; I'll get to that shortly. I just wanted to clarify this latter as a valid, rational position.

I think any semi-rational person can, with a modicum of considered thought, realize that there are no such things as rights, they are simply magical rubbings on the vessel of the genie, pleading for a magical spell to make wishes come true.

- NonE

doG damn it, where is that smack-him-up-side-the-head key on my keyboard when I need it!?!

First response to this? PRESUMPTIVE!

"no such THINGS"...

How many times do I have to repeat it?? I'VE NEVER SAID RIGHTS EXIST! NOR DO I READ INTO MOST'S WORDS THAT THEY ARGUE IT EXISTS EITHER. (ok, i use the CAPS key until I find that "smack" key)

Call 'em giz`Moes if it'll help, Curly & Larry! Call 'em widgets.

Rights is simply a word for a valid (as empirically based) CONCEPT!!

Rights is simply a word for a valid (as empirically based) CONCEPT!!

Rights is simply a word for a valid (as empirically based) CONCEPT!!

x number of times on the chalk board here...

"Honor" and "respect" do not "exist" either (only actions, as facts, establish a conclusion of one or the other). But are you telling me that makes them not to be of utmost value? To keep harping that they "must exist or not exist" is borderline insanity imo-- as who are you arguing with?!!

And then infer that I'm not even "any semi-rational"?!? [but then, that lumps me in with some purdy good company, the likes of Tommy's J & P for starters, as they saw it rational to use the very word; Thomas Paine "semi-rational"? I'd say "yeah, r-i-g-h-t"; but of course it doesn't exist so I can't...apart from being labeled less than semi-rational-- again; doG damn, does "rational" even exist? Let's argue that it either must exist or not exist and that we can't have it both ways, say, for a change...]

I honestly can only surmise that you only allow YOUR meaning to apply to the word and can't/won't hear it otherwise. That of course is your prerogative-- your RIGHT. I have not the right to try by whatever force necessary to stop you, you see-- at least and still call myself honorable. [Ok, hand taken off of the "smack" force key here--dang!] Well, no other means than yet another NON-Existent concept called the "force" of words. "Doesn't exist!" "Not even semi-rational!!"
[where you get the basis for holding your meaning I'd guess is from too much legaleze influence; but that's just a guess; or perhaps its the still lingering over compensation or swing of the proverbial pendulum regarding the importance of existence of facts relative-- only --to Courts/charges]

Just as clearly as a man can have his "due" honor dishonored (see violate a contract), he can have his rights "violated". They didn't cease to exist-- heck neither ever did to start with. Does his honor or his "due" regarding respect have to exist before it can be dishonored? When someone dishonors another, does the other's honor cease to be relevant? Isn't it only in risk of being libel? Such is only if some one insists that "it" must exist!?! Unless in your cranial matter, such as this MUST "exist" (or the other is not right??).

I can only once more offer, then to seek to reconcile this merry go round regarding the use of the word rights, you give me the word YOU use to describe what the natural, common, universal expectation of both parties in a contract hold to, as then being either honored or violated-- the latter being when the specifics agreed to are not held to/respected? Where that expectation is valid because [your word here]...? [my and other's word being: it is their right.

What was disrespected in a contract violation if not the CONCEPT universally held regarding being treated fairly/as agreed to/as to be treated "right"?!? And by what authority can it be claimed that the word "rights" can not stand for such a universal expectation (map it)? And then by what authority is it declared to have to exist? [or to be "etched in stone", in case that puppy follows us home here yet again]

Where it simply is that a man expects to be able to live-- apart from an other-- his natural equal in authority --usurping his authority thereof, and we choose to call that usurpation a violation of his right? No different from murder (non-life by another's authority) being the opposite of right, then wrong.

It (Life) all centers in the issue of authority. The balance of that authority is simply each sides rights.
Which has the "right" to tilt the scales?! Neither.
Which has the power to? Either.
Doing so does nothing to dissolve the scales, and so, neither's rights. They never existed; as neither did authority; its only seen in the mind, precisely where its violated-- and honored. And valued. Precisely where every "thing" in life, existent & not, is of any matter.

doG gone ya`!! ;D

[NonEntity]

I think maybe the idea is that said respect must be earned, not expected. Does that clarify my position better?

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

I must (yet once more!) admit that I've been an ass. (It may happen again at some point, sadly.) I've allowed myself to get angry and nasty at Tharrin. This doesn't mean that I'm now agreeing with him, but it does mean that I recognize that my stupid way of behaving is not beneficial to him or me or anyone else, except maybe George Bush, but he needs no help from me. So, let me once again apologize for my assitude, Tharrin.

Que up the old song "I'm Not Lisa..." and change it to I'm not Tharrin...
but let me say I appreciate this, NonE. And I don't even want to hint that its any of my business, but I really haven't taken your comments here to be anywhere close to the moving of the "ass meter"-- nor setting off the "nasty" buzzer. "Passionate"? "Zealous"? Perhaps. But I feel it always cuts through that all that is just because you care and have a sense of how important this all is. Of course only you can assess the level otherwise. I just wanted to stick my cyber nose in this door and tell you I appreciate the attitude.

Next, I'm going to take a cyber liberty and whack to what I see as a big important aspect to be kept in mind:

It just struck me that what I have trouble with Tharrin about is the same thing that Tharrin has trouble with me and others about: Proclamations.
...
And ... I think that having a static view of things is asking for failure as the nature of reality is dynamic.

So what I'm saying is that while Tharrin's view, as I understand it, and the views of all who seem totally counter to Tharrin's view, are actually failing because they are all working from the same thought paradigm even if from different positions within that paradigm.

... we are BOTH OF US in the same mindset of presuming that there is a fixed way of viewing the world that we must accept or reject.

And I reject that view. (Boy doesn't THAT sound like I'm contradicting myself!!!)

So I will repeat: I think that "it" is all about process, not principles. I think it is more beneficial to view the world as a constant state of flux wherein we all must negotiate on a day to day basis rather than thinking that once we nail something down we can expect that the world will always stay the same and the rules we went by when we nailed the things down will still apply tomorrow and next decade.

So just what are these proclamations/opinions?
Yupp: air moving if its words, and words appearing if its typed.
What distinguishes "principles" from "processes"?
Who decides? [fwiw, the words "principles" and "concepts" are practically synonyms-- in my thinking/processing]

I'd offer that the ultimate solution is to persistently require than any such concepts be empirically supported-- starting with my own! I honestly don't see any other basis for determining fantasy and superstitious opinion from valid contract offerings in our life negotiations.

Now, I'm not discounting that beliefs have consequences. I find the old proverb of "As one believes, so one is (does/acts upon)." to be very insightful.

But central here is the first essential universal agreement to be made: we will reject the temptation to use violence to enforce our opinion. What's left then? Heated debate? Huff 'n puff off to our respected mental corners?

And off the top here-- with a disclaimer that I'll give it more thought-- but off the top, I'd even say this agreement applies to principles, rights, proclamations, and the likes. [again, i offer that the "guarantee" inclusion in the words "rights" is a usurpation of the word, regarding the concept its more historically stood for; granting, that legaleze abuses it as such, big time; but that's a violence based position, and so perhaps that says it all? rights are simply the opposite plates of the scale of authority-- imho; I agree not to resort to violence if you disagree/we have conflict here ]

Working to hold authority over our anger (as some of the other passions similar) rather than over another, is a huge job for us all. Anger tends to be the closest emotion to a ever so quick morph to violence-- perhaps running a close second, or even tying with it, is fear. (Some posit that most anger is simply a reshaping of fear; I dunno.)

Now, regarding your offering on this proverbial contract negotiation table here in Cyberville, while I feel I grasp what you're getting at, I wonder if its not but yet another slip into utopia-hope? Or maybe its more that its a hope that by substituting some words, the core conflict issues that are natural (if not naturally inherent) will somehow disappear with the old words? Accept my definitions and my words, and see, conflict just vanishes!? Tricky bizz, this bizz of semantics.

I feel I grasp in words like rights and principles, the very flux you speak of. Having said that, I also would allow that for many if not most, that is not the case. But then presently, neither is anarchy the case.

I don't think tho, its either the words or the principles or the rigidity of any of such that are the problem leading to, or risking ending in, conflict. I feel instead it is the very same thing fueling State-think. And that is simply ignorance. So many seem to not even have the skills that allow for easy communication. Surely, isn't part of the ignorance to make words rigid? Its certainly the attempt of attorneys working essentially for The State to make that the "case" (then to be "won" or "lost"). They benefit from just such. I simply don't find in day to day dealings with folks-- again discounting those dealings where appeals to State intervention are made or threatened or implied-- most folks don't seek "the letter" of the law--it my rigid way or by god we draw arms!? Take away then, simply the availability of resorting to violence, and what are we left with? Opinions offered and open for discussion-- further, as the case may be. [another huge ignorance issue is a maturity issue; there is a big challenge about us in helping folks to accept responsibility and ween off of The Parental nature usurped by The State; I'll offer it here too again, I wonder if much of the problem in this forum's conflicts is not simply remnants of State-think...]

I then wonder if one of our central, perpetual, and diligent exercises is in simply first agreeing that we will proceed no further until we have agreed that we will not resort to violence. That will of course necessitate diligent examination of whether there is a gun in the room-- somewhere-- which we are either ignoring or refusing to acknowledge.

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

I think maybe the idea is that said respect must be earned, not expected. Does that clarify my position better?

"must"...?!?
lol
we'll blame that one on the hour and the plethora of words here, what say?

does it clarify the position any better? for me, not really.

I have no problem with you expecting me to not interfere with you "living". And using the word rights to cover it.

I suppose I feel an appeal for using the word is that it as a word appeals to an empirical establishment of validity. That keeps it from being a mere badge or hat that can be worn (as those are simply opinion representations/'man'ifestation). Its like saying (or "knowing") that respecting someone is the right thing to do (or is it the right thing to be?) . Or that honoring someone is the right thing, etc. Or honoring one's word, etc. All those things Molyneux uses the phrase "universally preferable behavior" for. That linkage then to those being right simply morphs over to using the word rights. Where right is not something anyone is guaranteed, any more than being honored or respected is. Life is after all, a four letter word; as is one of its synonyms: risk. But are rights, rightfully expected?

Key being again, the honoring of, say for example, my natural right to eat, is not that I can expect you to feed me; the right doesn't obligate you to do what nature requires of me (tested simply by "the Robinson Crusoe Test"); rather that I can expect you not to prevent me from doing it (where you are "simply" calling any hindrance your "freedom" for example). [and yes, I can easily see "flux" aka NonR(igidity) all in and around said rights!]

Does that help any?

[NonEntity]

Dude! This is fun. :-)

First, let me say that I do not say that I would never use a gun or other form of violence. I hope that I would never feel the need to do so, but there may come a time, a forcible rape might be such a time, if you want an example, where I would use mortal violence.

Next, let me point out Marc's point, that law is nothing more than opinion backed by a gun. So when you are believing you are in the right and have right on your side and deserve respect and however-the-hell-else you might want to phrase it, it is still your opinion. I may agree with you full well, but then, obviously someone else does NOT, else there would not be the conflict. So it comes down to conflict resolution any which way you look at it. Does it not? I think that the idea that you know you are right is a very dangerous way to live. I cannot speak for others. I cannot proclaim how others should behave or think or what the rules should be. I can only speak to what I am finding that my journey in life has led me to understand at this very moment. And that lesson now is that I don't have all of the answers. I am my own authority. I make foolish mistakes. I am arrogant. I am humble. I am confident. I am confused. All of these things are a part of my understanding of myself. I seriously doubt that anyone can absolutely know the truth, and I will continue to recognize that I am the only one who can make decisions regarding my life and what and how I should behave. This very well may mean that I may decide to use violence at some point, but that is the very farthest thing from my desire and I attempt to do everything in my ability to find any other way of interacting with others. I think that those who DO feel they have the truth are probably confused and afraid and are humans just like me, so to use violence with them is only the very last resort I would want to employ to survive. Fear is a dangerous thing. It causes far more damage than necessary. It is something to be avoided not to be coveted.

There are no hard and fast rules. It is a dance, this journey of life. May I achieve as much grace as I can negotiating the dance floor.

I'm not sure that this is coherent, but I think it may be pertinent in this conversation.

- NonE

[NonEntity]

In response to your post that you made above my last (that you made while I was contemplating, bloviating and pondering), let me say that I prefer to use the word "desires" where others might say "rights." I think it is much more realistic. And nonetheless valid, I might add.

- NonE