Private Property

[eye2i2hear]

I'm still trying to figure a way to try to get at the perspective I see regarding the concept that I use the word rights for, that would make it "wrappable" (Yo, word-- not to be confused with "rappable" yo PoNonDitty, diggit?) to your mind as well.

I think you captured something you find attached to the concept, that I don't see as necessary or more importantly, empirically supportable, when you used the word "guarantee". To say that rights implied a guarantee, etc. I honestly have never "heard" that when I hear appeal to natural rights-- again, not to be confused with legal rights. Its like valid rights come from a defensive posture and rarely, if ever, from an offensive.

I'd hoped the analogy of the scales and balance might peel away at least some of the mental block. Where again, one of the issues (if not the ultimate issue) with conflict is authority. And so examining purely from the empirical foundation, we find nothing within nature making for any higher authority-- that is again, related to Life essentially aka life's essentials. And so this equity of authority-- our each being born with equal authority is represented by the balance of our two negotiating plates; the plates of the scale. The word rights first and foremost, simply represents all that we each hold equally. Just as with freedom, where mine ends is where your's begins, so it is with rights. That which I have, you have. So I struggle with seeing how "desires" even gets close to this concept of rights. I do understand again, how easily the concept can be perverted. I do know that I understand or can see how merely another word as choice changes what does or causes the perverting.

Back to "desires", I don't see things like my biologicals being desires. Again, to me they are mandates. Things nature requires each of us to do. And so it is not my desire that you allow me to eat, is it? Or a desire that you allow me to take a dump? After all, all things being natural, baby that last one is gonna happen, desire or not! I don't have a mere desire to sleep; I have to-- barring you or someone else violating that natural right I eventually will sleep, regardless, after all-- also known as "permanently" ie dead if that right is violated long enough. Perhaps I missing it, so you could help me to see how "desires" covers these?

So does the acknowledgment that in order to claim a right I have to (equally) grant it, help? Again analogous to freedom's limits? Noting again there's nothing in the concept about you having to guarantee something clearly establish in the natural order to be my responsibility! The empirical test for any and all rights is simply to examine what we each are called to do in-- or perhaps better, "under" the natural design. Where then honoring and respecting each others rights, is again simply to not put the scales in any imbalance. Because to do so, is to evidence a higher authority.

Yikes, what if i say i can even see it being your right that i not make rights always rigid-- in more of a flux state!?! Say for example, I can't consider my right to travel violated simply because you accidentally set fire to the field that is my shortest route? Or even if it was a controlled burn (and you had no idea i was arriving there, etc). Why that is fluid to me, vs rigid, is again simply via an appeal to natural order. Accidents happen, etc. I look at parallels in just how my own doings might have impaired another yet not rigidly requiring it to be exactly of the same form and nature, but rather in principle. One of the great advantages I feel, to a committed to non-violence society is the valuable appeal to other's insights regarding my perspective on rights. But where even the majority can be called to substantiate its position via empirical foundation.

So I have to reject the replacement of rights with the word desires-- quite naturally. I don't know that anyone would feel that saying it is a desire that their side of a contract be honored quite covers it. Its like its "deeper" than that. Maybe you're questioning if that depth is valid? But "desires" for me rings too closely to "hopes". Who would make a lot of contracts if it was only a hope that their side would be honored? Or for that matter, do it based on mere desire? But contracts aside, natural rights seem clearly enough to be more than one's desires when it comes to the non-contracturals/non-negotiables ie nature's mandates. I don't desire that you not interfere with my eating/sleeping/laboring/relieving/etc, as I require it-- because life requires it. Thus while it is my right to eat it is not my right to eat your cake (or necessarily your apple-- tho due to flux, there might be a case ).

Where again, by what higher authority do you interfere with such to start with? Upon what empirically validated authority do you put the scales in imbalance/out of balance, as to your advantage at my disadvantage? Where our exercising our equally valid rights can not cause such; only a higher authority state of mind can.

??

[eye2i2hear]

Oh, and just so the rabbit trail of discussion of rights doesn't get too far away from the thread here, I have a unalienable right to land certain!! Just as you, tharrin, sagas, and all do. Centrally in that apart from land I have no body-- or what body I have is in some degree of slavery. Where does any one get the authority to claim otherwise? The claim to land certain is as naturally ordained as air is for breathing and water for drinking. And that's a fact! I welcome the basis to substantiate any claim to the contrary? And just the facts, mam'.

[NonEntity]

It appears that we may be narrowing in on the crux of the matter.

I do not believe I have a right to life. I do not believe I have "rights."

I desire to live. Eating, sleeping, dumping, etc. are all subservient issues.

True, you don't have "a right" to take my life, but that is not because I reserve that right for myself, it is simply because rights don't exist. As Tharrin might say, show me FACTUALLY how you own this land, err... I mean right-to-life.

I desire to live. (Not always, but most of the time.) You probably feel similarly. We humans are social animals. Therefore it is generally to my advantage that you exist as well. I don't want you to take a dump on my keyboard, but that does not mean that I don't understand that for my desires to have you around I must also recognize that you will have to regularly find an appropriate place for said dump, and that if no appropriate place is available then nature is going to take her course. That is something that is a part of my desiring to have you in my world. I don't desire your dumps. But it's part of the package. We can't have cheap lettuce and build big fences at the "border." We can't have freedom of movement and build borders. The two are mutually exclusive.

We can't have a vision of property rights so exclusive that no one can go outside of their little fenced in square and at the same time have commerce and eat lettuce grown by others. It has to be fluid. If you want the lettuce you have to allow that I will have to take a dump. It's part of the package. If you are to recognize that I may have to take a dump while picking lettuce for you, and you allow for that eventuality, then there is not going to be a conflict when I all of a sudden need to perform this action.

If you want me to pick the lettuce you must also allow that I want to make love, raise a family, play music, have a reasonably secure form of shelter for me and my family. But that doesn't mean you have to let me move my family into your dining room. YOU JUST WANT THE LETTUCE. But that other stuff comes along to a certain level, and it is this level that is always in flux and must be allowed for, in fact celebrated, if we are to be happy in our dealings with each other. If you want the lettuce without allowing for me to take a dump then you are the one causing the conflict, not me. This does not mean that I can take your guitar. If I do, you might become violent. Especially if it's the Gibson. But if I'm respectful maybe you'll allow me to play it. Or maybe not. That is MY part of the bargain. I must also recognize that it is a two way street.

I think the idea of "rights" is starting from the wrong position. If you want to live all alone on a desert island with no neighbors and no commerce then the idea of having rights is a good place to come from. But if you enjoy the lettuce, wine, song and companionship of others, coming from a position of rights is maybe not the most conducive attitude to have to achieve that.

If you promise to pay me to pick your lettuce, and then allow me no where to take my dump, you may not desire it, but you WILL find that I WILL take that dump, even if I have to get violent to do so, for the dumping is part and parcel of the package. Push too far and violence is natural. This does not mean that because I am a human being and I like to take dumps that I am naturally a violent creature. That is, I think, the kind of conclusion that Tharrin is reaching, and I believe it is in error.

I desire to live. If there is only one loaf of bread left and there are two of us who need it to survive, violence may result. This does not mean that all people are violent and will do whatever it takes to screw-over others, it simply means that at the margin things get a bit sticky. As long as we recognize each others needs and desires we can lessen these conflicts, but there will always be conflict because we are all naturally self centered. THAT is a biological imperative. Violence results from not taking the needs and desires of others seriously. We can't have it both ways. We can't have a free ride at the expense of others. Violence begins where negotiation ends.

How does that great saying go? Ah, here it is: " Violence is tacit admission of failed reasoning."


- NonE

[NonEntity]

In fact, I think that I have nailed down the issue with Tharrin and I. He is intransigent. He is as fixed and immovable in his failure to allow for some level of property as the other side is in believing that property is totally inviolate. It's exactly the same issue!

Life is dynamic. To fail to recognise this is to demand conflict. There is not other option. I WILL be taking a dump at some point!

- NonE

[prophageus]

www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/19/sc.standoff.ap/index.html Private Property story. I like how it's always some apparently crazy(convenient) religious ones who end up in the news.

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

It has to be fluid.

- NonE

so much for "fluid"... IT HAS to be.

do these little snippets indicate slippets or just natural habits'n'tendencies'n'incliNations...

[eye awaits The Wizard of NonOz for further gotta be's]

[eye2i2hear]

I still offer/propose that regardless of the jot'n'tittle used-- eg be it "rights" or be it "desires"-- you end up at the same place (eventually). Dare I say it? Its simply because it is a universally recognized concept aka "natural".

What, you don't think in just-a-matter-of-how-long, there wouldn't be a Declaration or Legislation speaking of "legal desires" and "illegal desires"? [see general legal debates regarding the word "needs" 4example?] Where said Legislation would also declare that it "has to be"? [ok, ok, scratch that last one; already picked that one]
4sure hold this position and you'll have a full time job coming up with "acceptable" or "better" words... (you ever given thought to being an attorney? ouch! "strike that from the record"...)

It is my position that rights-- as a mereword representing something that does not exist but is a valid/empirically based concept-- are fluid. So what's the problemo? After all, we're just negotiating a concept, no? [is there a gun under the table still?]

I also restate that the FACT that rights do not exist is an insane argument-- ok, make it borderline insane.

[note to self: wait... wait... wait... for the "wham"...]

[NonEntity]

Nature is dynamic, that which is not maleable will be destroyed.

Howzat? Zat better?

- NonE

[NonEntity]

HEY!!! I never claimed to be SANE. Is THAT where all your problems are coming from? You want SANITY! Ha Ha Ha Ha HAAAAA!

- NonE

[NonEntity]

And perhaps I have a different understanding of the word "rights" than is commonly accepted, and if so, all of this might just be for naught. But I do believe that the commonly held understanding of the word "rights" is a lot more concrete and specific and cast in stone that that of "desires."

Ask most people about their rights and they will respond with some sense of guartantee. Ask them about OTHER people's rights and they will probably be less strict. Sadly.

- NonE

[NonEntity]

Okay, here's another way to look at it. We're all a part of nature. Look at this story then come back here and read the rest of my comments.

Okay, you're back?

What if you envision the road as a river, and the travelers as the water. When waters rise, the river's pretty much gonna go where it will go. You can build dikes and levies (or is that dikes and faggots, I get confused?) and make some compromises with the water, but only to a certain extent.

Same with this story. This guy thought that he had a "RIGHT" to his land. This was an inviolable thing in his mind. We now see how (as Dr. Phil might say) that's workin' out for him. Note that I'm not saying the "government" is right. I'm just saying that there are natural forces at work here and they must be respected and dealt with. I can claim all the rights I want, but if I put my right up against your automatic weapon, I think it's less certain about the "rights" part of it.

- NonE

[NonEntity]

2i2,

Going back and refering to the part about Balance and Scales, I see what you are trying to get across, but I still think that desire is a more realistic word.

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.

I think the guy with the land that the highway was going to take did not think in terms of "desire," but rather in terms of "right," if you catch my drift.

If he had looked at it more like the Mississippi at flood stage and figured maybe I can negotiate a little bit with this unstopable force and not lose everything, maybe he would not have faired so poorly. And, conversely, if the general population ALSO had this idea of respect rather than "rights," perhaps there might have been less of an attitude of "we have the RIGHT to take that land for our road!" and more of a willingness to try and come to terms which both sides could live with rather than simply applying the "right" of eminent domain.

Please note that I think that last part is equally important.

- NonE

- NonE

[NonEntity]

And just to add balance to this thread, I figured I should make this post to PROVE that I can monopolize the conversation and not let another voice in edgewise. See, THAT is what RIGHTS can get me!!! ;D

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

prophageus said:

www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/19/sc.standoff.ap/index.html Private Property story. I like how it's always some apparently crazy(convenient) religious ones who end up in the news.

doG damn, what, is NonE paying you to set him up support here?!? (jus' teasin' prophageus)

Catch this second line in the story:

Cop killer called himself a 'chaotic patriot' - CNN.com
Steven Bixby considers himself a patriot and a prophet...
...
"The letters, each signed "chaotic patriot Steve," also reveal his personal demons and ironclad beliefs..."

gooD dawG!! (sounds like: "Good Gawd")

prophageus, I clearly have no idea where you "are" regarding the Revelation Religion aspect within this-- and having been "there" submersed within it myself for a decade and a half +, I can sure relate to the feeling that "They" target (ie love to mock) such. But honestly, now, I see rather that both opening the door to State Religion belief or Revelation Religion belief-- with how much moreso a combination of both-- makes this just a classic example of why such fantasy-based belief is dangerous, horrific-- and sad. The acceptance of such opens a pandora's box. Its all interpretation [see Yahweh God-- not to be confused with "Allah" God-- telling Father/Righteous Abraham to "offer his son as a living sacrifice"-- aka murder-- unless or until "you hear from God"-- like "faithful" Abraham did?! Where "of course" in The Book, God stops The First "ole Honest Abe" just in the nick of time... And just as this case indicates, such as that as an opened door proves literally deadly. [so when do the prophets today, spoken of by Paul The New Covenant one, act likes the prophets of Old? who decides? who is "Author"ized to?]

Granted, I'm not saying that the general public's discouraging and counter-debating and counter-reasoning would "poof" make all such delusion disappear, no. But I offer that "accepting" such-- having a " Public Law" version of the Good "House"keeping Seal Of Approval on such [see "America is a Christian Nation/IN GOD WE TRUST"* mantras], is validating it and as such reinforces the temptation for too many to delve into the "witnessed" deep dark make-believe world-- where "GOD" can speak to you-- YES YOU! (afterall, its generally accepted that "HE" has in the past etc; "IT IS written", you KNOW?! if you don't then hey, you're just an infidel...). *[catch the double insanity of this phrase: as no where does the book EVER speak of "a christian nation" and top it off with there being no "nation" to start with?!? jic, the book only speaks of individuals as being "called christians"; after all, can you baptize a "nation"? But of course, I betray my own position with such debate; after all, its all a matter of "personal revelation"... circle is the square in such "nations".]

And of course the direct parallel: The State ("God's minister for your good"/has "the sword" of God) can punish you [unless you can convince It that that's all out of context &/or only "allegorical" you see? you do have "ears to see" don't you?!.

I do not mean to be taken as saying that RR's should be dealt with with enforcement. Afterall, that just makes "me" The/another State. Rather simply that it be persistently shunned/disapproved of/discouraged.

Sad story, no doubt. Sad that its Statist; sad that its Religious; sad that its MassMedia fodder.

[sagas4]

eye2 said, "It is my position that rights-- as a mereword representing something that does not exist but is a valid/empirically based concept"

Ok then how is that mereword any different from merewords of ownership, property etc.?

Empirical - (as I comprehend it to mean for clarity of discussion) capable of being proven or disproven by experiment.

Concept - something conceived in the mind that does not exist as substance as we perceive it like a tree.

Now how do you test an abstraction of a concept (something conceived in the mind that does not exist as substance as we perceive it); then collect and analyze data to reach a conclusion more well grounded than mere speculation?

i.e. Gravity is just a word. It is an abstraction as all words are with a generally accepted and or understood definition (based upon common language and culture); however, it represents something more than a mere concept. We can drop an apple and test our definitions; record results; the more times the apple falls to the ground the more confidence we can have that an object of a larger mass (the earth) has some properties of attraction that pull the apple to it with greater tendency than is pulling or pushing the apple (something of a smaller mass) away.

I don't comprehend how an abstraction of a concept can be proven or disproven by experiment.

I have to agree with NonE, in that almost everyone has a desire to continue to live. In order to do so there are factually certain things that one must have to continue to exist; but knowing this and knowing that others have a similar desire I can negotiate when goals or desires conflict.

If you come to me and make that claim YOU HAVE AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO . . . BANG BANG BANG. . .

What? Did someone say rights were empirical? Must have just buried them.

In that instance neither one of us were willing to attempt to understand the nature of the conflict in our desires, or better yet figure out where they overlap and we have something in common and do something that is called trad where both of us wind up better off. Conflict of wants and desires is an opportunity if approached properly. Force is not.

As it relates to "property" as we know it currently, homes, lines on maps etc. I think it is a beneficial idea, just like rights, but we must realize it is an idea and a tool and it can be used for good or ill. People like to have some order as the order provides a sense of security, and when every thing is all willy nilly (or was that milly vanilly), it tends to generate heightened sense of anxiety. Even with those ideas every thing is really up in the air but it looks good on paper.

What I perceive in this thread is that there are some folks who want nothing less than someone being able to go where ever they what whenever they want regardless of who may be there, (OR having regard for what the people in the place where they want to go want) because when we start discussing examples like NonE, putting a fence around his pond or garden to keep critters out everyone gets their panties in a bind and starts screaming it's not fair it's not fair he can't stop me from walking there. Where does he get the right! Well where you you get the stinking right to tell me what to do and how I can see to my own needs?

I think NonE said it well. Although the dream may sound good and all being able to have all equal, all sharing, etc., it just ain't gonna happen regardless if there is a gubmint or not someday, because wants and desires will conflict, and being inflexible is what leads to extinction.

If there is a better way then start laying out some solutions; I think all of us have adequately spent enough time circling wagons around the problem. And as a reminder for those who would remind me to do the same, I LIKE the idea of property, I think it is beneficial. It is the System of control that is in place that I don't like. You see many of us are missing the point. Thinking we have property. We don't, it's a nice idea, but the gang called government proves no one has any real property cause they come take what they want when they want, that's why I like property. I'd really like to have some for myself someday and that will not happen so long as governments exist on this planet.

For some reason I'm reminded of,

sagas4 said:

This whole discussion reminds me of the discussion we had in that old thread "Prove 1+1=2" that seems to have disappeared.

To refresh the collective Aill memory:

KT Asked: What is reality?

Weis Replied: Well I have been punched in the face before. So if some one hits you in your face, I have personal knowledge that that is real. If some one hits you immediately after that, you got hit again. You could call it once or twice or 1+1, but the FACT remains someone just jacked you in your jaw.

KT: What if the experience you describe happened to you and you then went to tell someone about it to demonstrate how 1 punch plus 1 punch equals a jaw jack and as you were telling this person, your alarm clock went off and you suddenly realized that it was time to get up for work.
[Snip . . .]

Sagas4 replied: Formula (Derived from KT & Weis' Comments to arrive at truth of being Jaw Jacked):

1JJ(n) = NRP2F-(n)DP.

i.e. One Jaw Jack, times total number of perceived Jaw Jacks = Number of Real Punches to Face minus Number of Dream Punches.

And NonE FYI this caused no pain this time. I'm actually smiling cause it felt GOOOOOODDD OH SOOOOO GOOD!!! ;D

This thread is like Crack, . . . uhh no I'm not talking refridgerator repairman crack either. ;D