Private Property

[kevin11]

nonentity said:

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

This is my obsession. I too think there are natural forces at work and the purpose for my asking:

1) Where did we come from
2) Where are we now
3) Where is it we are going/suppose to be going/are we even suppose to be going anywhere

Within those three categories we find subcategories that alter the equation such as economics, politics, and religion.

If we cant prove where we came from then how can we know where we are suppose to be going. Further, how can we prove/disprove we aren't suppose to be subject to a police state if we cant prove where we initially came from.

What good would come about by shedding one majority (police state) for another majority (no police state) simply because you can find a bunch of people that dont believe it is right to have their tomatoe taken by someone else.

Simply because you can obtain a majority doesnt make you right or wrong; it just means you have obtained a majority. What makes your majority tomatoe keepers right -vs- the tomatoe stealers that are allegedly wrong - based on your feelings?

Simply because I dont like the "feeling" of my tomatoe being taken from me....does that in and of itself make me right and the one who took it from me wrong?

If you cant prove to me factually who is right and who is wrong - then can you even prove to me, factually, there is even a right or a wrong?

Whose absolute are we going to follow - should we even be following?

And now that computers, machines, and man have combined - their muskets are bigger than our muskets; so where does that leave us economically, diplomatically, spiritually in the equation of where we came from, where are we now, and where are we suppose to be/suppose to be going?

Kevin,

[NonEntity]

Sagas sed:

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

Glad you're enjoying it, Sagas, I've been having some fun here myself, and I think 2i2 is as well.

Now about this religion stuff. I hereby proclaim THIS IS MY THREAD (by the afore mentioned lack of property rights I hold so dear) and there WILL BE NO RELIGION countenanced herein. GOT IT?!?!?!?!?!?

You wanna go be religious, do it someplace else. Else I'll have to sent Marc and his goon squad of Black Robed Nutjobs out to your house late at night to justify you.

- FL ;D

[eye2i2hear]

sagas4 said:

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.?

I dunno if this is directed to me specifically or the board in general, but for me, I don't hold that there's any difference-- at least that makes any effort debating it necessary. So this is not my argument. (not that that seems to deter some anyways)
Any one else?

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?

Regarding the word empirical, I'll appeal to/offer an outside/objective source:

empirical:
1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

For my reasoning, "observation" and "practical experience" capture the essence; more so that "experimentation"-- unless by the later we can agree that history is an experiment...?

So how much experimentation does it take to validate equal authority? Don't we simply look for an experiment that proves otherwise?

As otherwise, its observable that we all get here the same and require the same (and leave with the same). [common "needs" versus variances of "desires" intended]

Thus, in saying something is a right (much less having already required the concept itself to be valid!), I simply ask that by empirical foundation let it-- the claimed right-- be validated. What are the facts that establish an authority higher than mine when it comes to me eating (a fact verifiable)/sleeping (a fact verifiable)/traveling (a fact verifiable)/laboring (a fact verifiable)?

I'll repeat: I'm not arguing that rights come with guarantees. (i've said before, that for the concept, they are little different from "honor" or "respect") Life itself is risk, period (validated premise by observation).

I'm also not arguing about the concept of property.

I'm arguing for the empirical foundation of both/either.
And to my mind it simply centers in proving/validating authority.

example A:
I decide to travel.
You decide to homestead (claim land as exclusive/property).
In my travel, night falls and I've arrived at your homestead/claim.
Ok, the empirical foundation is that I naturally rest, eat, and relieve myself. [you and anybody else "knows" this because you also have it in common]
Where is your empirical foundational/based authority to prevent me?

example B:
You arrive at a "spot" specific and decide to meet your needs (ie homestead)
I arrive at that "spot" secific and decide to meet my needs (ie homestead)
By what authority is it that the amount of said spot as oh, say, 20 acres is "your" spot?
And how about when the next, and the next, and the next arrive with their needs?

F*** "respect" and "honor" and "conflict resolution"-- apart from LACK of historical observation, any body with half an ability to reason will see it "proven" that SOME settling of authority will be necessary. [not to say it will be or even has to be perfect; only that I hold that when empirically based, the common folk will agree that its "good" and "right" and "just"; because its "commonly sensed" and thus "common sense" etc]

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

Well, it sounds to me like you're over complicating a very basic, fundamental aspect of society.
I don't see the "abstraction". Perhaps you can help me out/further...
I simply see observation of the obvious. No diff from the way every other valid agreement behind concepts comes about.

I have to agree with NonE, in that almost everyone has a desire to continue to live.

Just for clarity, I would not disagree that almost everyone has a desire to continue to live. I just say at the core aspect of authority, its that but MORE.

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.

doG, all that first stuff and we get to this?!?
And a give "yupp". There's the rub: factually certain things that one must have to continue to exist.
Focus then on the AUTHORITY aspect/concept, and I honestly don't know how you can't see where the genuine conflict results from. Its some aspect of one saying that another can't walk out those factual "musts"-- be that in the more temporal, or the more perpetual considerations.

To my mind its all about validating the higher authority to then validate any "higher" claim-- also known as property-- most crucially, at least maybe for tharrin, is land. [my body = land needed to keep it; just like your body, too]

I've offered my empirical "observation" solution of time as investment establishing a higher equity claim thus validating the concept of property (to my mind-- and I hold that there is nothing else we have in common to otherwise observe!).

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.

I must say i hope this is another of those work overload results.
I never said rights were empirical; I hold that they are validated empirically [particularly when all else any two are left with is opinion/fantasy/imagination/nonE].

I've also stated that if, unless, and until, the gun is taken out of the negotiating room (called societal encounter) we're wasting our time. Kill the conflict alright, just kill the guy that differs with you-- that higher authority with the gun as well as his notion that its his, simply because some others agreed with him!?!

And yupp, you did bury "the rights" simply in that you buried "him". Just like you buried any other concepts (and fantasies, too). You did NOT however bury the violation. And you did not bury the dishonor. But of course all THAT is "relative"; as after all, those don't exist!?! 'Sides, you and enough like you have agreed just 'cause might makes right that it was your's to defend. Now there's a "r-i-g-h-t".

DoG, i don't see how some can stumble so over a mere word. Again, all I can scratch my head and come up with is that its State-think remnants &/or misunderstanding of what the call for facts is central to.

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.

Perhaps the best response to this is to substitute "The State" everywhere you have what people "like"... and "order"... and "security"...?! Seems we get quickly enuff with property to "home"+"land" security.

I hope I'm not being taken as being cantankerous just for its own sake. I just simply can not get my mind around how the BANG BANG claims of (defending my) property (apart from settling the authority issue empirically) differ from the concept of The BANG BANG State.

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)...

And quite honestly, I couldn't disagree more. I don't know of one single person that I've read on this board that holds this-- not even close. doG, not only is there still a gun in the room, there's a good-for-nothing-bum-bogey strawman too.

I think this paranoia (yeah, mho) is significant however, so I'm glad it was stated.

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?

A good king you'd make here laddie.

And all the king's men of course decide when another king (of lesser authority of course, obviously) is over that fence, he's a "critter"-- BANG BANG. dead critter and dead trespasser. [ok, I'm a tad "overkill" here; we won't take that as what any king-- i mean No Stater-- here would do]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I nor anyone here that I've listened to (when i read their posts) has said anything of the sort like "telling you what to do and how you can see to your own needs." Nor said, while we're at, that they'll walk up anytime they're good and ready and EAT YOUR TOMATOES!!

But let's focus for a sec on this "needs" business. Ah, now, do they exist? Are they factual?
I hope you don't try for argument's sake to wiggle out of that. No doubt it aligns with my position quite clearly. [facts are relevant and have their purposes, but so are common sense concepts]

Again, put any's claims to authority on a scale and find either balance or imbalance. Conflict is ultimately an authority issue imo. All I can see that can be appealed to is the natural, common "needs" that require being fulfilled-- "desired" or not. (yeah, I hold that suicide is not "common").

You wish to put up a fence? Fine, put one up. Just don't visualize in your mind that it magically covers the immediate space all around it-- much less ever-how-many magical acres you "see", what say? "Your" fence? No problem, I can easily enuff climb thru it or over it, thank you (and do my double doG best to leave it as i found it). What do you empirically base your authority to tell me I can't?

I can (or least should be able to) explain to you my natural need to do that (eg to get to where I'm traveling to, to get to a place to sleep, to get to a place to "squat"-- leaf or two included, please!). Unless of course I'm one of "those" bogey men this owner is sooooo afraid that might wish to challenge the authority just for challenges sake?

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.

This I can relate to.
But only because the thinking that folks are going to merrily agree on the other magical "dream"-- known as "no State" just ain't gonna happen either-- (not as long as this present path regarding property claims is held to).
I've resolved for that to not be my issue or concern.
I only wish to know that, to the best that I can, I honor others rights=respect their authority; that I can empirically validate (tho not necessarily to be confused with articulate) my reasons and the concepts arrived at by them; that my ways are as I've given; that freedom is another's as it is mine.

If there is a better way then start laying out some solutions;

Can I quote Marc here? Let's see, its something like "just because we don't know the cure for cancer doesn't mean we keep using leeches." (or something like that)

If there's a solution, it will be because we've examined our core concepts AND validated them empirically.

And just as backing away and out of The Big State, so the honorable will back away and out of the little State/invalid property claims

I think all of us have adequately spent enough time circling wagons around the problem.

Said with a ring that seems familiar... oh yeah, spoken by most everyone I've talked to about doing away with The State. 'Cept of course, the stubborn ornery folks like in this thread... ;D

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.

and so my question remains on the table: tell me how agreeing to property and using violence to back it up-- agreeing also to call that violence "defense"-- differs one iota from the foundation for The State?

I LIKE property too; especially if and when I get to define it/claim it/determine it!!

It seems from the argument specifics, I'm missing something, but danged if I know what it is.

I'll repeat the core of this for me: If my body is the first principle property, and if that body can not be such apart from certain factual events being allowed, then how is that any other authority can tell me I am not entitled (emphasis on the "titled") or do not have the right to land certain (and unalienable)? And the essentials to necessitate such? (oh say like toilet paper in place of those leaves? lol jus' kiddin'--- right?)

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.

Man talk about how a word can suddenly capture a concept and hold it captive! Unless it has the tag "governments" or "The State" on it, suddenly the authority of one or more of like mind, ie willing to claim property regardless of any disagreeing-- but they're not government-- ok, let's make it they're not biG "Government", noooooo--- as that helps, you see, the word you use-- you do see don't cha? BANG BANG! "dang trespassers!!"

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.

I must be "the problem" here in this thread; because that made absolutely nothing any more coherent here for me.

I guess its simply that its the nature of this type of dialog. We easily get lumped into "the good guys" and "the bad guys"; you know those wanting property (as "we" decide it) and those "bums" and "freeloaders" not wanting it that way-- emphasis on that way-- and not property in and of itself. Hell, "they" don't even LIKE it...

I guess this thread is like crack-- as I'm sure having serious withdrawal symptoms... (er make that withdrawal inclinations)

[NonEntity]

Hmm. 2i2, if you were to make actual coherent sentences I might be able to follow. Sometimes you do, and it's a pleasure to see your thoughts. What I see above is incoherent rants without the attempt to convey a logical refutation and coherent argument in response. Sorry, dude, but I have no idea what your point is, if you have one.

Sentences have a defined structure for a purpose, just like they put tires on cars for a reason. I beg of you, give us, your readers, a tad bit of consideration.

- NonE

[sagas4]

Eye2,

The last post was not specifically directed toward you. Simply thrown out as further discussion of the topic for anyone to enjoy or rail against. I do enjoy the discussion it stimulates me to think, although I'm not always up to par with the level of discussion going on here.

To try and describe the issue I am having difficulty with perhaps an addition to the good examples you recently posted is in order.

Personal pronouns used in the following example for readability.

example:
I decide I'm getting too old to travel willy nilly like you can so I decide to stay in one place as it is easier on these old bones.

I find a place that is good for planting a garden because I have to eat, drink, breathe, rest, relieve myself just like you.

(To keep it simple we'll say no one else is where I decide to stop, but if there are, common sense, or generally accepted custom, or whatever one wants to call it, suggests that I enter into negotiations with the current inhabitant(s) to discuss identify and attempt to resolve any potential area of conflict with needs wants desires before I simply march through or stop in a particular area claiming no one has an empirical foundational/based authority to prevent me from doing so as it is also empirical that when there is more than one individual involved there will be areas of overlap and areas where people disagree and if that divergence is not dealt with the results are less than optimal for one or all involved. (I know that's a mouth full . . . . Let's examine more closely).

Back to the example: I found a spot, I'm not interfering with anyone else, got a garden started, couple of trees planted, there's no stream, so I dug a water well at great danger of walls collapsing in on me 30 ft. down for times when there may not be enough rain to sustain myself nor the garden . . . .

One day this young vibrant guy decides he's gonna go walkabout, or maybe has been on walkabout ever since he could walk, (and obviously was no longer dependent upon some one else for his survival, speaking of our nature from childhood).

You come upon me sleeping under one of the trees near my garden or maybe I'm tending it what ever, doesn't matter, I'm there, here you come.

You're walking around thinking "there is no empirical foundational/based authority to prevent me from walking about letting nature care for my needs. Food grows on trees etc".

I'm doing pretty good not wandering around scavenging for food like animals do.

You come upon the garden think , "hmm, I'm pretty hungry, I'll let nature care for my needs". Now the seeds of conflict of wants, needs, and desires have been planted.

That lovely garden that produces tomatoes 2 to 5 times the size that would grow naturally without intervention is not only the mere product of nature; it has been combined with, mind, body, time, (literally pieces of another human beings limited life force spent caring for it; therefore, the logical (and I think reasonable) extension is, that it is that part of the life spent on it), keeping weeds out, pinching the sucker vines, getting water out of that well dug to span times of little rain, etc.

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

Here's what I'm thinking about the issue.

Let me see if I understand this from your examples, and the one above; Is it your position I have no empirical foundational/based authority to stay in one spot tend a garden to care for my own needs, that your need/want/desire to wander about so fully surpasses my need/want/desire to stay put that you can claim some empirical foundational/based authority to sustain yourself at the expense of another human being by taking what ever you want need or desire from that garden?

Or

is your need/want/desire to wander about so fully surpasses other needs/wants/desires that no one can settle down and stay in one place and tend to their needs as they see fit?

Or

are you saying there is no empirical foundational/based authority that what one spends their life force on is intertwined with the life force that is spent on it?

The question was posed, "Where is empirical foundational/based authority to prevent me [from travel, rest, eat, and relieve myself, we all have that in common]".? The simple answer is that we AGREE that is something we have in common and there is no reasonable authority to prevent.

However, what I have been examining at the same time that few seem to want to entertain is another side of the examples as illustrated above, originally communicated something like "factually property does not exist; it is and idea like the state so you have no claim to land superior to someone else and cannot prevent others from using it etc. etc.". The problem is that the first 20 pages of discussion revolved around since factually property does not exist no one can have a claim to it and prevent anyone from doing whatever and have any authority to do so, therefore when you attempt to prevent me from xyz to your abc you're initiating the violence.

Where is the empirical foundational/based authority to make me move, let you destroy the garden, or support your own existence by denying me mine in the way I choose to support it?. In other-words, Well why are you trying to xyz my abc in the first place and at the same time attempting to make me think it is good for me and claim that you have authority to do so that is greater than my authority to not do so?

When any of us get close to communicating that idea the conversation turns to, Well you're the one who will use the gun to stop me from . . . because you're enforcing a claim to land that has no basis in fact (empirical foundational/based authority). Well actually all of us spend our life force doing something. If one finds it productive to walk around go for it, but what I'm trying to communicate is that desire to move about freely and let nature tend to your needs has no higher authority attached to it than someone stopping in a particular spot actively tending to their own needs and then calling it a claim to land. At least with a claim to a spot of earth that is developed as a garden some one can point to the garden and say I've spent 4 hours a day 5 days a week, for the last 3 months there tending that. It's like when the IRS orders me to pay them if I sold a place for more than I bought it for . . . Not one of them came and helped me swing a hammer, or screw up some drywall (literally and metaphorically at the same time) ;D

We seem to think that the violence is only from the one who wants to stay in a particular area and tend the land totally ignoring the fact that folks who want to wander around or squat on that same piece of land will use just as much if not more violence to get the current inhabitants to leave or take what they want by force. (I added this as an afterthought. Come to think of it it may just have been settlers or farmers who came up with the idea of property to deal with natural disputes. Who can farm what, then being able to produce abundently, marauders figured out it was easay to steal from them, so the farmers had to more clearly define property and then defend the product of their life and nature from those who would take it by force without even bothering to ask if they would freely give some or be willing to trade.)

Which again gets me back to what I think NonE, figured out in the first few posts. It's not what we label it, it doesn't matter if one thinks it's theirs, if one thinks it's not, it's the fact that those 2 thoughts and actions that result from the thoughts conflict; moreover how everyone approaches resolution to that conflict is critical to a beneficial result.

I do not think having an institutionalized system of violence (State) being mother, father, teacher, is beneficial to successful mutually beneficial conflict resolution. As You quoted Marc so shall I remind you too that we do not continue to use leeches.

It has basically been said in this thread that hey, y'all that want to lay claim to an idea, property in land is the root of the problem cause y'all will use guns to defend what you think is yours so the idea of property is the problem. I say that's bunk, because we even discussed native americans had no concept of landed property, but by golly they still fought and killed each other over grazing ability. (The label wasn't there but the conflict is still the same). I understand, yes, sometimes folks will use violence to keep others of "their property" that doesn't appear to being used other than for the ego of a land baron (queue up, signs signs, everywhere a sign), what I have been trying to communicate is that there are other things we are ignoring. I can also understand why someone might think they have a claim to something that might have some reason behind it, (Think IRS not helping me rehab homes yet demanding a portion of the fruit).

Eye2, I think we are discussing the same thing here and talking past one another. The examples are similar the difference is who we describe in the example as the initiator of violence. You use Stephan's "immoral gun" story, I'm getting that someone is using it, it's still a subtlety we are dancing around as I'm inferring that you are implying the one on a piece of ground is using the immoral gun because you say they have no foundational authority; In certain situations I AGREE however in others I disagree.

We need stuff to survive, we use our minds bodies to get stuff and make stuff to survive. Stuff has a subjective value and can be traded, but in all instances what is common to all is we have to spend a portion of our limited life span to acquire that stuff to continue existence. There is no natural right to automatically exist simply because we exist. To test this quit doing certain stuff and you'll die. If I make stuff or do stuff to support my existence and that of others near me, does someone automatically have some empirical foundational/based authority to that stuff whatever that stuff may be? Suppose I spent 3 months life force cultivating that stuff. You have the same need for that same stuff but spent zero effort to acquire that stuff. All things being equal, I have spent 3 months life force to your zero, so when you want some, If I am generous you may get some out of my good will, but if I say no I need it, and you still need it, then try and take it, well exactly who is initiating the violence?

Perhaps a review of The Little Red Hen might help to understand my thinking.

In any case though I think the human condition can only improve when there are no states, which is what I see as the immoral gun in the room.

I don't know if that makes what I have attempted to communicate any clearer but I hope so, I look forward to the responses.

edit to fix link correct spelling and readability

[NonEntity]

...or screw up some drywall...

been there, done THAT! ;D

"subtltity" is that like an A cup instead of a big Double D?

- NonE

... Okay, I'm done having my fun now and I look forward to some cogent responses to this excellent post.

[sagas4]

something else must have been on my mind ;D

A cup of D I mean T.

The spelling is kurrected now.

[eye2i2hear]

Sagas, Non,

I appreciate the pm exchange being shared with us AiLl here. I 'preciate it both for the time spent and the specifics covered-- and the obvious thought given to it.

Sagas, Non, Tharrin, AiLl here,

I would like to say again here, that I genuinely appreciate this thread-- in spite of the "personal" frustrations-- and goD, just lookin' at the number of posts/pages it has, I sure appreciate the time sacrifices. For me, one benefit for example, has been that it was a major part of nudging me back to Thomas Paine's writings, which I'd for probably several less-than-honorable reasons laid aside. Sometimes it seems the "hard choice" writings too easily go to the "later" stack. (Proudohn being next on the dusting back off list)

Hard choice(s). That ties in nicely to my desires here now, to share a couple of "less personal" points; where by that I mean less specific point-to-counter-point post exchange.

When I look at society, the only "make sense" basic core of it is that as a matter of course it is made up solely of individuals. The planet is one big island and Crusoe is an impossibility. A "virgin" earth, in the strictest use of the word, is arguably also an impossibility-- but also an equally and arguably unneeded one. [should we ask the ladies which side of such "virgin"ity they generally, "naturally" prefer-- in that aspect of nature taking it's "course"? we know pretty well, the typical male response... ]

Individuals are as natural as any other aspect of creation. It seems a great paradox that the natural ability to reason and choose can work for both the marvelous/delightful and the devastating/disastrous*. But I offer that it is natural and to argue against it is futile. Its like arguing against society. For whatever reason, be that a Creator or Intelligent Design(er) or sheer Natural Mandate/chance, its the way it is. Its the Order, if you will. It is The Mandate. I also offer that to seek to discount Creation/Nature Order is the first step to fantasy. It is then the first step to concepts that words like dishonor, injust, breaking of the law, and violation of rights-- as simply being wrong and immoral-- convey. *[after all, "nature" has how many "naturally" extinct species long preceding any influences, theoretical or otherwise, of man/men? and how easy to overlook the times that man's being able to reason and choose has circumvented what instinctual creatures, apart from that intervention, would have yielded; please however, do not take this as saying mankind overall doesn't have a lot of room for improvement; we surely do]

In other words, to take creation incrementally-- emphasis on the "mentally" part of that word-- away from what is held in common-- nature --is where opinion forms that is indistinguishable from fantasy/"make-believe".

I-- individually/personally-- can "know" that all any "one" is, is energy. But unlike, oh say, sagas' hammer upside my head in a pitch dark room, to "know" does not make it matter to any "other"(s). Note the use of the word "matter" there.
Granted, we can teach and introduce concepts (energy results called 'thought') that persuade us individually first. But when it comes to society, it is only that which is based upon that which can be commonly sensed-- by the 5 common, ie natural senses, that can be of any practical-- societal-- value. All that matters --societally-- is matter*. That is not to even say that this will be accepted by some (majority or minority). "Criminal" is the obvious empirical and historical proof of that. But if we consider the only alternative, for example that all life is "mere" energy-- such best mapped with the word "belief"-- we're for practical, social purposes back to Archy (eg "revelation") and archy (eg Government) religions-- equally mapped with the word "belief". *[property is not a non-matter issue; even intellectual copyright claim is a matter issue-- at "the heart of the matter", as the genuine value is in yet another non-matter concept: medium of exchange; where the exchange boils down to the physical matter; no?]

I hope in some way that conveys what I see as a critical, crucial aspect for "us" to "get our minds around". We might even consider prioritizing these two distinctions? Where things that are "obvious"-- emphasis on what makes them "so" ie commonly sensed-- are what any other ideas are always required to be built upon (or over and above). Again, the emphasis being on societal interaction.

What seems essential to me with contemplating issues like property-- but with liberty and freedom in general-- is to always recall the basic element of society: the individual. Just as it starts there, it ends there. It is captured in the old expression, "your freedom ends where mine begins". So with property: one's property ends where another's begins. Otherwise we're back to some form of archy. Which is the circle of how, if it is to be at all, is any "higher" archy/higher authority to be validated?

It seems crucial, from my understanding, to note that what society "is" or is "not" is simply what "I" do or don't. What I postulate and pontificate* "matters" not in property or freedom. Freedom being, as already noted, relative to authority and authority being control, how else can we each individually assess society? "Voluntary" being the same as well. By what authority does any "one" bring what is brought to the negotiating table-- be that literal or societal? One example of the societal, being when one is on the opposite side of a property line aka a fence-- defending with violence or threat thereof-- regarding that mere claim? The question is centrally one of authority. *[aka think or hold as opinion or say I believe; it is only when I act upon it, that it matters, as it is thereby "matter" of fact]

And so with society as voluntary association; it begins where "I" do-- as what I do and do not do. It really goes without saying, surely, but it so essentially important to remind ourselves of it. "I" of course, is equally you (every "one"). Equality is an authority issue-- as surely as freedom is.

Equally important, is that we can communicate and articulate this aspect of creation's "center" of any and all social concepts-- "of" the common, to the "common". I mean that in no disrespect, as it too often is popular (the societal elitism/the social archism) to do today. Hopefully from my earlier comments, "common" now is simply heard as "universal" or "general"-- every "one" is "everyone". The common is what can be validated. I feel that just as Marc has been honing in on specifics that jar common folks thinking about The State, so similarly with practice, other's will be able to do the same regarding Property. Yes, such "radical" consideration is hard for many to get their mind around. Just as The State, as a state of mind, is. But just as with "The State" fantasy, so it can be with Property Title.

That said, let me first remind of the major premise: it starts with "me". Be that freedom, liberty, or property.
Thus, for there to be honor and respect, "i" must give such. Regardless of whether anyone else "in common" does or not. If I want/desire/expect it, I must walk it out in my life. Otherwise it is but mere words! Postulation and pontification. I might as well say I expect gizmo and desire to be treated widgetfully. Words after all are defined empirically when it comes to voluntary contract. But worse, to expect something conceptually and not give it equally, as literally/factually, is the higher archy state of mindset.

I'm not speaking of perfection or utopia here, but in general; the "common"; what we each can easily enough know simply by-- amazingly enough?! examining nature-- especially one's own (ie temptations and actions). And so it is with property. I am honored to hear from comments posted here and there in this forum, that many are seeing this and choosing it-- counting the costs and being willing to pay them; to "flesh out" freedom.

It seems one quandary reassessing our concept (notions) of property brings, is whether we must get back to "basics" aka "paradise". Of course in my position of holding that the most popular source of that phrase is fantasy (ie "the garden of eden"), so it seems obvious I hold that any such State of nature is fantasy. But as such, it is obviously powerful, and tempting, and as such, influential -- "convincing"-- from whence "a con" comes (and why it works). While it seems to be logical to say that the birth process "proves" that we all "have to have" come from one set of parents (and thereby further "prove" that said garden in said eden "must" have existed) we are wrought with assumption (and typically surrounded by superstition; but with such "inspired" writings it the first assumption: it is inspired). Be that as it may (distraction here perhaps), what I'm after is that it is equally utopic to feel earth in its most pristine/"virgin" state is THE natural state. Nature, as history, invalidates that position (evidenced also in that the myth recognizes such and "knows" it has to be answered, and does so with the phrase "the result of sin"). Who has the authority to decide (and then declare/decree) such?

What seems the more empirically logical to me is to consider implications simply inherent in the concept of freedom. We can seek to influence via our ideas. Sure, we can dialog with others regarding our visions of society. But centrally, we must-- "must" only as there is "nothing" else to appeal to apart from fantasy/opinion/belief-- we must center it all upon common sense-- again, simply that which we via our common senses can validate through the common existence, ie creation/nature experience. The elementals-- emphasis on the "mental"-- via the elements.

I hold that it is through that very process, that "yes": sagas has authority to claim "his" tomatoes. And "yes", tharrin has "his" computer. Again, i base this on no "other" being able to present an empirically based, thus equitable claim on it-- as time investment. Its morphed/transported/transitioned natural state then, being obvious to the senses common evidences investment, being covered by the map-word "property" (or personal ownership/proprietorship). I then find no basis for rejecting any and all property claim. I do however find that it is perverted today regarding much of the "naturals" mandated by creation/nature for each and every individual; this primarily being in the claims on land. Perhaps this is grasped in considering some portable property, where a thief could steal it and then keep it for a longer period than the original/"first owner". Time is not the only equitable interest consideration; only the "highest" claim when any other equitable interests are considered [the evidence of the morphed state of nature also being factual, thus empirical evidence]. And so with property and equitable claims regarding negotiating with such, is just how far back do we go in considering equitable claim? [first consideration: back to the natural birth canal (ie establishing higher archy/authority); another consideration: back to any violence]

Let me express it here again, too, that I hold that the single issue that leads to an appeal for The State is property. So that if we hold No State to be the valid state of affairs and expect it to literally have that state of being, we had best find how to equitably establish property. Today's version of some being able to own/claim/title multiple acres while others own none is not equitable, and at core is arguably the number one reason of The State's appeal (consciously or otherwise).

Again as already delved into, I hold-- based again upon the commonly sensed, as that's all "we" have (in common)-- that there are essential life conditions that the very nature of life mandates. It is when these-- call them claims, rights, desires, or needs-- are 'trespassed' upon in our establishing "voluntary" agreements, compacts, or State-ments, that society has become The State (Control, again or in another fashioning) ["Con-troll"]. Who has the authority to declare the "voluntary" after all?!
Each individual is equal in authority regarding the pursuit of Life (essentials) and freedom, as well as liberty and happiness. Usurping that authority, regardless of label or term applied to, is control. It is establishing higher archy-- be that the two in a voluntary contract or another majority vote of "two or more". Controlling another (or another's essentials) and terming it "defense of property" is The State by nature none the less. If you wish to counter that this itself is but yet another claim, i have no problem with your freedom/right to such claim; I only ask that you offer a higher "order" than what backs/supports mine? In other words, I back my claim up with pictures of your birth and of mine and ask for the evidence of higher archy/more authority.

It seems obvious from the response, as mostly the lack thereof, that I've failed at communicating the aspect of an appeal to the natural mandate as a valid foundation for determining property. I can only hope that with practice and feedback, to hone it so as to be able to succinctly articulate what I see essentially valuable. I mean here, the consideration of equity via investment (time spent producing). You wish to claim a tomato, validate the claim by demonstrating your time invested. Consider said tomatoes as a "nest egg"? Then work to question where the equitable time has been invested by any other's claims to it. Common senses settle the "more" natural state from the "vested" ("higher") natural state [this is after all, all an equitable exchange is, principally].

I feel this understanding, and consequent appeal, is naturally ordered-- natural Order/mandate. When the indoctrination validating Opinion-speak as The Order, also expressible as State-meant ("just do as our opinion dictates") is washed off the common sense of the common folk (aka "society in general"), this is what we're left with, after all. As one ole writing has it: creation speaks. Review birth pictures again here-- and every time the desire to make a claim comes. Time "starts" and its the only common sense concept empirically backed for equity comparison(s).

I'll wrap with this for your consideration. I hope it is a way of validating what I'm after regarding our concepts. Have you ever considered-- even you wholly energy beings-- that apart from nature/creation, communication is impossible? Think about it. Consider as well the question of just why is this the case? For illustration I offer: Ew heac get gizmo and therefore equirer widgets to quanto ti. Follow me? But if I say it as: We each get thirsty and therefore require water to satisfy it. How 'bout now? Why is that the case? I offer that it is simply a long-taken-for-granted, long left unconsidered aspect of life (how do we "know" this concept represented by "long"?). That being simply that any and all societal concepts must be backed by empirical-- experiential-- evidence(s). Again, it is all "we"-- societally-- have in common. Otherwise we're back to gizmos (gentiles) and widgets (demons), no? How else do I understand gizmos-- or say "energy"?!! Apart from naturally commonly sensed basis? The power of what is understood by the words 'parable' and "allegory" are ones we shouldn't easily forget or misunderstand. I offer it is the "stuff" of a voluntary, peaceful society. Matter is the heart of the matter. Oh, and rejecting natural society by labeling men's actions as unnatural is but more mere opinio-Nationing; indistinguishable from the opinion that The State is peace (or the book is holy, etc). No?

Thanks again to AiLl~

[eye2i2hear]

If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him. Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?

Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Chapter 1, What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government. Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library

[NonEntity]

I just finished listening to the Feb 27, 2007 FreeTalkLive radio show/podcast. The third hour (starting near the end of the second, actually) is an interview with a young woman who claims to be a member of the Rainbow Family. The interview is lively and in depth and fascinating. It is a discussion of the communal nature of the group and how that functions, including the contradictions within the ideas regarding money and property. What I found intriguing is the fact that the entire concept seems to work quite well in a more or less totally voluntary society. I say more or less since they choose to live on open communal land, which is all, at this point, controlled by people claiming the authority of government to impose all kinds of rules and strictures. Since it is not possible to my knowledge to have a communal piece of property without making monetary rent payments to the thugs claiming governmental authority, I'm not sure how this might manifest in a totally voluntary environment.

According to the woman the amount of free-loading on the good will of others is very small, and she even went to far as to point out that even that had value in that it showed others how bad a behavior that was. (I loved that perception of hers.) She indicated that there is no delegation or hierarchy, that all choices are made voluntarily, and that those who come in and don't understand what to do or how to fit in will soon find something that captures their attention and so find their niche.

The discussion included topics such as medical care, sanitation, clean up, and a wide range of questions. One of the topics addressed was the nature of vigilante justice and shunning when someone acts beyond the dictates of reason and normal forms of discussion and arbitration fail.

(2i2, I'm not ignoring your long post, but I found it hard to get through. I may come back to it at some point. It appeared to deal with some interesting thoughts, so I would like to have another look if I can figure out how to wrap my head around it.)

- NonE

Let me add a bit to this. One of the things that seemed to resonate in my cranium was the lack of the idea of society, expected levels of contributions, and such. It seemed to me, in my interpretation of what she said, that these people do truly view themselves as individuals who voluntarily come together to share and commune.

I remember a conflict with the Forest Service that I read about a few years back. The thugs claiming to act with authority of the Forest Service claimed that a rule had been broken because groups larger than X size were required to apply for a permit. The attendees to the gathering replied, quite truthfully, that there was no authority within them to apply for such permit and that they were not a group, but were rather a whole bunch of individuals who individually chose to come hang out together in the forest. I find that to be a perfectly reasonable response.

What if the cops stormed the local shopping mall or Wal-Mart demanding to see the person in charge of all of those people who had gathered there at that particular time to shop without gaining a congregation permit from the "government?" How would this be different?

There was a bicycling club in some town which had the same problem. "They" were charged with illegal parking in a neighborhood because someone suggested a great place to ride next week and those who chose to show up did, and so used parking places to park in. The cops tried to charge someone with something, but there was no one to charge as each person had individually chosen whether or not to go riding that day in the place that had been mentioned as a nice place to ride.

The nature of seeing and accepting that each is an individual and each is responsible for his own actions is so critical an issue in my mind. When "we" say "they," "we" are just as guilty of creating the problems that "we" complain about. There is no "government" to complain about. There are only other people who fail to be responsible for the results of their actions as well as those individuals who fail to hold others responsible. "Support Our Troops" is a perfect example. Individual people who willingly kill for hire and claim not to be responsible for their actions?

No. I don't buy it. Voters who claim their enforcement of their wishes on others is "the will of the voters" Nope. It's YOUR will, each of you who acts with force to get what you want. (The individual voter claims it is the government which is enforcing the action, and then the "government" claims it is only carrying out the will of the voter. Yeah, right. 'Splain that to me again, please!)

Just as much, it is the responsibility of each of us to figure out how to live in accord with our morality. (Hell, its our individual responsibility to derive our individual responsibility for if we don't create it it will not exist. It isn't magic, it's a human choice to make or not to make.) Claiming, "well it's because the government forces me... blah blah blah," is just as much of a cop out as the cop or military thug who claims only to be following orders.

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

(2i2, I'm not ignoring your long post, but I found it hard to get through. I may come back to it at some point. It appeared to deal with some interesting thoughts, so I would like to have another look if I can figure out how to wrap my head around it.)

Thanks for this. And I empathize totally with both of the why's.

Thanx too for the FreeTalk link post. That's on my priority "to do" list.

Let me add a bit to this. One of the things that seemed to resonate in my cranium was the lack of the idea of society, expected levels of contributions, and such. It seemed to me, in my interpretation of what she said, that these people do truly view themselves as individuals who voluntarily come together to share and commune.

I feel I grasp what you're saying here and overall I agree with it.
I say 'overall' though, in offering a second look at the phrase: "the idea of society". Isn't that almost redundant?

The thing here is, this reminds me of yet other words-- other maps. I guess I feel we its too easy to empower "mere" words. Words like "society", "government", "State", rights, morals, etc. I feel that where the real problem lies is with the concepts; the ideas, not the labels attributed to them. We've romped around the word "rights" here and abouts, where centrally it seems to be undesirable to some to use it, because people define it-- rather than refine it-- and in doing so, force it beyond empirical accuracy (which means here, violently?). I feel that if we use the word "gizmo" or even "desire" is used 'today' to replace it, 'tomorrow' it will hold the same precise problem (violent enforcement/expectation) as that which they replace holds today. You Perhaps just contemplate that a little further. One specific thing came to me regarding saying "rights do not exist" and that is that it seems that most that hold to taking rights "too far", equally hold that said rights can be "waived". What does that do to the typical argument (here) against there being rights? To my reasoning it indicates most folks grasp that rights are more conditional. [where there'll always be elements that are 'criminal' no matter how we found our positions or the words we use/choose, no? and not to overlook the general effect eliminating collective-violence-think known as The State Ink. will have in individual associations and claims of rights?]

I also feel we have to give ourselves some slack with the "we" and other specific generalization words like 'society' and 'state'. Its a catch 22 potentially, I suppose. Where it certainly seems prudent that we it be realize(d) that words can slip into misuse (via mis-taking). But at the same time, I feel the core issue is less the use of the words specific-- for generalizations --and more the diligent search for any enforcement or violence backing anywhere 'behind' them. I suppose its that we there is always a need of reminder that such words are for convenience and expediences sake. And hopefully as this paragraph now indicates, the use of 'we' doesn't have to be so freely used as we one might think. Rather its just a lazy habit? (or a result of our lack of edumacation aka pubic skooling). I suppose our the holding of word meanings requires about as much diligence as our the protection of freedom?!

I remember a conflict with the Forest Service that I read about a few years back. The thugs claiming to act with authority of the Forest Service claimed that a rule had been broken because groups larger than X size were required to apply for a permit. The attendees to the gathering replied, quite truthfully, that there was no authority within them to apply for such permit and that they were not a group, but were rather a whole bunch of individuals who individually chose to come hang out together in the forest. I find that to be a perfectly reasonable response.

I love it!! [so wait, does that mean i have to marry it now?]
Seriously, this is an excellent example of thinking "right" (straight/accurately/empirically/etc)
Surely it is the path of freedom-think!

The nature of ...

I love it!! ;D
Yes, indeed, the "nature" of any and all concepts desired to be embraced-- required! Empirical validation of authority.!

...seeing and accepting that each is an individual and each is responsible for his own actions is so critical an issue in my mind. When "we" say "they," "we" are just as guilty of creating the problems that "we" complain about. There is no "government" to complain about. There are only other people who fail to be responsible for the results of their actions as well as those individuals who fail to hold others responsible. "Support Our Troops" is a perfect example. Individual people who willingly kill for hire and claim not to be responsible for their actions?

No. I don't buy it. Voters who claim their enforcement of their wishes on others is "the will of the voters" Nope. It's YOUR will, each of you who acts with force to get what you want. (The individual voter claims it is the government which is enforcing the action, and then the "government" claims it is only carrying out the will of the voter. Yeah, right. 'Splain that to me again, please!)

Just as much, it is the responsibility of each of us to figure out how to live in accord with our morality. (Hell, its our individual responsibility to derive our individual responsibility for if we don't create it it will not exist. It isn't magic, it's a human choice to make or not to make.) Claiming, "well it's because the government forces me... blah blah blah," is just as much of a cop out as the cop or military thug who claims only to be following orders.

Excellent, excellent--- I see this the same. I'm glad you've articulated it again-- perhaps as a good reminder if nothing else.

I suppose the crucial aspect of individual 'think' is addressing what "I" do when confronted with those individuals living in group-think [eg "We The People" as One Body]. History sure seems to indicate that latter as an inevitability and as such, something weeach of us will have to answer.

[NonEntity]

2i2 sed:

I suppose the crucial aspect of individual 'think' is addressing what "I" do when confronted with those individuals living in group-think [eg "We The People" as One Body]. History sure seems to indicate that latter as an inevitability and as such, something we each of us will have to answer.

I think that this is the core issue in the idea of "Standing."

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

I just finished listening to the Feb 27, 2007 FreeTalkLive radio show/podcast. The third hour (starting near the end of the second, actually) is an interview with a young woman who claims to be a member of the Rainbow Family.

Rainbow Family " Welcome Home" website

When the earth is ravaged and the animals are dying, a new tribe of people shall come unto the earth from many colors, classes, creeds, and who by their actions and deeds shall make the earth green again. They will be known as the warriors of the Rainbow -- Old Native American Prophecy

Rainbow Family Wikipedia page

Rainbow Gatherings Wikipedia page

Rainbow Tribe Welcome Here - Circle of Light Community Network

Which sounds like basically where the 70's hippies have morphed to?

[NonEntity]

It was the 60s, dude man. Weren't you there? I was, AND I remember! ;D

- NonE

[NonEntity]

Rainbow family participants make the claim that their group is the "largest non-organization of non-members in the world". In addition to referring to itself as a non-organization, the group's "non-members" also even playfully call the group a "disorganization". There are no official leaders, no structure, no official spokespersons, and no membership.

I think I'm in love.

- NonE