|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Feb 28, 2007 19:53:16 GMT -5
You gotta love this one: Rainbow Family " Welcome Home" website |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Feb 28, 2007 23:48:41 GMT -5
I wish to bring an offer to the voluntary association assembled here regarding land as property.
I might quickly note that I do not see voluntary association, or a voluntary society, as having to be 'communal'-- much less politically communistic; noting that the latter inherently involves coercion, the very antithesis of voluntary.
I hold that Creation Order (nature) establishes the first principle of property-- each individual's body --and that upon that empirical precedent and order, land and portable aspects thereof can honorably be held as property. The latter being validated by the natural progressions observable (ie the work observably done), witnessing to time investment (ie labor) as a higher equity interest worthy of honor and respect.
I, as an honor seeking individual, offer the following for debate or agreement consensus. It may or may not be complete, but is at least a beginning. I might also note, that if you wish to disagree with any of these premises, that you consider the authority issue: where does the authority come from?
Land as property; the foundational principles:
* no individual can be denied an amount of land certain; each person's body requires an amount of land certain in order to live free; an honorable and respecting individual principally can no more sell that amount of land certain or have it seized, than they can sell their stomach or have their lungs seized, and live; much less live free; that land certain must be of essentially inhabitable and life-sustaining nature
* no individual has any authority to claim more land than is comparatively claimable by any and all others individually, local or distant, present or future; once such equitable interests are satisfied, individuals may hold more property beyond their land certain
* any individual can at any given time, work more land than that one's own land certain, but that work is done with the full awareness that the land inherently maintains equitable, thus future, individual claims to be honored, or profit sharing/ compensation made agreeable
* just as an individual can use their body to labor for another, so one can sublet their land certain; but just as slavery is immoral, so is the taking of one's land certain
* any improvements or buildings upon unclaimed lands, as that beyond all individual's certain, are done with the understanding that future equitable claims for land certain may arise; upon which profit sharing or just mutual compensation will be expected and honored; honoring of investment not discluded
* all land property remains under the principle of natural freedom; one's individual freedoms end where another individual's begins; natural mandates thus superseding any exclusive desires; honor and mutual respect being a part of liberty
* all land determined to not be essentially inhabitable and life-sustaining, is open for additional individual investment claims, so long as all other individual claims are treated as equitable when presented; thus profit sharing, but as well, time investments will be honored perpetually
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 1, 2007 10:45:16 GMT -5
uh... err... uh... ... ... ... uh... ... uh... WHAT???
- NonE
addendum: The problem with the word "dictate" is that it implies the concept "dictator."
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 1, 2007 17:34:55 GMT -5
that bad, huh?  addendum: the problem with the word "dictate" is my word search doesn't turn it up anywhere here... but in your addendum?
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 1, 2007 18:53:48 GMT -5
that bad, huh? addendum: the problem with the word "dictate" is my word search doesn't turn it up anywhere here... but in your addendum? How's about "proclamate?" Does that work for you? What I see above is a bunch of proclamations of how the world should be as defined by you. "Assert" might work, too. Sorry, but I just saw a weird salute and a funny mustache when I got into the post. My heels clicked together and, well, it went downhill from there... - NonE dic·tate (dĭk'tāt', dĭk-tāt')
v., -tat·ed, -tat·ing, -tates.
v.tr.
1. To say or read aloud to be recorded or written by another: dictate a letter.
2. To prescribe with authority; impose: dictated the rules of the game.
3. To control or command: “Foreign leaders were . . . dictated by their own circumstances, bound by the universal imperatives of politics” (Doris Kearns Goodwin).
v.intr.
1. To say or read aloud material to be recorded or written by another: dictated for an hour before leaving for the day.
2. To issue orders or commands.
n. (dĭk'tāt')
1. A directive; a command.
2. A guiding principle: followed the dictates of my conscience.
[Latin dictāre, dictāt-, frequentative of dīcere, to say.]
SYNONYMS dictate, decree, impose, ordain, prescribe. These verbs mean to set forth expressly and authoritatively: victors dictating the terms of surrender; martial law decreed by the governor; impose obedience; a separation seemingly ordained by fate; taxes prescribed by law.
from HERE |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 1, 2007 19:27:44 GMT -5
2i2, As I've said before a couple of times, I'm more and more coming to see the solution to the problems of conflicting desires, wishes, needs, as one of process, not principle. In your post above you have laid down a set of rules that seem to make sense to you. They may, in fact, make some sense, but the problem is that all rules make sense to the one who is setting them down. Dick Cheney probably really believes all the hateful crap that he spews. (And, no, I'm not comparing you with him.) That is why I responded as I did to your post. I know it was thoughtfully promulgated and all, and that you're probably not a bad guy. But all of that is totally not relevant. Is this making any sense? It's like those who seek "THE" truth. There is no such thing. It's a moving target and not necessarily the same for each person. Cat Farmer just wrote an excellent article on that issue and I recommend it. - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 1, 2007 20:37:31 GMT -5
I feel I understand what you are (and have been) saying & I grasp the significance. (just as clearly as I grasped what you intended by posting the addendum with a word not in my post and that then represented a mindset that you felt you saw...?) [including possibly, that in hearing "dictate" you also heard enforcement? or perhaps, as the wide definition allows, you simply meant "dictate" like oh, say a secretary might when drawing up the specifics of contract...]
However, I don't understand how it applies to two (or any other multiples of) people seeking to reach an agreement. [see my opening sentence in the post ref "offer"]
Can you help me to understand how you and another would reach an agreement apart from having the specifics of the agreement spelled out? And I would have no problem rephrasing any of the specifics to make it sound less "dictatorial" to you...
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 1, 2007 21:36:31 GMT -5
It's like those who seek "THE" truth. There is no such thing. It's a moving target and not necessarily the same for each person. Cat Farmer just wrote an excellent article on that issue and I recommend it.
- NonE"Everything I've said here about truth may be false, because I've attempted to capture an "essence" of truth as I grasp it." That quoted, I can honestly say I'm not one of those seeking-- or really interested in "Truth"-- at least not as it can be defined (so broadly). So I'm honestly not sure why its brought back up here yet again. Rather I simply a) look for what is mutually true; akin to what is factual. Where then things that are true are only and all the truth <=== little "t" truth-- that matters. and b) I seek to center upon having concepts empirically founded. Like it is true that the hammer (the one on top of my equally true thumb now under (true) the busted (true) drywall (true) all exist. Just like its true that it hurts (like hell-- the latter may or may not be Truth)  .! But if one or more wishes to argue that knowing it hurts may or may not be the truth or The Truth? Well have at it-- and perhaps we could settle the matter by simply placing the arguer's thumb under the swinging hammer. Is it The Truth that it is (or was?) the "hammer"? Is it The Truth that it was (or is?) "one" hammer or "one" thumb? ( are numbers Truth?) Is it The Truth that it is "my" thumb... or that it is a "thumb"? Is it true that whether its The Truth matters not? For isn't it true that those words are nothing more than what "we've" agreed to already? [but, then, is "we", Truth?] And we do not agree because it is The Truth; we agree because it is generally, mutually beneficial and because it is empirically sound (reliable/validated). And so, like it is true that a man who owns no land can not be free. Again, because it is only being considered from a societal perspective. [but where one could say " IS it Truth that he is not free...?" but in my opinion, to do so is to ask the wrong question; it could be expressed that such is a selfish question; because the interest in this all is relative to agreement/conflict resolution/society]?! As I too have said again and again, creation in its literal form called matter is all "we" have in common, that matters. It is the "stuff" (foundation) of society (or call it voluntary association if that better floats one's Truth). It is all the truth that matters regarding "us", hence conflict. Apart from it, and the concepts and principles it validates/supports (do I say the conceptual words here yet again, like "honor" and "respect"?), there is no conflict in need of resolution. Unless we've moved here into mental telepathy, of course? Or perhaps there was that Rapture and I'm just Left Behind...  "We" of course can just agree, that In Truth, we aren't here but rather are in a spiritual orgy-- wait, change that to a "widgetal gizmo"-- for again, apart from creation validation, there IS no spiritual and there is no orgy*... crap, these "words" aren't even here; as The Truth is, they're just letters; or maybe they're not... Please remember this ditty about there is no Truth, when one that would otherwise be reeling from whatever it is that doesn't exist but that satisfied your concept of defending your land/property (even if it was what you perceive to be your "body")-- isn't (reeling/bleeding), because you didn't (swing/shoot), because you did (remember). Of course, defending one's property is The Truth (your honor). *[communication apart from creation as a reference point-- a validation, a standard-- is impossible; is this true? take a challenge: go to the referenced link, remove all creation reference words, eg rock, sand, house, chain, water, etc, and come back and tell me what he's said... oh, and as well, remove the too often over looked pre-agreement that any of the words-- concepts that don't exist-- mean what they do, or even can?] ps: the link is a good exercise read, none-the-less |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 2, 2007 10:39:07 GMT -5
2i2,
Perhaps I just misunderstood the post I flamed above. (Seeing's how I have a hard time making out most of what you say, this is neigh on a certainty! ;D )
You make a lot of proclamations about having a certain amount of land (is that what you mean by "land certain"? or what do you mean by that strange phraseology?), and someplace else you claim that a man cannot be free if he cannot own land.
I just see these kinds of assertions as unfounded. Sure, they're open to discussion, and if that is your intent, fine. But I can just as easily state that "I need a 650 Triumph Bonneville or my life will be totally without meaning" (as I once believed) and ask you to seriously discuss this.
I believe that freedom is a state of mind, mostly, and the actual physical conditions surrounding that are as infinitely varied as the people who seek it. I would venture to say that there are lots of people with no physical possessions who are free. Buddhist monks are a good example. I am not presently inclined to want to pursue the path that they do, but that does not mean that I am freer than they because I think I own some number of possessions.
In fact, freedom must actually be totally a state of mind for there is not one of us who is free of the need for oxygen, sunlight, human touch, food and so on. Having your own desert island would perhaps make you free by some of your definitions yet, devoid of other humans to share it with, I think you would find yourself instead imprisoned by your choice of habitat.
So please continue.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 2, 2007 12:00:13 GMT -5
Yupp, we are indeed going around a cyber versus a literal mountain here. It might be expressed as one is speaking of the wall a mime "sees"-- and hopes to validate "it" by his actions-- distinguished from another speaking of the wall now having a ( my) head-sized hole in it from where the mime pushed me (because "I" invaded the mime's property known as "his" house-- or is it "his space"?). I'd offer that when any one says "freedom is a state of mind" one is thinking ("seeing") "internal". That's fine. Wonderful. Rapturing. But its internal; or maybe we'd say inward? Space where only "I" can go or know. I offer that this inward personal is best not to be confused with individual person-- where individual conveys distinction implicitly of an opposite ie society, then as more individuals-- empirically validated. That to me is all we're after here. "Here" in this thread's outward interaction. I'm not saying that personal perspectives are not valuable. I feel they are, very much so. Particularly regarding the factuality of much of what most individuals have to contend with in civilizations (due from too much or not enough "inward" personal evaluation). So we can express it that one can have "personal" (inward) conflicts that may or may not have a factual, empirically valid basis. And I believe that is an acceptable, valid expression (why? because it is something I have internally experienced and can empirically communicate). But its simply not what the crux of this forum, and particularly this thread are regarding. Here the point is seeking after settling factual conflict between individuals-- the outward. Thus free in the outward (associative) "sense". I don't wish to be held as discounting the "fine line" of thought/belief-- the inward-- as insignificant to an individual's consideration. It seems clear to me that the concepts we shape are all "around" or "about" our empirical actions. Which then for me returns me to the appeal of all-- and I mean all-- that "we" have in common for settling our thinking, our conceptualizations; our beliefs; that being: creation. And creation's matter as all that matters for individual's conflicts*. Where that 'matter' is centrally captured in this very thread's title: "Private" + "Property". Is it accurate to use the word private? How about for the "inward"? And then for the "outward"? *[how relative it is to resolving "personal"/inward conflict is probably just as crucial?] I often chuckle at the scene in the movie The Matrix where the young "enlightened" lad speaks of bending the spoon-- where the camera then makes the spoon bend. Interesting that the camera had to actually do it, no? Be that for what its worth, the spoon (image) bends. Fine. Wonderful. Rapturous. A delightful thought provoker. But just as easily (clearly?) fantasy. He and Neo might as well have "seen" Santa Claus (or Dog or Allah or GeeZeus). Its just not relative to social conflict. Factual, literal (empirically grounded) spoons only bend with "trick" photography. [I am not here saying that one day, people (acting like scientists?) may discover the technical ability to actually bend material with say "brain energy"; but until it becomes common, relative to society/voluntary association, it is irrelevant and a waste of conflict resolution time; because here and now people are bending material over one another's heads as that means... Asking if our concepts are valid is one thing; asking if the matter behind facts is valid isn't; granted, hopefully the spoon "example" was being sought metaphorically; but as many discussions seem to indicate, lot's of folks don't "see" it that way; maybe the better Matrix tact would have been an emphasis on the word "spoon" rather than its elemental properties of solid versus liquid...? Why not change the "spoon" to a "gizmo"...?] Bringing up that "actually... there is not one of us who is free of the need for oxygen...etc" is classic misuse of the word relative to society. I offer again, that it is wastefully time-wise, seeking to make nonessential the distinction between the inward "life" and the outward life-- again, from the societal perspective. "Free", in the more natural/common sense, is relative to any individual's actions (aka authority) interfering with natural order; and not any concern with where Natural mandates may or may not be held as "bondage" or "slavery". Key being, no one of us has any authority to change natural mandates upon our selves individually; like it or not; say its freedom or not. But from the associative sense, Crusoe (alone on the island or the planet) is always free. We might express it as empirically free; does that help? Only Crusoe can know, after all, if "he" is inwardly "free". Que here the mental clip of Crusoe miming on his desert island-- or miming the island... or miming him "self" even. Regarding property, there is no Crusoe. And naturally so. [and as you note, probably for most, gratefully so! most are as happy to have association as they are to have breath!] Free then, as an inward concept, is not relative here (in our thread discussion here, to eventually impact out there)-- "here" and "now"-- but outward. Associatively. In a risk of sounding superficial, let me again say I do appreciate your (and other's) sacrifices regarding my writing "technique". It seems all I can say at the moment is, its all I know (and honestly, in some ways, its all I am-- since as far back as I can remember, particularly college professor encounter days, the general response/reaction has been the same). |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 2, 2007 12:29:38 GMT -5
2i2, Hmm. That seemed to me to go a long way around and to come right back to from whence it started. If there was a message there I missed it. But let me say that I never understood the "Matrix" movie and so all references to it were devoid of meaning for me. I have another question. You keep saying "creation." What is it that you are trying to convey with that word? cre·a·tion (krē-ā'shən)
n.
The act of creating.
The fact or state of having been created.
The act of investing with a new office or title.
The world and all things in it.
All creatures or a class of creatures.
Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.
An original product of human invention or artistic imagination: the latest creation in the field of computer design. Also, I'm confused as to your dismissing my commentary regarding freedom being a mental state. You had made the statement that one could not be free without "land certain," whatever that means. I will assume for this moment that it means a given quantity of land. But humans by our very nature are social beings, so by that very same nature we will each require different amounts of land and other materials to perform whatever functions within the social matrix that we choose or find ourselves relegated to. This being so, it is subjective, not - as you seemed to indicate - a given, how much land or other property or materials a person might need. And even then, one is never free, in that being social creatures we must each interact with others as a part of our natural evolved state of being and survival. So "free," then, must be a subjective term even in it's most concrete form, must it not? - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 2, 2007 12:30:54 GMT -5
If you'll indulge me here a tad more...? a further side bar/white rabbit trail... I'm glad this discussion arose, because almost ever since I watched the movie The Matrix the first time, and even more so each time since, the "spoon" segment has just bugged me. "No", I know-- there is no bug." This discussion I feel has brought me to the source of that bug (no bug)!  In the movie the spoon is held up by the calm, peaceful, gentle young lad who instructs Neo regarding it. The spoon of course, as movies can make such happen, bends and flexes about. [why does a skin head also seem to symbolize wisdom? or maybe its cymbalize Ringo?] The problem here is that the empirical literal aspects are called out as being questionable. When the issue that needs in reality ie practically to be questioned, is not the physical characteristics, but rather the concept that: is is a 'spoon'. Why is it a spoon rather than say a gizmo? The wiser question the lad could have had was: " Is it "my" spoon? Or even " Is it a 'spoon' or is it a 'widget'?" But of course there's just not much fun with cinematography to "get around" that; much easier to play with the properties of the spoon than whether the spoon is property...?!? Why the movie makers took this tact of course would be purely conjecture for me to say. Hey, you need to see if all the camera technology can be payed for, at least. And it seem$ most de$ire such amuement rather than a (serious) muse meant; the latter being where the property question rather than the properties one would occur. The gentle little lad states (akin to States?): "There is no spoon." Well, smack the little tyke upside the head with it and see how "no" bends?! If he says I smacked him with a widget-- because there is not spoon... well, now we're getting somewhere. [but that gets us to a less entertaining violence; I mean, the nerve, smacking an obviously peaceful enlightened bald-headed child with nothing!? so we'll leave that to the lobby scene, where yet more mind-bending amusement flies] I hate to argue with a bald-headed kid (a NonK perhaps, or a BonK at that?), but there IS a spoon-- because such is simply an empirically founded concept validating the agreement. It is not only a spoon of course-- as that itself validates that it "is". Say "There is no property" and let's see how that bends. Especially to the "no bend defense" lines. [why is it "defense" to defend a fence? Why isn't it "defence" rather than "vio-lence"? "There is no fence"?!?]  I'm glad I finally got peace with this piece! Nice to finally get a handle on it-- since there is no handle (but there was a Handel-- I've heard his music and that proves it!) |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 2, 2007 12:38:43 GMT -5
I guess one of these days I need to see the movie again and see if it makes sense the second time. Speaking of using all that stuff you paid for: When "2001" came out it was filled with all sorts of the latest cinematographic darkroom tricks which the audiences went wild over, claiming that they were manifestations of profoundly deep intellectual this and that and the other. Being a photographer I saw them as silly tricks to amuse and was very disappointed that they were used in PLACE of substance rather than to add depth to it. Perhaps this is the same reason why everyone liked The Matrix and I left the theater scratching my head.
Or I might be profoundly stupid, that, too, is an option.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 2, 2007 13:49:48 GMT -5
I have another question. You keep saying "creation." What is it that you are trying to convey with that word? cre·a·tion (krē-ā'shən)
n.
The world and all things in it.
That basically covers it for me.* [with one preference being to perhaps change "the world" to "the universe" for contemporary usage; granting, that may be a mere carry over from my still "de-Churchelogy" ie "de-doctrinization" of my state of mind.] You asked of my intentions in using the word? Honestly, it was probably more habit that anything else. Why folks wish to say things are created, linking with creation, is perhaps pure conjecture on my part here; but I easily enough see that it is likely a carry over from revelation religious-think, particularly Churchianity/christianity-- where creation has (and "has to" have) The Creator, etc; where upon such it is espoused or coupled with it, that " man was created in God's image", and so man "creates" too-- sort of either a "proof" or symbolical verification and reminder of its being Truth, etc?
*And so in noting that religious inclination (assumption for some) now, I will be seeking henceforth to no longer use the word "creation"-- as it currently too easily implies a creator/The Creator (somebody's "God"). And unnecessarily so, for the word 'nature' just as easily works for me-- duly noting that clarifying articles are helpful always (see "human nature" for example). I appreciate you asking me about it (perhaps calling me to task about it? and if so, I consider it honorably so).
for a less specific consideration:
Your pasted definition of creation does bring another nice aspect that bounces around my semantically challenged mind, and that is with the word "state". It seems its often sought to be distinctive here and abouts, by making it capital "S" State (perhaps this too is more of our religion deprogramming yet to be accomplished? Where legalese states such as "State" and "STATE"?). But really, as with too many crucial communication words, including a descriptive, narrowing modifier would better serve such, imho.
As this definition of "creation" brings out, the word state helps define it. We might hear it as "the state of being" and "state of affairs", where that simply seeks to convey "us" and our empirical links? Again, rather than using the word creation, the "state" of nature works for me.
And so saying "No State" really can be confusing at worst and misleading potentially. When what we really wish to convey is No Violent State or No Enforcement State. Where Marc has noted at times, that many if not most of the things people are now doing "in the name of The State" (Ink) will be done in a voluntary society. The only change being "no" enforcement/violence used for compliance, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 2, 2007 13:58:28 GMT -5
Well, regarding "State," I find that your objection may be a bit out of hand as I did not use the word out of context (or at least I don't think I did) and context is often a crucial part of understanding a word. "Stop" means one thing in regards to organs, another in regards to (now antiquated) telegrams, another as applied to traffic signage and so on. State of being and State of Alaska are not easily confused, me thinks. (But please feel free to correct me if you think I'm missing something.)
- NonE
Or, to elaborate further, like "water" in "water the plants, "water you wearing to the ball, my dear..."
|
|
.! But if one or more wishes to argue that knowing it hurts may or may not be the truth or The Truth? Well have at it-- and perhaps we could settle the matter by simply placing the arguer's thumb under the swinging hammer.
