Private Property

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

Hmm. That seemed to me to go a long way around and to come right back to from whence it started.

A matter of perspective, no less.
Or is it no more?
Duly noting the inclusion of "seemed to me".

Also, I'm confused as to your dismissing my commentary regarding freedom being a mental state.

Do I need to assume the "seemed to me" here, too? ;D
I don't wish to "dismiss" it per se. Only to remind of a duality.
I only wish to offer that there are dual aspects of free/freedom.
Both are states of mind, of course, as both are concepts.
The difference I see is that one is purely subjective (ie "personal"/inward) while the other can be empirically validated-- or at least appealed to as a requirement for the outward claim.

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.

I'm impressed! A conclusion drawn! (and yes, a temptation withheld here to say "Doh!" what else? apologies of course if there was an assumption here in expressing it as "land certain" would connect with the popular "time certain"...)

I intend that, from an associative perspective of the concept of free. Right? [ie you'll have to go discuss it with the likes of me, myself, and I otherwise; where "me" etc is "you" of course; discuss it with the guy in your mirror...?]

What I hoped might be heard in the phrase "land certain" is both that it is factually certain-- specific-- but also to seek to remind of what it's factually certain regarding-- that being that a man's body certainly will not live apart from land. Naturally-- by natural order, that is clearly a done deal. Only if and when property is claimed is it potentially forced otherwise. Thus property claim can include slavery, etc. I speak here of foundational considerations of course.

If* an individual's body is his property then every individual requires land as property. Thus it follows clearly to me, that any establishment of property must include individual's land certain-- a certain amount of land guaranteed to each if claimed by any. Btw, I did not come to understand this on my own, so please don't take this to be something I came up with; where then for me, it is something I can't find any authority I have to say otherwise. *[I only used "If" to challenge the thinking of those that I feel have already agreed to that empirically reasoned position in hopes they'll likewise naturally agree to this next- logical- step]

I honestly do not know how to convey it differently and so can only say again, conflict is only of the realm of empirical evidence. Even if we disagree, say, on Santa's wife being a babe (or a fox) or a dawg (or a fat cow), until it is acted upon, it is not conflict-- in an associative sense. Maybe bringing up the phrase "there is no injured party" helps; or by the question "where is the injured party"? Where did it get physical/factual? [assuming of course, those are acceptable as valid concepts/principles/foundations]

So I could say (rather than merely "think") you (or Santa Claus) makes me a slave (or an elf, for that matter). Again, just as Crusoe could say on his deserted island "I am a slave/I am not free". Who's to argue-- as who cares, factually? "Free" is after all, all Crusoe's to define. There is no competing authority to claim otherwise (allowing that Crusoe hasn't granted even that to a monkey or a tree). You could also say there's a conflict with you saying you're Santa BeCause. You could also say gizmos are unConstiwidgetal. You could say you're not free. [where "you" of course is not personal and can be "me" or anyone]

Just as the facts establish the crime, I offer that so the facts dictate the authority issue. Or that we have to agree to allow them-- or else risk being The Decider.

Where so again, the facts are land is how one lives (biologically sustains life, notably one's ultimate property, one's body). I did not dictate this akin to a dictator (political). But I could agree with it being said I dictate it as I "hear" it from nature's mandate! Where's my secretary?! Or am I a secretary!?
[now whether each individual chooses to follow personal mandates of nature, is not any other's business or obligation-- at least regarding enforcement; whether one chooses to till, plant, and cultivate is their free choice; not having the land to do it if so choosing, because of any other's claims founded only by mere desire rather than equal natural mandate, denies or prevents it, is usurpation; it is higher archy; it is control; it is enforcement]

I also know of no other point to hammer than the issue of authority. Property and conflict are authority issues. Just like they are associative issues. Apart from nature (the elementals in all their shapes and forms literal, factual) and then natural order, how is authority to be settled? If facts settle conflict, don't facts settle authority? And thus settle claims?

What are the facts of life?
;D We don't use the phrase "the widgets and the gizmos" but rather "the birds and the bees".

Where then it seems the logical step is to say the same of authority. What are the "birds and the bees" of it? Again, I know of nothing else we can appeal to. Conflict is a difference of opinion about establishing authority, is it not?

There are mandates outside of our control-- called Nature (or nature). Thus we individually are equally under that. Where then any change regarding that mandate, the natural order, the natural dictate (to use your word) is simply a usurpation or assumption of authority-- and so the question is, how is the authority validated or invalidated? By what authority (or to what authority) can one (or a majority as "one") invalidate a natural mandate? What else is there to appeal to if not the natural mandates as the highest authority (needed because two "little" authorities are in conflict)?

Assuming of course, we first agree that appeals to Matrix's and Wonderlands (and Legalands) get us nowhere...? ("nowhere" perhaps at best; further under enforcement-- aka not free, as worst)

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.

Please help me to see how this is any less dictatorial than my "dictates"?

Are they dictates? Your's here or mine earlier? Validate your position. [and you can not use empirically validated words!]

Again, I know of nothing outside of natural order to appeal to.
And so again, it seems clear that nature has mandates. Any wishing or desiring to change that order seems bound to doing it empirically.

Now, how much "certain" amounts to regarding each individuals amount of land? I'd hoped my other offerings (your "dictates") ie points for consideration for agreement or rejection, would address such as raised here. Suffice it to be said here, this gets more into the "desires" aspect than the "mandates".

But if we accept that we individually and collectively have dictates-- like 'em or not-- by nature (or in nature or as the state of nature, etc) then it seems obvious any "one" having his desires fulfilled by inherently interfering with natural mandates has some validating to do, no?! [que the I Love Lucy Ricky clip here: "You got some 'splainin' to do."]

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.

Here again, I fear there is a step over into the non-associative aspects seeking to make them of the associative "realm". I have nor hold any delusions of utopian or perfection "free".

Freedom, from the associative perspective (which I think is why we're having this debate?), inherently starts with things mandated by nature as being the ultimate authority. Society being therefore a natural mandate, the natural order, it is accurate to say those interactions are inherently balancing and therein define 'free' as encompassing it. We are wise not to romp over into some paradise (ie Legalland) defining of free. I offer that the expression "My freedom ends where any other's begins" is a way of capturing this natural order-- acceptance of the natural authority and definition. It is again, only when another's lesser natural desires relative or up against another's natural needs (again, those naturally empirically validated) supplant the opportunity regarding those needs, that saying one is no longer free is accurate.

I individually have a responsibility regarding natural mandates-- the natural order/authority. Both my own and any other's objectively. [after all, apart from them I don't know if there is any "I" or "you"-- and so objectively, associatively, socially, its all that matters]

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

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...

And to think, there I was seeing the very same thing every time I hear of you and your buddy's agreements about "your" property (fence) and the "defense" thereof!

all "uphill" from there (for the rest of us)...
(my heels don't click together tho, but the property boot on my neck shows signs its been clicking)

[NonEntity]

;D ;D ;D

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

I'm more and more coming to see the solution to the problems of conflicting desires, wishes, needs, as one of process, not principle.

NonE,

Could you clarify this further?
And perhaps take some specific conflict examples from today and play out how this would (or might or could?) work out? (and if it'll help, I'll commit to not over-nit-picking specifics and just look for the "process")

In seeking to be willing to do as I ask, here's something I thought perhaps you might get a kick out of...
It came to me in yet another round of wrestling over my "writing skills" (or lack thereof) that perhaps my "honorable" and "respectful" response to this "conflict" ie my not conforming to the general rules of proper sentence structure etc etc-- that maybe I should indeed, accept the offer of this "process" perspective. After all, are not rules of sentence structure based upon general... *<cough<*<sputter<*<mutter*not the "P" word!?... "principles" ?! (the "f" word is we scratch that neanderthal principle biz and let the process spell it "ph"rinciples...) And so isn't my writing style simply a rejection of principles and accepting, more/rather, "the process"?!

Yet there's only more complaining about the ONE area I try to demonstrate agreement with via seeking to discard those f@#$%&*! binding frinciples?! Hey, just go with the writing by "process", will ya?! ;D

[NonEntity]

liknmk!,,, ____________j8989asdfg? hhjh2cxoo lLeedBDF}}}<+@@=;jh;khu...
.f
f....
.f
f....
.f, &&&ZDR

- NonE

[sagas4]

nonentity said:

liknmk!,,, ____________j8989asdfg? hhjh2cxoo lLeedBDF}}}<+@@=;jh;khu...
.f
f....
.f
f....
.f, &&&ZDR

- NonE

1100110 1110101 1101110 1101110 1111001 1001110 1101111 1101110 1000101 ;D

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear said:

nonentity said:

I'm more and more coming to see the solution to the problems of conflicting desires, wishes, needs, as one of process, not principle.

NonE,

Could you clarify this further?

As an example from what I understand the system in Somali Customary Law is:

Assume that you and I have a conflict regarding something and that we have been unable to come to agreeable terms on our own. We can then each ask another person to act in our behalf in a trial. I will pick someone I think will understand my view and also someone I trust to be fair. You will do the same. These people are not paid. They can be anyone. We will then agree to be bound by their decision. A hearing will occur and we will each voice our views and perhaps bring evidence or witnesses. The judges will then get together and decide the case and tell us their decision.

Assume that I have been found guilty of something which requires restitution. I will be told that I must make such restitution. But this will be voluntary. I can either make such restitution or not. If I do not, then it will become well known that I am not an honorable person and it will be very hard for me to deal with others as they will either shun me or be very wary, at the least. If I do make restitution then it will be understood that I chose to seek to resolve the conflict and when judgment was passed against me I fully complied, voluntarily, with that judgement. This will increase the level of respect for me, most likely.

All of this is voluntary. No one is paid. There are no rules, just a process which people enter into or don't. There is no institution (no court, police, judges, etc.), simply a process which is found to work. All people are treated equally. Anyone can bring claims. Anyone may be a judge. Anyone may choose to respect the judgement or not, but there will be consequences one way or the other.

There is no need to try and figure out in advance all of the possible things people might disagree over, as the only time these things are worth thinking about are when, in fact, there is an unresolvable conflict. This conflict is quickly resolved and life goes on with no rules.

People who operate outside of these basic processes of civility will find it hard to interact with others. In the case where force is used (burglary, rape, etc.) I assume there are various retaliatory ways of dealing with the transgressor. But keep in mind that most law is not about violence, it is about expectations and arbitrary rules of behavior. All of that is unnecessary.

- NonE

[NonEntity]

I just ran across this story of guy who filmed his girlfriend (without her knowledge) while they were having sex, then distributed DVD copies of this, along with her contact information, randomly on cars in a parking lot, after she dumped him. This is so bizarre and horrific it defies description, and yet... it is an example of the things we as humans do all the time.

I mention this and link to it in this thread as I find it a perfect example of how it would be impossible to predict and pass laws against this kind of act, and yet this is an extreme example of the kinds of situations that "justice" demands be dealt with.

I present this as an example of why "law" is not a good solution to the vagarities of human interaction. It is simply impossible to presuppose all of the weird things that might be encountered in life and then write coherent laws that would equitably deal with them without hamstringing all in a kitten's wet dream of a yarnfest.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

I appreciate the responses~

I have this question, in hopes of either further clarifying my misunderstanding/inability or getting closer to clarifying the rebuttal:

In considering communication, is it more process or principle based? In other words, in english grammar, is it process or principle now/for us?

In learning (or "transferring") english grammar, is it generally accepted as beneficial to have the process/principles written down? Is such then dictating? Is such honorable and respectful ("right")?

And so, like with grammar above, how about with language defining/word defining? Process or principles? Written or unwritten?

I particularly find the word defining ("dictionary-ing") as very significant to our very own ongoing conflict here in this thread. Because to me, I hear us too often being like magnets with like poles facing, thus repelling, each other simply because of the power given to "mere" words by one side (one "NonSide"?). Where it seems I could ask, why are the word definitions not simply allowed to be a process rather than "law"?

What's seemingly becoming clear(er) to me is that in many aspects of association, it is more process AND principles!? [see "communication" and "definition" above; weren't they both first process but thereafter principle?!]

Now, considering the conflict resolution "process" offered, I could not help but find it very fuzzy on how any "judge" you and I would appeal to differs from my "offering" of a conflict resolution for property conflict, how his ruling is not dictatorial? What if he had posted his response in this thread instead of me? Doesn't any judge have to make an empirical appeal in order for other's to understand and accept his "dictates" (or call it his resolution suggestion?)?

Noting, critically perhaps, that I never threatened any "enforcement" of my "ruling" either...? Can you help me to see where I'm missing the dictatorial/dictat-oral distinction?

Finally, granting that I'm not sure the inclusion of the Somalia by example intended this, but I find it interesting that tho it was/is not written, there was/is "the tradition" passed by the "judges", no? And so I see way less process and more "law"/principles; and so I need further clarification on the distinction (again, also duly noting that perhaps the Somalians simply haven't "arrived" yet to the "right process" process themselves... )

I do not wish here to be seen as one of the "black or white" camp here either. I would express this as not being a stickler for "the letter" of the law, but just as strongly press for the "general" principles. I feel I am in the camp of lesser is better-- as the process-- when it comes to establishing principle/law [see [url=http://thereisnostate.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1140194985&page=61#1172935812
] your[/url] (and sagas') "[url=http://thereisnostate.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1140194985&page=61#1172935812
] acceptance speak[/url]" of abolishing the communication/language principles above]. How much more so when it comes to defining words, like "law" (and "rights"), though?

I guess I'm still unable to grasp how contracts can process and not first include "first" principles-- akin to how communication capabilities only work because the principles were first processed, but then become "law"?

It sure seems to my thinking presently, that the "terms" (ie conditions made up of defined words in grammatical order) of any contract will never process until/unless, just as with grammar and language, prior processed information formed general principles? Maybe its where the judge is allowed to "process" an interpretation of the principles rather than requiring a total perpetual process --or likewise, a "letter of the law"?

Ultimately, I still contend its less process-versus-principle and more simply the "primal" (or is it "primer"?) agreement: will either party use violence (enforcement)?

[NonEntity]

Excellent, excellent questions! Especially as metaphorized* in regards to language. (*Not a real word except in the fact that it uses standard principles of word usage and construction in a process on an existing word to convey meaning in a new form.)

One point I would like to clarify regarding the "dictates" issue: In the case of adjudication I mentioned (and you questioned), the judges' (and note that there are several and they must come to their own agreement) decisions are not (generally) dictated so much as they are declared to be THEIR judgement, which the parties who have sought adjudication have already agreed they would abide by. So it is all voluntary.

Language is a constantly moving target. And yet we must "know" what words mean in order for language to have any valid function. On the face of it, this appears self-contradictory ... yet, here we are, talking with each other. Perhaps the key is the word "with" in my previous sentence. It is a back and forth sort of manuever, seeking to convey information and even, as here, perhaps to gain new insight from the process.

I ask that you consider how different this is from what we normally consider "Law" to be. That is why I used the word "dictate." Law is not so much a process as a dictate, as I see it.

So when you have the judges seeking to come to a conclusion regarding a dispute which has been brought before them, yes, they are using principles and standards, but they are not applying them dictatorially, they are seeking to use them as measuring sticks or founts of prior knowledge from which they can examine the case at hand, and THEN come to a NEW decision regarding THIS SPECIFIC set of circumstances.

Of course the common idea of "case law" modifying and informing our current legal system is somewhat of an example of this very same principle, yet it is applied unilaterally and with force, rather than voluntarily and in a freely chosen debate of respected arbiters (who are NOT paid for their services but do it out of respect for the community and the process.)

- NonE

[NonEntity]

Let me add a thought.

If abiding by the ruling of the judges is a voluntary thing instead of one enforced by guns and cages, then the likelihood of an unjust or an almost universally ignored "law" remaining in force is unlikely, and so the evolution toward more fair "law" will likely exist.

Take, for example, a speeding ticket. Almost everyone speeds. There are degrees of speeding. It is pretty much universally understood that you can "break the law" by about 5 MPH with no expectation of trouble. So, defacto, the law is not the law. The law is something else than the law. If there were no speed limit but instead people were expected to not endanger or harm others in their vehicular travel, the cases of endagerment would each be judged on their own merits rather than some arbitrary, and universally incorrect, rule. An example of this is in the many cities which are removing all traffic signs and rules and allowing all to negotiate the thorofares: pedestrians, bicyclists, autos, motorcycles and trucks alike. It has been found, to the consternation of the control freaks, that traffic becomes calmer, more efficient as well as safer when rules and signage are removed and people have to start taking responsibility for their awareness and choices of actions on the roads.

We are social animals, and so a certain level of concession to the desires of the majority is a necessity if one wishes to remain a part of that society. It is therefore in the interest of all members to find a reasonable balance between individual desires and respect for the wishes and desires of others. A flexible method of negotiating this balance would seem to be an obviously superior method than one which is incapable of changing with the times, needs and circumstances inherent in life.

- NonE

(I hope I don't sound as much like a pompous ass to you all as I do to myself in the above post. Nevertheless, I think what I've said makes sense.)

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

(I hope I don't sound as much like a pompous ass to you all as I do to myself in the above post.)

"you all"...?
You mean there's somebody else here besides you and me still?! But then there is the Holy Trinity here of Me, Myself, and I-i-eye-- The All-Knowing Eye. (and We, The 1, voted unanimously long ago on the "ass" part, tho not so much any consensus on the "pompous"-- butt "all" the rest of the judges see no problem here either...

It seems some processes cull out the sane folks... ;D

[eye2i2hear]

eye2i2hear said:

It seems some processes cull out the sane folks... ;D

... and leave them "in" here I mean, of course, of course!!!

--- processing, of course, of course...

[we all are the sane ones, right? am-I-right? right? right!]

[NonEntity]

Como no? Amigo, como no?

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

Hey folks, check this out... the summary description might be in line with some of you uber-debaters on the subject of property (of whose membership I no longer count myself )


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

Georgism, named after Henry George (1839-1897), is a philosophy and economic ideology that follows from the belief that everyone owns what they create, but everything supplied by nature, most importantly land, belongs equally to all humanity.

Georgists argue that all of the economic rent (ie, unearned income) collected from land, broadcast spectrum, mineral extraction, tradable emission permits, fishing quotas, airway corridor use, seignorage, space orbits, etc. and extraordinary returns from "natural monopolies" should go to the community rather than the owner and that no other taxes or burdensome economic regulations should be levied.


Predecessors
Those who expressed similar thoughts before Henry George include: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, William Ogilvie of Pittensear, Thomas Paine (notably in "Agrarian Justice", 1795), William Penn, Adam Smith, Patrick Edward Dove, Herbert Spencer and Jacques Turgot. Some anarchists have been near to Georgism on some points. Also, historical fiction novels typically portray the Native Americans as believing a similar philosophy.


See also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism (aka en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoanarchism)