Private Property

[eye2i2hear]

tharrin, do you have any problem with individuals having some basic priority* interests/control? In other words, is it respectful/honorable to agree that individuals (each of "us") can hold a priority interest "in" things (houses, computers, cars, etc-- but then also, land-certain)? *

[priority:
n 1: status established in order of importance or urgency;
2: preceding in time]

Where if I may digress a tad here, from my perspective, I only offer the word "priority" because imo too many have allowed the adequate words "property" and "ownership" to be only the term (legal) meanings; I've yet to figure why one would give that authority/power to others; but be that as it may; ditto the word "rights"; granting, that perhaps these indeed have been too long usurped and tainted and thus are being forced to the mental rubbish heap; but either way, its like stating "human rights-- if there is such an animal"; huh? geesh, who says (or keeps saying) rights have to be like an animal/exist? Do only existent, literal things have value in life? So does "value" exist?!? "honor"? "respect"? "words" even!?! Might we see through the illusion...? and find the value of concepts, like rights? Where again, I offer that rights come from each other*-- same as with any other concept-- when consideration is given to common/natural equitable interest/authority] *[this "God-given" rights or "endowed by their Creator" is all of course conjecture, as its building a concept upon a concept, which I hold is a very slippery slope; rights I can establish as valid by granting to you any and all that I expect; but this "God" or "Creator" business-- er concept?? ]

By the phrase "land certain", I mean some "basic" amount of land that is the equivalent of a "fair share". Where "fair" is an equitable amount proportionate to others with equitable interests and/or natural requirements. **It is a process**. I easily can use the word "birth right" here, as I easily grasp that "we" all and each get "here" with the same "stuff" (or lack thereof/our birth day suit) and the same basic life requirements [eat, rest (including "rest room"), exercise, shelter, etc; aka the Crusoe Test]. Where the life requirements, notably the post parental, are for a lifetime.

From where I'm looking, a "certain" amount of land is as inseparable from each individual as their heart/lungs/guts/body-- at least to any claiming to believe in freedom. I do not hold that this is, or can be, a black & white area (or amount) anymore than with all individuals it can be said with any certainty how much of one's lungs or guts one can live without, etc. It is rather a process. How society defines "certain" regarding land will be a perpetual process it seems to me. But as a general (common, natural, societal, associative) rule, any land that is prioritized (or propertied) must first be run through the Individual Test (aka The Crusoe Test). That is, it "should" not (if to be claimed of value/honorable/respectful/etc) be at the life threatening (proverbial sword) point for any other(s).

It seems to me, when considering the issue of authority there should be land certain that is as unalienable (by another authority, any other individual of course) to each individual as their own two feet (arms, lungs, eyes, etc). That is not to then say each individual can not "hire out" said land anymore than it is to say an individual can not hire out his body (called labor). But it ensures against at least one key problem with society, no? Slavery (or indenture).

For with land certain, each Crusoe/Crusoette (that we each are) has his/her "island". [of course, as with all aspects of voluntary society, none of the "should"s can be enforced via violence; rather, they can only be respected and honored (if there is such an animal) ;D via exchange response eg shunning]

Oh, and fwiw, I agree with the general take you note regarding the likes of the Donald, Rockerfellows, King George's descendants, etc. Land claim decrees are the very stuff of slavery and/or tyranny of most every level and degree. Hear "land titles" and you might should hear "land entitlement". Where indeed, it is a fine line twixt One Government-- as that which "they" agree to-- and One's Own Government, no?

[NonEntity]

Tharrin,

I'm still awaiting your suggestions for how you feel we might most equitably resolve those issues of conflict which might arise among people seeking to use the limited land* available.

Would you be kind enough to attempt to describe how you see these things working out?

- NonE

* Not that land is necessarily limited, but certain lands are, such as land near water, land that is flat and fertile and so on.

[lummox2]

I find myself agreeing with a lo of what Tharrin has to say.

The idea of ownership being based around mutual and voluntary co operation is possible. Just not now. It's possible in pre industrial socisety where people don't move much (in fact can't move about much). It's not possible in a world full of planes, trains and automobiles.

In a community of a few hundred it's possible to get consensus, and in fact this is the world we evolved to meet. In a world of random billions theres no chance. In a sense our morality is designed for face to face, day to day living in a world of strong family and community ties. It has major blind spots (see milgram etc) in any world where there are vast numbers of people bouncing about. We have to take short-cuts with our thinking (trusting authority, experts etc), and those short-cuts play us false.

I also think there is a strong element of trade off going on here. We have stored food, huge advances in technology and so on, but at a fairly hefty price.

Just as our morality has blind spots. so do some of our fundamental ideas. Ownership being one. I've raised the point before, but if there is a game called ownership, then sooner or later, someone will "win" it. Just as thinking there are towns leads you to think there are cities and then states and then countries and finally a WORLD GOVERNMENT (tm).

The end point of ownership is something similar. We are all aware here of how the western "nations" were bought* quite some time ago by certain financial institutions. A few guys played the "ownership" game really well, now they own more or less everything.

*Fraudulently I know.

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

Tharrin,
I'm still awaiting your suggestions for how you feel we might most equitably resolve those issues of conflict which might arise among people seeking to use the limited land* available.
Would you be kind enough to attempt to describe how you see these things working out?
- NonE
* Not that land is necessarily limited, but certain lands are, such as land near water, land that is flat and fertile and so on.

First, good notation about the "certain lands" ie "fertile".

Lastly, just in case:

tharrin, regarding NonE's question* I won't assume his intent here, but for my own question, let me rephrase his:
Would you be kind enough to attempt to describe how you see a voluntary society functioning practically regarding your concept of fair earth usage (particularly land)?

Specifically, could there be "permanent" buildings? Homes? How large? Factories? By what process is such decided?

thanx (to you both)~

*NonE's phrasing of the question left me shivering in thinking it will prompt yet another round of doom and gloom "prophesying" of how "things will be"... (rather than how they could or can be via hope, and some of us trying, regardless, etc)

[eye2i2hear]

lummox, I appreciate your insightful & provocative post. It touches on several aspects I've been mulling over here and there myself. A central one being the "when?" issue, as being "not right now". It parallels it seems, the no State potential time wise, no? There is yet a huge struggle regarding the state of mind. And as I've already stated elsewhere here, I personally don't see no State until it is "settled" just how resources are equitably allocated. No State IS a property issue, imho.

One central aspect you touched on is in the comment about "trade-off". Interesting choice of words, as indeed, voluntary society inherently centers in "trade". Determining then whether said trade is indeed "off" versus "on" ("trade-on" = the popular expression "right on!" as a "great" deal, etc) seems crucial to those seeking to have any other's freedom as fairly established as one's own. I often wonder if natural/voluntary societal order is inherently both a trade-off and a trade-on, where it seems more obvious when considering that freedom is (or "feels" like) an inherent trade-off (ie one's freedom ends where another's begins).

Regarding land (and many other natural resources), it seems a big change in thinking regarding profit sharing ("birthright" equitable interest compensation) might aid in the trade-off of the likes of factories, airports, and etc more a trade-on? Bringing such about apart from any enforcement via violence? Wow, make that a big time "not yet".

Perhaps much of the struggle will be in dialog that persistently brings to remembrance how the necessary trade-offs do hold universal value, making it then individual value? Changing the state of mind via perpetual appeal... it seems to be "our" work cut out for "us".

[eye2i2hear]

You might find this interesting (or disturbing): TED Talk - journalist Robert Neuwirth - a tour of the world's squatter cities: the "cities of tomorrow."... where a billion people live now and three billion (a third of humanity) are expected to be living by 2050.

[NonEntity]

lummox2 said:

I find myself agreeing with a lo of what Tharrin has to say.

The idea of ownership being based around mutual and voluntary co operation is possible. Just not now. It's possible in pre industrial socisety where people don't move much (in fact can't move about much). It's not possible in a world full of planes, trains and automobiles.

Lummox,

This is the entire reason that I started this thread in the first place. I really like some of the ideas of some of the tribal based systems of conflict resolution, but find that they do not translate easily (or at least we haven't seen evidence of that yet) into the modern more anonymous world of easy transportation and communication. SO... considering that the methods we are currently using are so filled with bad outcomes, how can we address these problems in the current reality?

I'm not interested in all of the whining about how evil we are or all of the reasons why things are as bad as they are. What I am interested in is finding some new ideas, or new twists on old ideas, which may address the current reality. We are not dinosaurs, nor cro-magnin men, we are the current level of evolution, and we have to deal with current reality. The world is not, and never has been, a stagnant place, so believing in some magic place somewhere in the past where everything was hunky dory is just playing make believe.

I agree with many of Tharrin's points, as I've said before. That is not the issue. The issue is: where do we go from here?

The idea we have of seeing groups as identities is perhaps one of the greatest problems, I think. I somehow or other feel that viewing each individual as an individual may be a core issue. This somewhat coincides with your comments about there being too many people and things being too big. Can we find a way to deal as individuals with other individuals even in a populous world with cheap transportation and high mobility?

The tribal Customary Law of the Somalis seems to deal with individuals as individuals (mostly) even though there is a strong tribal basis behind the system. Maybe if we can understand better how this works we can find a way to expand the ideas so that they will work in a much larger context.

- NonE

[lummox2]

Oh the solution is easy.

Universal (or near universal) recognition that our social fictions are just that.

[NonEntity]

lummox2 said:

Oh the solution is easy.

Universal (or near universal) recognition that our social fictions are just that.

Yup... that's REAL easy. Just like predicting the weather or the stock market.

The lumping of things into groups is a biological imperative, it seems to me. We are not capable of dealing with the vast variety of different things out there, so we generalize and categorize.

I think that maybe a lot of what you are calling out "social fictions" is just that, categorization for the purpose of retaining sanity and the ability to operate in a huge and diverse world.

So we must find a way to accept this part of our natures and use it differently, not proclaim that our thinking processes are wrong. The processes are not going to change, but maybe the ideas and methods within those processes can be changed. (Our brains ain't gonna evolve much anytime soon. ;D )

- NonE

[lummox2]

Yeah, sorry.

It's like my recipe for curing world hunger - give everyone a meal.

It's part of the problem in itself, the thought that a big solution is required. It's the basis for a lot of statist thought, and it might not be accurate. The environmentalists propose big government, large scale solutions to what they see as a huge problem.

Theres a reason every nutcase cult grabs all the kids it can and tells them "this is the truth".

You are right, we cannot abandon how we naturally think. We can acknowledge it and act accordingly though. There are also ways to use it against itself.

[NonEntity]

It is also guaranteed to prevent progress, for if we see that there is no possibility of improvement then we will obviously not put effort into finding a better way. I think that is what I find so frustrating in what I believe I hear Tharrin so often saying.

The level of slavery, of the open and blatant kind, has been reduced dramatically in the last very short number of years (150 or so?). True, we now find ourselves enslaved in a more insidious fashion, yet this goes to show that we, as a global civilization, do change when we change our thinking. So with that as an indicator of the possible I am now seeking the next grand change, to make the idea of "authority" as vile as that of "slavery." (For is it not but one and the same beneath it's fine beaver hat and sublime set of threads?)

"Authority" is nothing but a prettier word for "Slavemaster." - I said that.

- NonE

Addendum: Tharrin, It now strikes me that you are looking for an external authority, and recognizing that you can not put your fingers on who it might be, have yet to accept that there is none, and that there is no certain correct way for everything to be.

At least that is a view I just had on the matter.

And so, with no possible correct set of rules, a process for seeking the most harmonious solution appears to me to be, as Voltaire put it, the best of all possible worlds.

- NonE

[lummox2]

Yes. The best system being one that's continually open to being changed as and when it's needed.

This is the problem "good" people have against the "bad". The "bad" have more options. Those with the most options will gain control of any system given enough time, it's inevitable.

I once thought that thinsg became thre way they are because the amount of people with that moral flexibility expanded to the point where the existing system couldn't absorb them all, so they would (for instance) form trade unions, or political parties. These are not stupid people, they know what the game is, they just don't care.

hmm I'll think some more on it.

[tharrin]

Doom and gloom, Eye?!? NonE asks…How did you put it…oh yes. “I'm still awaiting your suggestions for how you feel we might most “equitably” resolve those issues of conflict which might arise among people seeking to use the limited land* available.”

equity n. 1) a venerable group of rights and procedures to provide fairness, unhampered by the narrow strictures of the old common law or other technical requirements of the law. In essence courts do the fair thing by court orders such as correction of property lines, taking possession of assets, imposing a lien, dividing assets, or injunctive relief (ordering a person to do something) to prevent irreparable damage. The rules of equity arose in England when the strict limitations of common law would not solve all problems, so the King set up courts of chancery (equity) to provide remedies through the royal power. Most eastern states had courts of equity or chancery separate from courts of law, and others had parallel systems of law and equity with different procedural rules. Now most states combine law and equity and treat both under "one cause of action." 2) the net value of real property, determined by subtracting the amount of unpaid debts secured by (against) the property from the appraised value of the property.

equitable adj. 1) just, based on fairness and not legal technicalities. 2) refers to positive remedies (orders to do something, not money damages) employed by the courts to solve disputes or give relief.

Here are the definitions found in The Free Dictionary online. So Equity is the leveling of the playing field to produce a group of rights and procedures to provide fairness. So now you place man at the helm and as Lummox put forth options for moral behavior do not bind every one.

I truly believe that is why contracts materialized. The good (subjective) people had to find a way to deal with the bad (subjective) people, in an equitable manner. However, the only way to bind those that did not wish to honor their contracts was to punish them in a variety of ways (physically, financially, limit their freedom, or kill them).

So I throw it back at you NonE how do we deal with those that do not operate honorably? What if those people become the operators of circuses called courts, and form their own clubs called bar associations, where their allegiance is to the club? When do we limit corporate and personal expansion (in reference to land possession)? How do we hold people accountable for transgressions against each other when the system that decides is not held to any moral standards? Define moral standards. Do they mean the same thing to everyone? If not, how do we decide which moral model will be the standard against which all things are decided?

Once the decision is made as to what moral standard will be the template for equitably resolving conflicts how do we punish those that transgress the template? How do you deal with people like me who do not believe in your template? Do you throw them into insane asylums like Ezra Pound to get them out of the way of your agenda? To you beat them into submission to your belief system. Do you kill them because they won’t adhere to your template when they disagree with it? What if they are totally unable to operate in your system? Isn’t all of this behavioral modification to meet your ends? Isn’t any claim of ownership exactly that…an unsubstantiated opinion back by some form of force or coercion? Doesn’t that claim only serve the claimer? What do you do with people who just don’t want to be in your system? What do you do with people who don’t agree with your system?

Most important, who decides what is fair? Is it truly fair? In who’s OPINION?

Ownership as a foundation is flawed. It ultimately leads to the belief in illusions because it is based in illusion.

As complex a being as we are, where most of us operate in a none offensive and unforceful manner, we still have to deal with parasitic people who form themselves as governments, gangs, mafias, warlords and prey upon those that live peacefully and productively with each other. There are a few million controlling billions. There are a few grasshoppers subjugating a multitude of ants. What do we do about these people, who have always existed (historically) and most likely always will? It is obvious they think of us as fools and ride us like beasts of burden. They live off our productivity. They have no compunction to disposing of a few us to bring others in line.

So what do I suggest? Seems pointless to suggest anything when dominators have assumed authoritative positions and really are not interested in giving up their easy life style, when all it takes is to pop a cap into a few of us to scare the others into submission.

We revere these people. When they win we say they are at the top of their game and we are correct. It is a game and the rules are subject to change at any given moment and you are not allowed to determine the rules. We are the pawns; cogs in the great machinery and those operating the machine do not wish to give up the helm.

First, NonE, tell me how you plan to throw the bums out? How do you plan to unshackle yourself from the system while you advocate the very foundation they rely upon? Those that are running the game know that ownership is part of the game. They bank on it. They bank on your belief in it. They subjugate you with it and as long as we believe in it we end up with exactly the same thing. A system that infringes upon the freedom of all.

NonE, what I espouse cannot happen in this system. In the world as it is and as long as there are dominators and dishonorable people, we end up where we are. Maybe in small pockets we can find something reasonably close to what I espouse but then look how it worked out for the Native Americans. As a more modern example, the Amish, who are constantly being antagonized by the dominators to become a part of the system? Dominators will always do what they do best, not leave you alone. Tell me now what do you propose to do about them?

I don’t spew doom and gloom I only look objectively at things as they are and my options to change those things that I can and the only thing I can truly change is myself and I can tell you I have changed a great deal from my earlier years on this planet. I operate honorably. I will interact with you and all others honorably until my honorable nature is abused and then I will not interact with those that abused me anymore. I am sure I will be faced one day with a situation that I will either submit to or stand my ground and fall for but one thing I am sure of is I will never be left alone to go about my life as I please if that life is out of step with the systems agenda. That’s all I can do at this time; live by example.

[NonEntity]

Tharrin,

"In the world as it is and as long as there are dominators and dishonorable people, we end up where we are."

So what you seem to be saying is that until the human animal is a different animal, there's no point in trying. We are evil.

If you don't call that gloom and doom, I'm not sure what it would take to get you to find something gloomy and doomy! ;D

"That’s all I can do at this time; live by example."

I am not sure that I can argue with this, nor want to. As I say, the only one we can change is ourself. So I honor and respect that idea.

At the same time, it appears to me that your example is a poor one in that it seems to show those who might follow it that there is no hope of finding anything worthwhile in this world until this world is NOT this world. I do not find that to be an example which might inspire bringing about the kind of world you might more want to live in.

I recognize and agree with many, maybe most, of the things you find wrong. But rather than focus on them ("that which you focus on you become") I am looking toward those things, ideas, people, methods which ARE worthy of respect.

You are not one of those people. You do not inspire me, for however much you think you are the perfect embodiment of honor, you are not a beacon of light and love. If I were a child and you were my role model I think that I would learn that there is nothing worth living for in this world. Is that the legacy you want to give to those who will be the future?

I think that I will find much of what I look for in the world. If I look for the good in people and treat them with respect, I often find that is what I get in return. If I look at people with contempt and scorn, that is generally how I am treated in return. It is a choice I can make, and often I choose the latter and am disappointed. But when I choose the path of love and respect it more often than not comes back to me. I know that one thing I am learning it that people are not "people," each is an individual person. So much of modern society is based upon the view of people as aggregate groups. I think this tendency to judge individuals by our perceptions of them based upon the behavior of the groups they may inhabit is counter productive. As a group, I hate cops, or any government agents for that matter. But so often when dealing with individuals who have these jobs as individuals, not as representatives of these "positions," I find them pretty good people. So what is happening it that my idea of their role clashes with their idea of my role and we as individuals aren't even there at the party. One mental creation spars with another - the people are not in conflict, it's the preconceived ideas that are at battle.

And I must say, we are evolutionarily hardwired to do that, I think. But we CAN overcome this, if we try. And when we do, we often find that the risk is worth the return. I offer this idea to you. No it is not easy. Yes you will find much disappointment. But what other option is there? You can either seek a life worth living or accept that it is not. If the latter, why not just shoot yourself and stop wasting energy?

"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. ..." - The Beatles

- NonE

[NonEntity]

Tharrin, (and all others, too, of course)

After posting the above, my mind reacted to the thinking.

What I'm seeing right now is that there is no one else but us. Each one of us is an individual. Each one of us is both the cause and the solution. There is no one else. There is no "them." "Them" is us. We each create our world.

To claim that the system is bad is to give responsibility for myself to someone else. If I do that then I deserve exactly what I get, and have no one to complain to for I have relinquished responsibility.

Only I can change my world for the better. Butler Shaffer has said this in many other ways, as have others throughout the ages going back far, I'm sure. It has also been said, "Shit or get off the pot!" Same thing, different way of saying it.

Looking at it from this perspective gives me a great amount of respect for one Marc Stevens.

- NonE