Private Property

[eye2i2hear]

tharrin said:

Doom and gloom, Eye?!?
...
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 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.

First I apologize for what seems now to obviously have been a major distraction. I'm afraid I wasn't a very good example there.

Taking what you've noted above, might I re-ask my question here:

tharrin, would you be kind enough to attempt to describe how you see a voluntary society functioning practically regarding your concept of fair, honorable, earth usage (particularly land)?

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

Or: would you, as an example of honor, build a permanent house? How large? A factory? Agree that other's could still be honorable and build a factory?

thanx

ps: perhaps to answer takes considering a giant evolutionary leap taking place to get to globally, but I'm more after the example you feel you set by which that day would/could have built upon...

also you wrote:

tharrin said:

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.

But then aren't you defining (determining the meaning of) "honorable"? Honestly, this perplexes me when I consider how you question other's words (for concepts) like moral (and equity and property). Why do you feel you can define and exemplify honor "correctly" (accurately/rightly/etc)? And how does honor in this sense differ from moral (or good? or right)? Is it simply mere choice of word?

ps2: if time only permits addressing one of the two issues, please go with the first one (the repeated question)-- ty

fwiw:

moral: c.1340, "of or pertaining to character or temperament" (good or bad), from O.Fr. moral, from L. moralis "proper behavior of a person in society," lit. "pertaining to manners," coined by Cicero ("De Fato," II.i) to translate Gk. ethikos (see ethics) from L. mos (gen. moris) "one's disposition," in pl., "mores, customs, manners, morals," of uncertain origin. Meaning "morally good, conforming to moral rules," is first recorded c.1386 of stories, 1638 of persons.

honor: c.1200, "glory, renown, fame earned," from Anglo-Fr. honour, from O.Fr. honor, from L. honorem (nom. honos) "honor, dignity, office, reputation," of unknown origin. Till 17c., honour and honor were equally frequent; the former now preferred in England, the latter in U.S. by infl. of Noah Webster's spelling reforms. Meaning "a woman's chastity" first attested 1390. The verb is recorded from c.1290 in sense of "to do honor to;" in the commercial sense of "accept a bill due, etc.," it is recorded from 1706.
Online Etymology Dictionary

Considering "fame earned", isn't honorable then other's determination-- as well as our own? Which seems to me, to put us right back where we started: each+other.
And so if NonE & Eye say you've "earned" being known as a "spewer of doom and gloom", who are you to be so dishonorable and say (define) otherwise?! ;D [thank doG none of us is a proponent of violence enforcement!]

[NonEntity]

"[thank doG none of us is a proponent of violence enforcement!"

Which none of us would you be speaking for there, mee lad? ;D

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

" putt "

(or "butt" as the case may be)
((or "bump")) ;D

[NonEntity]

Trying to make sure we're not overtaken by that frisky "Objection!..." thread, are you 2i2?

- NonE

[NonEntity]

Can you say, "Well, DUH!" ?

An excellent article on egalitarianism.

- NonE

[tharrin]

Does it not stand the test of reason that if one utters the sound "This is my piece of land!", that automatically, from its utterance it invokes a challenge? Does that declaration not bear challenging? Can that statement stand without out a shred of evidentiary proof or is it, more likely, the territorial roar of the human animal? Is that exclamatory statement pretenced with warning that if challenged some form of action will be taken?

If they are not then why say it? The statement has no teeth. It is as potent as my telling NonE there is a higher being. I cannot force NonE to believe it by the saying of it but I can force him to revere it (albeit begrudgingly) by torturing him into submission but I still will not have captured his mind. Why is this? Is it because the belief of a higher being resides within the confines of my skull and the only way it can be manifested is for my brain to tell my hand to ambush NonE, tie him down, and systematically break his will to mine? Is it no less, the same as gathering a group of like-minded comrades and forcing NonE to submit to my territorial boundaries? Make him believe in my created illusion? The illusion did not exist until I forced it into being by various methods of persuasion. Does not the illusion I have created in my mind and manifested into existence through some form of force, dissipate when a larger force moves its will upon me? Upon my death does my declaration have any bearing on the living?

If property (the claim of it) has no physical existence, the the land is just land. It never had lines drawn upon it until we worked our will to make it so and the only way the ghost can exist in this world is through the continuous willing of it; through a collective cognitive effort. Yet even so, the ghost is just that...a non-existent being. So it is with the claim of property.

We have to examine why man draws lines upon the ground and declares them borders. Why we throw words at people and expect them to respect them.

Voluntary society or not; there will always be people that will harm you to take what you have to survive. It is an instinct in our genetic structure; if you scoff at this then you have never been in a position to think otherwise. Yet you live in a structured society where this happens all the time. So I would not understand why you would not believe man is capable of these things.

Yes, yes, yes. We are capable of a higher existence and of many good things but as long as we live in fantasy land we cannot rise to that existence and will muddle around in the morass of our making.

Until we can transcend our petty beliefs that we have superior right to exist on this planet above any other then that belief will be challenged. Claiming to own land is as unfounded as claiming to own the universe. They are both based in exclusivity and therefore invoke challenge. Remove that which can be challenged and nothing remains but our associations with each other and how we manage those associations. We can either associate peacefully and with respect and honor for all life or we can have something like we have today.

Since man, in general, appears incapable of doing this then the likelihood of a voluntary society catching on seems a bit bleak. This is not doom and gloom but many years of observation.

[NonEntity]

"Until we can transcend our petty beliefs that... "

And your thoughts in this regard might be? For that is what I seek.

Retta Fontana had an excellent article today in Strike-the-Root.com

"Since man, in general, appears incapable of doing this then the likelihood of a voluntary society catching on seems a bit bleak. This is not doom and gloom but many years of observation."

Interestingly it was pointed out by Butler Shaffer, in a column of his many moons ago regarding anarchy, that almost all of our daily interactions are anarchic and voluntary. With this in mind, I wonder if perhaps we are not really much closer to the ideal than we might think. It could very well be that we are but a smile away from a different world if we but let ourselves "go there."

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

tharrin said:

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

For me, in attempting to better understand this example, could you please respond to the specific questions asked of you in this post?

ty---------

[lummox2]

Tharrin,

We have to examine why man draws lines upon the ground and declares them borders. Why we throw words at people and expect them to respect them.

Of course it's about territory and power. To think otherwise is daft, imo.

Voluntaryism/anarchism isn't about pretending power games are not in play, that's what statists and others do, the fantasy that there can be a a "good king/president/ whatnot". It's about recognising that this power game is all there is, that everyone is playing it and cannot stop and that the closer to a balance of power between all the players, the better the game turns out.

One of the major problems of statism is that it has reduced a lot of people's awareness of the basics of human interaction to an extraordinary degree. By creating a class of "special people", both within the general mindset and in he mindset of those "at the top" the ability to deal with people as they actually are has diminished appalingly.

Until we can transcend our petty beliefs that we have superior right to exist on this planet above any other then that belief will be challenged.

Of course my claim to all property is higher than yours. Compared to my own existence yours isn't that important. Not that I mean you harm, or you me, but we each have our own shit to deal with day to day. Things is, I am aware that everyone else has exactly the same point of view. ;D

Given that we all own everything, we need a game to play to get along without the risk of injury. Monarchism was a better game than tribal chieftains, statism is a better game than either, now we want a new game to play that's better than any so far, so we can get our sleeves rolled up and start on creating the game that will come after it.

[tharrin]

The problem now becomes, Lummox, who gets to define the terms of the new game. I try my best to not get in others way but that isn't good enough. They seek me out.

I like people well enough but what bothers me is they think they must interact with me without my initiating the encounter. It is part of the game that they send me unrequested mail that requires me to take an action. Shred their unasked for junk mail at a cost to me for shredding it ( I have often wonder how much energy could be saved if we just stopped the movement of junk mail...I bet it would astound us). I don't go to anyone's door unannounced or without prearranged agreement, yet dozens come to my door for a variety of reasons, none of which I initiated and at a cost to me, my peace of mind. I send them packing.

I am relaxing and they feel it incumbent upon themselves to call me when I did not ask them too. I don't call them for no reason to ask them if they want to give me some money for a service I don't want.

So they will not leave you alone in that case, why do we believe we can build a society where people will leave each other alone if they can't in the simplest things and because people will not leave each other alone is why we want the concept call ownership, so we have a reason to run them off of it.

In answer to Eye...I repeat...I teach by example. I act honorably with people. I go by the dictionary form of honor. I did not make up my own version of honor nor did I make up the rules of honor. I respect people to the point they disrespect me. Respect is also the dictionary variety of respect. I am not defining the terms I am using the defined terms already in place.

If you wish to change the present definitions...join the statist as they really like to do that to their benefit.

In all seriousness, Eye, I will treat you fair. I will not try to make gain off of you. I will not abuse your honest dealings with me. If we discover conflict between us over a verbal agreement I will negotiate with you to settle the matter.

That is all I can to is show by example...honorable intercourse.

[NonEntity]

tharrin said:

The problem now becomes, Lummox, who gets to define the terms of the new game. I try my best to not get in others way but that isn't good enough. They seek me out.

I like people well enough but what bothers me is they think they must interact with me without my initiating the encounter.

Okay, let me see.

May I ask you a question? I guess not, since you seem to want to initiate all interaction with you. So is it (I'm blithely going on and being just like everyone else and interacting with you without your specific request for said interaction first, because I'm that kinda person), I say, is it alright for you to initiate contact with me to let me know that you'd like to have interaction, but not okay for me to initiate contact with you to see if you'd like to have interaction?

I guess if someone else does anything it is wrong, then, but if you do it first it is okay? Or just how is it that this is supposed to work and how are we to know, since it appears we are not allowed to ask?

- NonE

[tharrin]

Let's see NonE...perhaps you are in the middle of a really good book and I come knocking on your door. In that instance you'd rather read the book than interface with me.

Regardless, NonE, I decide my stuff is more important than your stuff you wanted to do. Who is the unwarranted intruder. I guess you are because you shouldn't have any time to yourself. How much sillier do you need to get?

So thank you NonE for making my point. If the goal is to be left alone by people who want to stick their noses into your business, then why do you believe the same crap won't happen to your voluntary society?

My first and only question to you is how do you get everybody on the same page? Buzzer sounding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You don't and therefore you either force them to comply or give in.

Thanks NonE for adding to the discussion so intelligently.

[NonEntity]

Dude! If I would rather read my book than answer the door, then I wouldn't answer the door. Is that so terribly difficult? Are you that much of a spineless victim? What if I wanted to sleep in late? Should I whine about the sun? "Oh, it's all just so TERRIBLY unfair! Oh. Oh. The world can't figure out what I'm thinking!"

- NonE

[tharrin]

Again you make my point. There are certain things one can do something about. The sun is not one of them. I do not feel victimized by the sun or other people. I am only explaining that you must overcome those petty difference I spoke of earlier. If you and I cannot do this in this simple forum...um...gee...how do you do it in a more complex thing like society? Buzzer sounds again!!!!!!!! You don't!

Some people are perfectly happy living in what they presently call society. They don't want to change. They like the status quo. They will probably always want exactly the way things are and you and your voluntary society friends will be mucking it up for them. Enough about sheeple, how about those that benefit from the way things are now.

I am sure they are going to dump their big houses, fine cars and living and powerful positions and control they have over you presently to take on an equal footing with you. (Dream on).

All I can do is live by example. I will not bother you if you do not bother me. I will treat you fairly despite how you treat me. I will only allow you one opportunity to abuse my good nature and after that we will not be dealing with each other. If you prove you will honor the contracts between us then we continue with that association.

Now get the rest of the world to volunteer to do that.

[marc stevens]

tharrin said:

I cannot force NonE to believe it by the saying of it but I can force him to revere it (albeit begrudgingly) by torturing him into submission but I still will not have captured his mind.

I'm in favor of torturing NonE.