Private Property

[NonEntity]

ROFLMAO!!! ;D

- NonE

[tharrin]

Good one Marc.

As you can see, the violence inherent in the system, is the only means to force people into submission (as you so cleverly have postulated).

The massive change of beliefs to get people to opt into a voluntary society is staggering. It is the same dream as everyone becoming a democrat or a catholic. It just ain't gonna happen and if it does, what do you do about the dominator's that will eventually try to take over or thwart your system? I am not saying it cannot be done, I am wondering how it can be done? If I lead by example, I become the leader of the way. Others will either subscribe or find no advantage in it.

NonE constantly entreats me to offer methods or solutions to help bring this about. I cannot, as I fear that if I create a certain belief system it is prone to the same problems the present one has. Somebody will have to run the whole game and you and I know this is a complex game with only a few real winners, but the illusion is that the paltry benefits we gain from the system are far outweighed by the servitude it places us under.

So it is with the belief in property. The benefit goes to the owner and not the tenants. Ultimately, the owner is the one that controls the disposition of land and who grants access and squatting rights, over that of others.

Fairness and justice are not part of the makeup.

[NonEntity]

tharrin said:

NonE constantly entreats me to offer methods or solutions to help bring this about. I cannot, as I fear that if I create a certain belief system it is prone to the same problems the present one has. Somebody will have to run the whole game and you and I know this is a complex game with only a few real winners, but the illusion is that the paltry benefits we gain from the system are far outweighed by the servitude it places us under.

emphasis added

Tharrin,

I ask that you examine the meaning of the word "VOLUNTARY."

- NonE (feeling tortured by your "logic"...)

[eye2i2hear]

tharrin,
Regarding the example you'd seek to be in a voluntary society functioning practically (literally) and your concept of fair, honorable, earth usage (particularly land):

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

would you, as an example of honor:
Build a permanent house? How large?
Build a factory? (assuming you desired to)
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 literally & globally, but I'm more after the example you feel you set by which that day would/could have built upon...

[NonEntity]

2i2,

Tharrin likes to make me out as the bad guy, and that's fine, it gives my life meaning and all that ;D , but I think you'll find that many, many people have asked in many ways for Tharrin to answer this question, or at least direct his attention to it, over the vast multitude of decades this thread has wandered these very boards, all to no avail. It is for this reason that I have claimed him to be dishonest and a whiner, not because I have a disagreement with his argument or ideas. I daresay you will not get your answer addressed by him in this forum. (I would LOVE to have to eat crow, by the way!)

- NonE

[tharrin]

Here is the answer you want from me but you will not like it. If we were to operate in a voluntary society that does not operate with the belief in ownership, then there could not be huge factories or permanent structures because that foundation depends on some one having superior right over all others. So we'd have to figure out some other way of handling living together without forcing each other out of our territory.

If there were to be permanent buildings we'd have to figure out how they could become truly public and accommodating to the whole of the earths people.

Now go ahead and try to figure out how to do that. Wait nobody wants that they want to own. So much for that theory.

NonE, really, get a grip. I don't paint you in any way, shape or form. If you think you are a bad guy then that is what you are. Nothing I have said, should be taken personally, as we are on opposite sides of the issue.

I just feel that as long as there is the concept of ownership, there will always be haves (owners) and have nots (tenant's or landless) and as long as this condition persists there will be conflict, regardless whether the transfer of land ownership is voluntary or not. It is simply human nature. We crave a territory of our own and we crave exclusivity to that territory. When land and resources run out, which they will, then something will have to give or is that the reasoning behind agenda 21?

[sagas4]

tharrin said:

We crave a territory of our own and we crave exclusivity to that territory.

WHY?

and who we white man?

[eye2i2hear]

For thread topic (and No State Project = "anarchy"?!) consideration:

www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html] An Anarchist FAQ: B.3 Why are anarchists against private property?



And a "ditto" of sagas4's " who we?"
As it seems many cultures indicate a willingness to compromise (or find a natural satiation regarding said craving for?) the personal/private mass area, for the gained social benefit(s), no? (eg the gradual merge from individual agricultural to communal suburb/apartment in America; but also the literal scarcity-- "country" = island-- aspect of Japan; and not to leave out an earlier link regarding "squatter cities" appeal, etc)

And these in spite of Statist aggression-violence sanctification/influence/impacts (including the so-called "American Dream"/"Chosen People=own the land" religious influences)? And so how much more potential when that fantasy-to-belief State of mind is dissolved through rational, empirical-based reasoning?

It seems to me that the vast majority of folks simply have a said craving to own their "own" bodies, along with then what is needed to "keep" it, naturally (nourish/clean/etc), and the subsequent extension as time ("life") invested in those necessary-to-life "things"? How much of those having anything 'more' as a craving is more the product of Capital-Statist-think faith-based belief/education? (only time will tell!?)

[eye2i2hear]

tharrin said:

Here is the answer you want from me but you will not like it.

First, I thank you kind sir, for the specific response!

Secondly, I had a hunch that 'had' to pretty well be your position, so there wasn't much to any "not like it" from that revelation regard.

Lastly, any "will not like it" for me has long left being a requirement for my decisions and choices (at least as I purpose and have as my goal). Perhaps simply as something long understood and accepted by yourself (and others here abouts as well, to some degree or another)?

You might perhaps explore with me (yet another source for "will not like it"?), the entirety of this excerpt:

As Alexander Berkman frames this distinction, anarchism "abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title -- not to ownership but to possession." [What is Anarchism?, p. 217]

This analysis of different forms of property is at the heart of both social and individualist anarchism. This means that all anarchists seek to change people's opinions on what is to be considered as valid forms of property, aiming to see that "the Anarchistic view that occupancy and use should condition and limit landholding becomes the prevailing view" and so ensure that "individuals should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but personal occupation and cultivation [i.e. use] of land." [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 159 and p. 85] The key differences, as we noted in section A.3.1, is how they apply this principle.

This anarchist support for possession does not imply the break up of large scale organisations such as factories or other workplaces which require large numbers of people to operate. Far from it. Anarchists argue for association as the complement of possession. This means applying "occupancy and use" to property which is worked by more than one person results in associated labour, i.e. those who collectively work together (i.e. use a given property) manage

Infoshop.org: An Anarchist FAQ

(speaking of "will not like it"!?!)

[sagas4]

eye2,

perhaps you might ask Darren if he still has the links posted quite a while back. If memory serves he delved into this Anarchy thing and found some interesting folks claiming to be anarchists, and their purported rules. They ranged from the fascist/socialist anarchist where everything is community property to total all out full on no one rules anything so it's everyone for themselves.

What you posted seems to have more of a socialist bent to me. i.e. if everyones responsible then no one's accountable and we have the problem of the commons and then the large industrial buildings will be used until they are in disrepair and it will be some one else's responsibility to repair them.

I know that some here will have disdain for the solution that was the conclusion of the link above but please show me another one that will work, has worked, or has some evidence that it has potential.

What we know from observation is that if someone "owns" something or at least believes they do generally they tend to care for it far better than something in which they have a usage ability but no direct and individual responsibility for the cost which can or will be spread across a large group or inwhich there is no direct responsibility on their part. Think tghe whole class of people the government want kept on Public Aid. I'm not saying folks are evil, it is human nature, if you can get something for free or little or no cost to ones self, well it's basic survival-101 through thousands of years of environmental programming.

Think Maslow Hierarchy of needs .

[eye2i2hear]

sagas4,

I appreciate the expression of the concerns. I mainly posted this particular snippet because of the notation of tharren's "will not like it" and the link in the snippet to a specific proposal of "no hierarchy = anarchy" that includes factories. That noted, as it stands snipped, its perhaps a tad out of context; with what I've digested thus far regarding "communism" and the commons position its neither. Suffice it to note that individuals in the association of said factory are the "owners" and thus have a motivation beyond communism, and the commons as I've come to understood it. [not to mention, the profit sharing aspect = individual social gain (Paine's lump sum inheritance settlement), which I've yet to determine from the source as whether considered valid]

Regarding any "show me one that has worked", of course first that gets very subjective, but the pre-U.S. north Americans (and equally pre-industrial, and now pre-technical, pre-Cyberville/real-time connectivity as well) seemed to have modeled it pretty well. And no, I don't mean the typical Hollywood/Statist myth stories as "history" being representative of the facts. Where I see little difference in that no State past and No State vision present, regarding the possibility of literally, principled replication in the future (particularly considering dealing with potential violent takeover; where a potential for addressing with one would equally work for the other?). And where the snippet holds the foundational key with: "This means that all anarchists seek to change people's opinions on what is to be considered as valid...". Where no coercion/aggression is equally people's valid opinion.

Then bottom line, I individually have to settle for my conscience and reasoning what is fair and honorable (ie "valid") regardless of the price/cost, including majority and/or peer opinion; be it the fruit of the commons, or communism, or be it voluntary society-- or be they one and the same?!

[sagas4]

Are you describing a situation kind of like UPS was before they went public a few years ago?

It was a private employee owned company. Everyone who worked there owned a piece of the pie (but only those who worked there could) and therefore each individual had more incentive to provide the best possible service than just their paycheck.

There's still a problem though . . . you don't have 1 or a select few owners, you have lots-o-them.

If you get a chance read that link on the commons. It's not what you might think. It's not the 1968 Professor Garret Harden Essay, I linked to in the early days of this thread is is a review with additional stuff from the CATO Institute.

I have posted this as an antitheses, to Tharrin's comments for the sake of discussion. We have talked about this before. Tharrin can clarify this himself, but I'm sure he leans more toward the Native American Model. I take up the opposition for discussion purposes. I too like that model. Heck I have family that live on a reservation as their blood was not watered down with white mans like mine, but it was not all milk and honey as everyone is prone to believe. We're reminiscing about a bygone time that may only come about again by a serious disaster or huge loss of population and then the world that emerges might look more like Davis Brin's vision as represented in the the movie The Postman .

I don't think it is because the vast majority of people are bad folks. On th contrary I believe most folks are decent honest people. I don't think ownership/property matters a hoot. The problem is the small group of people who want to control others. Whether there is a concept of property or not those people will still attempt to control others through force and or fraud on a mass scale. It is more difficult for a single individual to control anyone other than themselves . . . they have to get dirty and messy. But as in my recent experience documented in the love government thread. That single code enforcement guy doesn't have to get dirty. All he has to do is write up some paperwork, the city attorney, judges, and one or more cops with guns will do the dirty work as a team. The issue is how to deal with the situation at a systemic level. If government falls this afternoon there will still be some type of norms or systems in use in the next iteration. I'm attempting to envision how those systems might function, as I do not think it is dealt with in a beneficial way now except for maybe here .

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear said:

Then bottom line, I individually have to settle for my conscience and reasoning what is fair and honorable (ie "valid") regardless of the price/cost, including majority and/or peer opinion; be it the fruit of the commons, or communism, or be it voluntary society-- or be they one and the same?!

I think that you've hit the hammer on the toe, or how ever that expression goes... If we (see, I'm starting this sentence off contradicting myself and proving my point before I've EVEN made it) stop thinking in terms of "we" and "them" and realize that all actions are those of individuals and to think and act as if groups are real is to be insane... (not speaking of my very own SELF here, you understand, only "THEM!") then "we" might get a handle on this stuff.

This is like the guy who posited that we speak and write in E-Prime (not using the verb "to be" at all.)

'Scuse me while I go load a new operating system in my brain...

- NonE

[lummox2]

One problem I have with the "owners look after things better than non-owners" argument is that those in "the state" think they own everyone/everything and they don't do such a good job.

Rockefeller owned huge amounts of industry, and he looked after his stuff and his staff so well that he had them killed for a few extra bucks profit.

From Maslow we have a hierarchy of needs. We could easily base a morality around that. For instance -

Is any "property right" worth killing another human being over?

Would you be willing to steal to obtain medical supplies for a loved one if there was no other practical way?

If you were starving, would it be ok to steal a little to survive?

[NonEntity]

lummox2 said:

One problem I have with the "owners look after things better than non-owners" argument is that those in "the state" think they own everyone/everything and they don't do such a good job.

Thinking you own something and being responsible for it are two separate things. Ownership is not a one way street as is government "ownership." So government "ownership" is not "ownership."

Rockefeller owned huge amounts of industry, and he looked after his stuff and his staff so well that he had them killed for a few extra bucks profit.

I'm ignorant on this so I can't comment, but I suspect this is myth.

From Maslow we have a hierarchy of needs. We could easily base a morality around that. For instance -

Is any "property right" worth killing another human being over?

Yes. When someone tries to violently take away from me those things which I need to keep me and my family or friends safe and secure there is no doubt but that I would resort to killing if there were no other option available.

Would you be willing to steal to obtain medical supplies for a loved one if there was no other practical way?

Probably.

If you were starving, would it be ok to steal a little to survive?

Probably. (Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables")

Does any of this negate the idea that having certain norms of behavior may prove generally beneficial to all of those who chose to respect them?

I return to the point: the entire issue is a workable means of conflict resolution.

I think that you would be hard pressed to find more than a VERY few people who would not be willing to provide food or care to someone in desperate need. If this is so, then the stealing you mention above is not an issue.

Aside from dealing with sociopaths, the killing thing is pretty out there, too.

- NonE