|
|
Post by tharrin on Apr 11, 2007 20:11:14 GMT -5
How do you handle this situation NonE (in your voluntary society)? You and I make an agreement voluntarily for you to control (own) a piece of land. How do we do this? Do we sign an agreement (contract) or do I just say NonE this is your piece of land now because you gave me a herd of cattle in exchange for it. Does a voluntary society need documentation of a contractual event? Even it that event is verbal, what make s it stick? What if I take you cows and then say I said no such thing or made no such agreement with you. Are you out your cattle and the land you traded it for? Do we go to a mediator? What if I don't volunteer to do so? Furthermore, what if I honor our agreement and go off on my merry way with my newly traded for cattle never to bother you again. Along comes Eye and says I ran his father off the land years ago, when his father was to old and weak to defend the land anymore. Subsequently, Eye's father dies and leave Eye an accounting of what I had done. Do you hand the land over to Eye? How do you know he is telling the truth (being honorable)? What if Eye just decides you need to go and takes after you with a hatchet? Your voluntary society seems to leave a great deal up to personal interpretation. Besides, you owe me forty dollars for using my line of reasoning without my permission. (AKA) In your post above. So are you suggesting that just because some people use force then I should not act respectfully and voluntarily with people?You appear to be thinking along the same lines as I have been espousing yet you appear to want to retain the ownership portion with your voluntary society. If your society is truly voluntary, respectful and honorable, then why do you need the concept called ownership? You don't need to own land to live on it. You don't need to own a place to live in it. What you need is for everybody else to respect that you live in that place and not to force themselves upon you. If we all acted respectfully and honorably why would we need to own anything? I am not a kettle Mr. Pot, so stop contending that I am black and you are not. Answer the questions I pose Mr. Artful Dodger. How do you handle the above situations? How do you defend without know what is true or not. Would you harm Eye because he wants back what belonged to his father? What documentation do you have that he is not the rightful owner. What documentation do you have that you are the rightful owner. How do you prove anything? Who presides over these matters? Do you voluntarily leave? Lots of questions Mr. Dodger. Choice is correct, dear Mr. Pot. You choose your actions every day. Can you choose, even it it means you may not survive your choice? Even if choosing to not survive is the right (respectful, honorable) choice? NonE goes into mental disarray. Let's watch.  |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 11, 2007 20:37:43 GMT -5
"What you need is for everybody else to respect that you live in that place and not to force themselves upon you."
Yes. That concept is ownership or property.
- Dodger
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 12, 2007 9:53:37 GMT -5
How do you handle this situation NonE (in your voluntary society)? You and I make an agreement voluntarily for you to control (own) a piece of land. How do we do this? Do we sign an agreement (contract) or do I just say NonE this is your piece of land now because you gave me a herd of cattle in exchange for it. You and I can agree that I will be allowed unhindered use of the land by you for whatever reason we agree upon. It may be that this is some land that you have used as pasture or something and I wish to grow a garden or build a house and so I discuss it with you and you agree with me that you will no longer use it and grant those rights to me for any or no compensation. This agreement does not speak for other people, of course, but community sentiment might be swayed by your action. There is no "society," there are only individuals, so the question is unanswerable as asked. The only thing that makes any agreement "stick" is the honor of those making the agreement. If that honor is lacking then it may come down to force or acquiesence. A mediator is helpful in cases of disagreement, but still, it depends ultimately on the willingness of the parties to come to terms. In Somalian Customary Law the "defendant" is always free to honor the terms of the mediation or not. But if he does not then it is known by the rest of the community that he is not a person who stands by his agreement and so his interaction with others becomes much harder in the future, if not impossible. No force is required. If you and I agree to engage in mediation regarding a dispute, and agree to honor the decision of the mediators, then that is that. We either honor or we don't. Either way we choose to act it is noted by others. This is the same as above. If this is in fact a valid claim then it is up to me to give honorable consideration to it. Keep in mind that even though the claim may have merit, time has passed and I have invested myself in the land in the interim in good faith, and that should count for something. And so we can discuss the issues. If we come to some kind of agreement, then fine, we're agreed. If we do not, then one option is to agree to allow a mediation board of our choosing to listen to the issues and to make a ruling and agree to bind ourselves to that result. This is all voluntary. If one of us becomes violent then we are no longer dealing honorably and self defense comes into play. ALL society is personal interpretation. There is no other way as we are all persons. The guy with the black robe and the guy with the blue uniform and the gun are also making personal interpretations, too, regardless of what they might pretend to call it. (Ignore that man behind the curtain!) If you and I had agreed upon such a fee up front then I would pay you such. If you just left your line of reasoning laying out in the open with no stipulations or protection on it then it is your own fault that it was used by me. The concept of ownership is exists whether codified or not. The codifying of ownership simply helps to clarify the issues and prevent misunderstanding. It does not prevent disagreements regarding such ownership. You can have a piece of paper that says you own something and another can come along with prior claim on that thing and argue the issue. However this is resolved or agreed can then be set down on paper. This will not mean that there is not some other party somewhere who might have some form of prior claim that merits consideration. If that party shows up then either honorable discussion can occur or violence. First of all, I don't have a society. I am only me. You are only you. The rest is fiction. You and I can act with honor or not. It is that simple. As to ownership, it exists whether or not you wish to accept it or not. When I am using something, be it a stick or a garden or a factory, and it is generally understood to be mine to use, that concept is known as ownership. If I abandon my property then it is up for grabs. If I set my stick down for a moment while I scratch my butt and you run up and take it, it is obvious that you have violated my ownership, for it is obvious that I have not abandoned the stick, but have merely set it aside for the moment. If I leave the stick for a time and do nothing to show that it is mine and that I wish it to remain mine then I am somewhat at fault if confusion regarding it's ownership might arise. Should you then come along and take it, thinking it unowned, it can be reasonably assumed that you did so without dishonorable intent. At that point, should I ask for it back and you disagree for some reason, we can, if we are reasonable and honorable people, discuss the situation and come to terms. Failing that we can agree to enter into mediation. Failing that one of us can resort to violence. This is no different than things stand currently. We can act charitably and honorably or we can be violent. There really are no other choices.No disarray. It really is very simple. One can act honorably or one can act without regard for others. - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 12, 2007 10:29:33 GMT -5
Tharrin,
Please note this, this discussion is actually a microcosm of the question at hand. You and I are in disagreement. At times both of us have acted dishonorably. At other times we've acted more honorably. The only resolution that can come from this is if we come to some form of understanding. If we don't then the issue remains unresolved. We can end up in a fist fight, if we choose to go that route. But that would not really resolve the issue, it would simply determine who is the better fighter.
In a way, we have a community participating in our own little disagreement here. some people agree with some of your ideas, some with some of mine. There has not yet been a true concensus on the issues, at least not that I've noted.
So note this: there is no one truth. There is your perspective and there is mine, and both of us, as evidenced by our continued participation here, are seeking to resolve these differences on a level we can be comfortable with. That is really all that matters, and that is really all that can be hoped for. Wouldn't you agree? I can't imagine that you think that there is some universal truth that will apply to all people in all situations for all times that you can deduce. You don't think this, do you?
That is why I keep coming back to the word "process." I'm sure that I have failed to clearly communicate what I mean by that word. The post above is another attempt to clarify what I mean by the word "process." There is no "truth," there is only a process of moving through this dynamic process of life. If life were static (a contradiction in terms, of course) then it could be said that there would be ascertainable "truth," but since life is dynamic, it will always be a moving target. So the best we can achieve, in my understanding currently, is to use a process that resolves conflict with the most effectiveness and the least rancor.
The intent to be honorable is probably the key issue. As I look at that word, I see "honor" and what that says to me is to grant respect. I view that as respect for the other person and also respect for the idea of respect. For even if the other person has, by word or deed, shown himself to be unworthy of respect, that does not absolve me from desiring to respect the idea that I wish to be an honorable person regardless of how another may be or act.
I guess that is what the metaphor of "meeting your maker" is all about. It will not matter one whit how much money or power one has accumulated when one finally "meets one's maker." At that point the only thing that is of import is how one had porported one's self.
Others may believe in "one's maker," I don't. But I do have to answer to myself.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 12, 2007 11:15:27 GMT -5
There is no "society," there are only individuals, so the question is unanswerable as asked. The only thing that makes any agreement "stick" is the honor of those making the agreement. Just a quick notation here in hopes of keeping the thinking as clear as possible... If (since) there are "individuals" interacting, then "yes" there is a society, no? Otherwise, if there is no society there is no "honor" or "respect" either, no? As any of these is simply an observation made by individuals (emphasis on the plural necessity) then given a "sound" (that exists, be it momentarily) called a "word" (which does not exist either other than in agreement)...? There is no Society (as There is no State) only in the sense that said Society can have no Representative(s) --relative to violence/enforcement, particularly, but as to a "voice" singular either. [that and it has very few specifics and is very general-- and often manipulated and/or abused in usage! butt then, so is "honorable", eh heir judge?!] apologies for the minor interruption of the major...  |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 12, 2007 11:33:47 GMT -5
There is no "society" in the ability to act. Only individuals have the ability to act, to choose, to decide. Society is an aggregate. A beach is made up of individual grains of sand. Wind is the cumulative action of air molecules. Society is the cumulative actions of individual people. "Society" cannot make a choice, or take an action. Only individuals can do that and the resultant aggregation may be called "society's choice," but that is an incorrect mental shorthand which leads to erroneous thinking... I think.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 12, 2007 11:36:20 GMT -5
Others may believe in "one's maker," I don't.What, are you a test tube baby?!?  (but wait, even then, there's your egg maker & the sperm donor-maker, even with a NonTube!)  Imagine that! (or have some faith to believe in "their" imagination!) [psssst: btw, who made The Maker? or is it: Who made The Maker! bow down and worship "Who"-- and ask Their if you need to hear What Who's saying here] |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 12, 2007 11:47:21 GMT -5
...but that is an incorrect mental shorthand which leads to erroneous thinking... I think.
what he said... (I think... therefore, I'm Non?!) ;D seriously, agreed. (but then there's the acts of Congress...) NonC? (no, more "mental shorthand"edness) |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 12, 2007 11:49:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 12, 2007 12:51:01 GMT -5
Before too much blood loss, at least grab hold of this? *[perhaps granting a bit of liberty-latitude in his using the term "educate"... (rather than, say, " educere"] |
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on Apr 12, 2007 13:35:23 GMT -5
If people aren't naturally decent towards each other, why the massive state infrastructure designed to alter and maintain certain illusions?
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 12, 2007 14:05:45 GMT -5
Sorry Mr. Lummox, I need more context or something in order to process your request. Please insert another statement at the sound of the tone... BEEP.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Apr 13, 2007 0:18:45 GMT -5
If people aren't naturally decent towards each other, why the massive state infrastructure designed to alter and maintain certain illusions? Sorry Mr. Lummox, I need more context or something in order to process your request. Please insert another statement at the sound of the tone... BEEP. - NonE Yes NonE, a little more context needed; however, here's how I see what Lummox Said. I think people are naturally decent to each other. That is the world I live in. I like to think and expect the best out of myself and my fellow beings. That is not to say that it is a universal truth, as you correctly observe life is a dynamic process ; therefore, not everyone is decent to everyone else in every interaction; not even me or you, but that is at least my personal objective. I expect no less from others and the funny thing is that most people rise to meet the expectation. I have been taken for a ride in some situations as many others have likely had a similar experience at one time or another. We learn and go on about our business. Keep in mind that some individuals maps of the world are different, and even opposite of mine, I will return to something I told Tharrin eons ago on the thread that spurred this one where we had the good/evil debate. I said people are good, tharrin tends to think people are bad. I base my map that people are generally decent to each other, because each day, there are literally billions of peaceful voluntary exchanges, and even if you add all the police brutality, folks at war killing other folks, the peaceful mutually beneficial exchanges statistically outweigh that "evil" (if you will) by an unbelievable number. If you consider that the fiat money system and taxation puts blood on everyones hands then you might reach the opposite conclusion. I can see both; however, I like to think that it is because most are unaware and if aware we (each of us) through individual choices would morph the system by default to something else, or go back to barter with easily transportable, exchangeable, measurable, items of intrinsic value. The coins are like .9167 or .9967 of an ounce not because of tax but because of a minting fee. If I take 1.0 oz of pure gold to you to mint you have a cost of doing business, you keep a fraction of an oz. as payment, over thousands of years this became standardized so coins became standardized and if you became a minter you were on a fixed income variable only by volume. For me, if I write a program, or hand bang some nails to fix a wall for someone and they pick up a rock and give it to me . . . If I can then take that rock and Give it to Marc and he will give me a book then the rock has value as a medium of exchange. That's all money is. Paper is given value by our acceptance and labor, but he who prints the money can steal it at will because it is easy to print on paper, much harder to make rock or gold. To answer the question Lummox posed though, I think people are generally decent to each other. If my map is correct then the "massive state infrastructure designed to alter and maintain certain illusions" must exist to keep people from trusting one another, so a select few who are not generally decent to their fellow beings, can hold on to their precarious positions of power. That is the only way one can control the behavior or actions of another. Through coercion and FEAR. If we are generally not naturally decent to each other but consistently violent toward each other on the other hand, then no amount of control, or threat, or violence, would be able to bring peace, and the system as exists today would not work to their advantage, for if we are so disrespectful and violent of even ourselves that even pain of death holds no sway, what power of coercion will work over such individuals on a mass scale? None. I used behavior/actions because as we have observed in another thread one cannot jump out of their own body and into another and control the thoughts of their fellow being. (Otherwise I would expect you and tharrin to be in agreement unless one of you can do such a thing and is therefore psychotic and like arguing with yourself). All one individual can really do to another regarding control is threaten the object to be controlled with violence in an effort to stimulate a desired behavior or action or outcome. Like my recent nasty gram or threat-o-gram from the city. I wanted to do something different than have acted like a submitizen especially after all that education I got from my recent court case, but the fact of the matter is in this instance I simply don't have the time to do so. It will be spent more productively elsewhere, although it is funny and I really mean humorous to think about the logic of the threat-o-gram. I am on good terms with the neighbors. I put the truck where it was on the neighbors request. The idiot that purports to represent them is implying by my violation of the ordinance I am in some way causing damage to his constituents, so to be in compliance he orders me to move the vehicle where the neighbors don't want me to put it. Do I piss off the neighbors, or chance the city to take a house over no more than a $100.00 fine in the form of a property lien? I don't care bout the cost in money, as much as time at the moment. Answer: Keep everyone happy . . . I moved it to the yard at my place. Technically I'm still violating the "city" ordinance by parking it in the grass yet again, but "I'm out of the range of their guns here" (to borrow a phrase from Marc). (I don't live in any city). That's why I resolved long ago to never live within an imaginary boundary called a city ever. Their stupid rules are more messed up than the State one's and they actually have people driving around just looking for people parking vehicles in their yards. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 13, 2007 9:17:27 GMT -5
'preciate the "personal" (and the more general) post, sagas4; very insightful and thoughtfully expressed~
Regarding the matter of some "inherent nature"/"Garden (of Eden) variety" of people ala good or evil/free or bound, it seems amazing to ponder the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?", when it comes to this dark side. I feel though as you do: most individual folks are inclined to play nice. Where I then wonder just how much influence this illusionary State of being & State of affairs is having on folks in general?! Boy, when you factor in the power of subconscious parental influence with State education-indoctriNation, what sort of darkness is perpetuated-- and then seems inherent? Again, it seems a bit of a catch 22/chicken versus the egg scenario, and big time. Did inherent evil nature create The State or did isolated cases first establish it, where it then inherently influences all of potential nature thereafter?! Yes, "we" all/each "know" the potential within us for the dark side option. But personal, individual interactions indicate when not influenced by group-think (or group fear) individuals will choose "good". No? [not to overlook the fantasy that when one is educated graduated (State education) means one is not ignorant (and or not unwise)!]
But to see the core thread inclination of most individuals-- "out in the open"*, so to speak, where personal interaction takes place, I can't help but feel the core problem is the subconscious awareness of what is "acceptable" (or made so) in the first-place accepting of fantasy/the image-inary, the non-empirical (not to be confused with The Non-E here, hear?) as being real-- aka "religions". *[State-think is dark, in the closet space, think]
Just how "good" (ie peace-keeping) folks would/could be apart from accepting and then encountering The State (ie anti-peace-keeping, starting with armed robbery called taxation) as the norm in day to day life presently, seems amazing to consider (not to mention, hope stirring!).
|
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on Apr 13, 2007 15:17:01 GMT -5
Well, let's have a look at the mother of all crimes - murder. In order to get your average man/woman to commit cold blooded murder you must - "Educate" them from a very early age. Remove economic alternatives to make a military career desirable. Cloak the murder itself with sick rhetoric around "honour", "sacrifice" and award medals. Acquire control over their lives using massive propaganda. Train them brutally, using forced marches, and a total control over their environment for a period of around 3 months until they stop using their own critical faculties. (Or what is left of them) This is after implanting such lunatic concepts as "nations", "states" to bed down the ideas. After all this effort is expended - only 15-20% will even FIRE at another human being. www.killology.com/print/print_weaponry.htmwww.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1210-08.htmAny argument that we are all depraved monsters who can't wait to eat each others children is useful for the state, but not reality. |
|
