Private Property

[NonEntity]

"I suppose my primary reason for holding on to it is simply it's potential benefit as to contrast with "wrong"; "agreements" just doesn't draw that for me..."

Yes, I can see where that has appeal. Perhaps that is the most important reason to abandon the word, the thought. I've come to understand, for myself, that there is no one truth. There are lots of ways for things to happen, and although they are all different, there is not often a clear winner. Each choice leads on a different path, and each path has different flowers and pitfalls, rocks and grottos, maidens and witches.

Sometimes we gain more when another wins than when we do, if you catch my drift. So then who is the winner, and what is "right?"

The idea of "right" may be likened to a destination, when in reality, life is the journey, not the destination. Right is static, agreement is dynamic (to borrow from Virginia Postrel.)

- NonE

[NonEntity]

tharrin said:

"Superior Right" One human having a superior position over another human just because he/she, some group of humans or some document says so.

This is factually unprovable to be valid. The only recourse is to enforce the belief system through use of violence, coercion, theft or murder.

Why do you say "the only course," as opposed to saying "a course?" I frequently admit or acknowledge the superiority of others over me. When I take my car to a mechanic that I trust because it's ailment is something I cannot figure out it is because I am aware of his or her superiority in that particular field. A visit to a doctor, a massage therapist, a garden center for recommendations on my planting schedule. These are all matters where the superiority of others is quite beneficial to my life.

NonE, you think I am a religious person. Please don't insult me. I am not an atheist either, which to my understand rejects anything non-tangible as tangibly impossible.

I don't know where you got that. I don't consider you one way or the other, that I'm aware of.

I am however, spiritual. That does not mean I'm a bible thumping zealot, I most definitely am not.

How funny. I also consider myself to be spiritual but not religious. Spirit is that intangible stuff that causes us to dance, to smile, to get out of bed in the morning. I certainly don't know what it is. At the same time I recognise that it exists.

Speed limit is 55, you the sinner drive 95, those honorable men entrusted with the sacred writings, consult those sacred writing and pronounce judgment on you. You are punished for your infraction.

The problem here, it seems to me, is fear and the desire to control life. Understanding that under some conditions 10 mph is too fast and at other times 95 is perhaps perfectly safe, and that there is no way of stating one given speed which is THE correct one. Individual judgement is ALWAYS required, and THAT is what the lawmaker seeks to sidestep.

The problem with it all is those that enforce and pen the sacred writings are just as flawed as the sinner.

Flawed is a pejorative way of stating that we are all human and all living in a constantly changing world and that we must attempt to understand it and to successfully negotiate it day by day, step by step.

Spiritually, (if you can get past the whole religious aspect of the word spiritual) allows me to transcend religious, political, racist, social, and a never ending line of isms and ists, to see the world as it is. I do not discount the good in the world as you tend to point at me as a negativist (if there is such a thing or word) but I am a true realist. What is...is.

To say the world is 50/50 good vs evil is naive. Yes the good is great and the least of my problems, the evil part of it is what we are dealing with.

I perceive a contradiction here. You say, "what is...is," and then immediately say the world is good and evil. If the world IS what it is, then good and evil do not apply.

MY PROPERTY...bang...your dead, caged, poorer, injured or a combination of or all of the above, is where I have to concentrate my efforts.

This reminds me of the saying that, "where you focus your attention is what you become."

Will it ever be a utopia? I won't live long enough to find out on this plane of existence. Is there a life after this. I don't know but neither do I know there isn't. Can't prove it either way.

I will suggest that it is what it is. It is utopia. It is also hell. If you won't live long enough to find out then there is no point in living, in my view. You've only got now. You can reject the life that you have before you and project evil on the future, missing the wonders that surround you. I don't understand why you would actively choose this course, but that is up to you. The living joyful creatures that you can appreciate today will tomorrow be rotting corpses. If you focus on the image of the stench of their discorporation you will miss the boundless energy and joy of their current spirit of life.

Your choice.

So I, as a spiritual person, can only hope mankind will get his head out of his ars and plod on to a better existence. The only hope I have seen of that are the people on this forum and forums like it who sit down and air their various beliefs and work it out peacefully.

Although, our little palavers do little to change the way things are really. You dance in the sunshine NonE, I'll work on changing the stormy weather into sunshine because I know storms come and go, as people have the entire spectrum within them to do either good or evil too each other and that is only a matter of choice.

I think that focusing on the stormy weather will bring you great knowledge of storms.

"When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail." :-)

One of the wonderful things that I am learning here from Marc is the ability to see through some of the pictures that I have created in my mind and see that they are just that. The state is just a picture. I can believe it, if I choose, but that does not make it real. The man with a badge and a gun IS real and he may believe that he represents "the state," but I KNOW that he does not, and I can see him for what he is, a fearful man lacking in trust. Like a cornered animal, he is dangerous and I must respect that danger. But I also can see that he has cornered HIMSELF, created his own prison of fear. And knowing this I can understand better how to avoid triggering his self defense mechanisms, just as I understand how to avoid triggering the protective instincts in a rattlesnake. I don't hate the snake. I just recognise it is what it is. If I try to "correct" the snake and make it not dangerous I will likely get bitten. If I recognise it's nature, it's hardwired response to what it perceives as a threat, then I can avoid having any conflict with it. Both it and I can bask joyfully in the sun. I can appreciate it's spirit.

Marc has found a way to help those who believe in "the state" see for themselves the fiction that they labor under. And he does this only by asking questions! THEY find their own answers. He just asks questions. Mind boggling stuff! What a gift he has given to you and me. I am grateful to you, Marc.

Yes, Tharrin, spirit is a wonderful thing. It is perhaps THE wonder of it all, the only thing that makes life worth living. I do believe that I have the power to nurture it.

The sun is about to arise. I wish you a glorious day, my friend!

- NonE

[NonEntity]

And here is something that was posted to the Volitional Science (Andrew j. Galambos' ideas) board on Yahoo by Alvin Lowi. It refers to a recent article by Hans Herman Hoppe, which I may have pointed to somewhere above, if my flakey memory serves me.

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:09:00 -0000
From: "alowi2" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Property

Bob Klassen suggested to me that Hans-Herman Hoppe's Mises Daily
Article of 3/17/06 was an interesting take on property. But he found
it begging the question of what is property. He asked me for an
opinion on the matter. I thought the VS list might be interested in
my answer to Bob if not also in Hoppe's article, which BTW I
recommend reading.

I like most of Hoppe's treatment of property from a social
standpoint. Hoppe refers to property as an "institution," not
a "declaration." That is good, too, because it considers property as
an "observable," not merely an abstract concept. I always thought
Galambos should have taught more specifically from the standpoint of
the observable aspect of property.

Hoppe points out that property is a product of individual human
action and it is up to the individual who "owns/creates" it to stake
out/post his province over it so that other "owners" can recognize
his authority/responsibility, avoid encroachment/trespass. Since only
individuals create property, "collective ownership" is possible only
as a pooling of interests with unanimity of consent. Thus arises the
fundamental issue "politics vs. proprietorship" as put forth by
Galambos but expounded earlier in writing by Spencer Heath.

I like Heath's notion of property as set forth in "Citadel, Market
and Altar" as "the subject-matter of contract" because it emphasizes
the dynamic exchangeability/transferability aspect of property which
can be defined operationally. Property must be defined operationally,
not only to qualify for scientific treatment but also for others to
be able to recognize its boundaries as you do. That is how the
institution of property prevents conflict, the subject of Hoppe's
article. This doesn't happen by accident. Thus, conflict avoidance is
a matter of competence. Competent proprietorship is peace. Competent
proprietors "don't need no filthy badges" (as the gold hat bandito
told the greedy prospector Fred C. Dobbs in "The Treasure of Sierra
Madre"). Competent proprietorship is self-governing and leads to
autonomous social governance. Presumably, thai is what Galambos meant
by "Natural Republic."

Another interesting philosophical observation of Hoppe's
is "injustice is whatever is inconsistent with the nature of
things."

Alvin

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

"I suppose my primary reason for holding on to it is simply it's potential benefit as to contrast with "wrong"; "agreements" just doesn't draw that for me..."

Yes, I can see where that has appeal. Perhaps that is the most important reason to abandon the word, the thought. I've come to understand, for myself, that there is no one truth. There are lots of ways for things to happen, and although they are all different, there is not often a clear winner. Each choice leads on a different path, and each path has different flowers and pitfalls, rocks and grottos, maidens and witches.

Sometimes we gain more when another wins than when we do, if you catch my drift. So then who is the winner, and what is "right?"

The idea of "right" may be likened to a destination, when in reality, life is the journey, not the destination. Right is static, agreement is dynamic (to borrow from Virginia Postrel.)

- NonE

NonE, first let me say, you have my attention. I hope you find encouragement in that as to continuing to reason with me/us here. What I'm trying to say is that I feel I grasp some aspect of what you'r saying as to the 'con'cept of right being (inherently) static... 'rigid'/'frigid' (perhaps I would say by extention, the concept welcomes 'too static' of a mind'set', as then expectation leading to empass, perhaps akin to some sort of 'debt' liability due?).

I suppose one aspect of where I'm struggling with this is, that it somehow seems to be saying there is no "static" as to equality (more on this in a moment). That there is no appeal, as to something discoverable within that over-rides selfishness (anti-social). Perhaps 'mere' reasoning potential holds all that's enabling (or seems so) about the concept of right(s)? Where reasoning then is the attempts to draw another into our perspective, holding (hoping) that in doing so, therein lies 'the recognizable(s)' that is available- as inherent -via our birth equalities/equal state. Equal then being as to 'a voice' worthy of being heard if (since) any other is. 'Worthy' as to having place in agreement option/consideration. Where then rather than a preconceived utopic-potential (ie unrealistic/impractable/biased/etc) concept of right there is the moments interpretables, the moments 'personals', that two or more parties find themselves seeking agreement as regards.

I frequently admit or acknowledge the superiority of others over me. When I take my car to a mechanic that I trust because it's ailment is something I cannot figure out it is because I am aware of his or her superiority in that particular field. A visit to a doctor, a massage therapist, a garden center for recommendations on my planting schedule. These are all matters where the superiority of others is quite beneficial to my life.

I struggle to see these comparisons as relevant to 'equal' as regarding agreement (contract negotiation). [perhaps the phrase choice of "over me" comes regrettably with prejudice to me, as I tend to here 'lord it' with "over me"? obviously my bringing that potential in]. While I agree there is talent superiority in these examples, I see those as irrelevant to birth equality, as equality regarding 'authority'. Again, where authority (as distinguished from "Author-i-tie") is simply the recognition of inherent 'mental/spiritual' value as to countering any sneaky ideas as to control=governorship.

Perhaps it can be grasped as to considering the aspect that 'superiorities' mentioned here are of bio-physiological states, where the equality issue is more towards the mental (contract 'eligibility'... a 'voice' equal to be 'heard') firsts. Where the mere recognition of the said superiorities critically hints at where the authority is equally granted (where that recognition then allows freely, either agreement/contract or disassociation choice).

I've come to understand, for myself, that there is no one truth.

Gosh, here it seems much care has to be taken (or at least considered if seeking agreement); as some dictionaries equate "truth" with 'facts'!?! By contrast, I could almost hear what you'r expressing as more intending: "There is no one religion"... or "There is no one rigid belief applicable to every situation of facts/truth"... rather than "there is no one truth" (ie there are no facts)? Granting of course, the word 'truth' itself is allowed broad daffynitioning~
I suppose its always left to the parties seeking agreement to first define the terms~

Or perhaps you agree with Freddie Nietche (sp?) in the mix here, where he's quoted: "There are no facts, only interpretations." [where does that line of reasoning leave us in LegalLand... as it sounds like facts too are then "opinions", legal or otherwise?]

me\thinks I need a Voltaire tattoo ("If you wish to discourse, first define your terms.") Terms then being essential to a true meeting of the minds... [where the best intercourse generally follows intimate discourse; aka as where there is the ultimate meeting of the minds and bodies! otherwise, somebody just got 'screwed']

Is there a forum Wiki...?!?

[NonEntity]

I am reminded of the story of the farmer:

Everything in life holds both a blessing and a curse. We deny this when we label the events of our lives as either good or bad. The following old Zen story illustrates this lesson most effectively.

A farmer had a horse but one day, the horse ran away and so the farmer and his son had to plow their fields themselves. Their neighbors said, “Oh, what bad luck that your horse ran away!” But the farmer replied, “Bad luck, good luck, who knows?”

The next week, the horse returned to the farm, bringing a herd of wild horses with him. “What wonderful luck!” cried the neighbors, but the farmer responded, “Good luck, bad luck, who knows?”

Then, the farmer’s son was thrown as he tried to ride one of the wild horses, and he broke his leg. “Ah, such bad luck,” sympathized the neighbors. Once again, the farmer responded, “Bad luck, good luck, who knows?”

A short time later, the ruler of the country recruited all young men to join his army for battle. The son, with his broken leg, was left at home. “What good luck that your son was not forced into battle!” celebrated the neighbors. And the farmer remarked, “Good luck, bad luck, who knows?”

- NonE

[NonEntity]

2i2,

You said, "I suppose its always left to the parties seeking agreement to first define the terms~"

Yes. I think that perhaps goes a long way toward the crux of the matter. If we recognize that "the map is not the territory," then we can also recognize that there is no one truth because truth is something that is conceptual by nature, and the concept is not the reality. Each person's world is a different one from everyone else's as each person's language forms differing interpretations of reality in his mind. So what you perceive as the truth is possibly true for you at that moment with your current interpretations, but who can say what it will be for me, or for you at a different point in your life when the world no longer looks the same to you.

As to "equal," I hardly know where to begin on that one. I guess that the best that I can say about it is that we all probably wish to be treated with respect. We most likely have that much in common. Beyond that ... I just don't see any means of equating the infinite variabilities of existence.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

And here is something that was posted to the Volitional Science (Andrew j. Galambos' ideas) board on Yahoo by Alvin Lowi. It refers to a recent article by Hans Herman Hoppe, which I may have pointed to somewhere above, if my flakey memory serves me.

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:09:00 -0000
From: "alowi2" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Property

Bob Klassen suggested to me that Hans-Herman Hoppe's Mises Daily
Article of 3/17/06 was an interesting take on property. But he found
it begging the question of what is property.

- NonE

eye found this exact same "begging" when I read that article (and yupp, NonE, it was your post that got me there~) [and that is not the only "begging" i found with his presentment; his use of "natural" as to being 'right' or inherently logical, as to saying land ownership is a natural desire, thus 'right', for one; as one could just as easily argue many animal (selfish/anti-social/ie non-reasoned) aspects of man then as 'right', that logicaly as socially seem not]

for me (and my house...) the issue of can/is "land" property, is still up for grabs (can I post my king flag and claim it "so"?!? sure i 'can', but ya know what I'm askin' is... should it be honored?!)

For me, this part is interesting to ponder:

Hoppe points out that property is a product of individual human
action and it is up to the individual who "owns/creates" it to stake
out/post his province over it so that other "owners" can recognize
his authority/responsibility, avoid encroachment/trespass.

I don't know if I'm grasping correctly his intent with his words, but the use of "creates it" would exclude land as property...

[where by example, giving that the 'soil' ie concrete, masonary, cement, could indeed be 'property', as well as the tree fashioned to lumber and tool handles, and steel to hammers & saws, etc; but the issue remains as to whether the bedrock, ie the land, can be "claimed"? If one concedes the house's foundation land as property, how far can the yard extend as still property (ie exclusive/personally owned)? As land certainly can not be created... only some degree of it's surface can be modified (made profitable)? see Thomas Paine's position below as to "its equivilent" and my other post's 'consideration' as akin to 'profit sharing']

Perhaps I should ask here: can anyone recommend any articles that settle, preferably by debate, for you that land is property? [even if its not established as 'a fact', ie perfect, but more 'a best' ] As by contrast, I offer Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice" and P. J. Proudhon's "What Is Property??

Tho I realize it doesn't include proof/the logic behind the position per se, I offer the following quote excerpt by Paine simply as acknowledging his credibility via other aspects of Liberty, as a logical reasoner/influencer:

The plan contained in this work is not adapted for any particular country alone: the principle on which it is based is general. But as the rights of man are a new study in this world, and one needing protection from priestly imposture, and the insolence of oppressions too long established, I have thought it right to place this little work under your safeguard.

When we reflect on the long and dense night in which France and all Europe have remained plunged by their governments and their priests, we must feel less surprise than grief at the bewilderment caused by the first burst of light that dispels the darkness. The eye accustomed to darkness can hardly bear at first the broad daylight. It is by usage the eye learns to see, and it is the same inpassing from any situation to its opposite.

As we have not at one instant renounced all our errors, we cannot at one stroke acquire knowledge of all our rights. France has had the honor of adding to the word Liberty that of Equality; and this word signifies essentially a principle that admits of no gradation in the things to which it applies. But equality is often misunderstood, often misapplied, and often violated.

Liberty and Property are words expressing all those of our possessions which are not of an intellectual nature. There are two kinds of property. Firstly, natural property, or that which comes to us from the Creator of the universe--such as the earth, air, water. Secondly, artificial or acquired property--the invention of men.

In the latter, equality is impossible; for to distribute it equally it would be necessary that all should have contributed in the same proportion, which can never be the case; and this being the case, every individual would hold on to his own property, as his right share. Equality of natural property is the subject of this little essay. Every individual in the world is born therein with legitimate claims on a certain kind of property, or its equivalent.

[underscore, mine -2i2]

[NonEntity]

2i2,

You said, "I don't know if I'm grasping correctly his intent with his words, but the use of "creates it" would exclude land as property..."

Perhaps this may shed a different light on it. Consider my yard. Let us accept for the moment that I have a 200 acre farm. In one part of the farm I have a house, in another a barn, and yet elsewhere is the woodlot, and so on.

Okay?

So in the area that is near the house, and perhaps behind it, there is probably a place that I call the yard. The kids can go and play in the yard. They could also go and play in the woodlot, but when they say they are going out into the yard to play, we all have a generally similar idea of where they are intending to be.

The yard is simply a concept. We all understand roughly what it is. My yard. I didn't make it. And if I'm a renter, I don't even own it. Yet it is My Yard. If I go to town and speak with the grocer and tell him that later in the day he can deliver my groceries and that he'll be able to find me in My Yard, he'll know where to find me.

It is an agreement. The squirrels think that it is their yard. We don't have an agreement with them. Or at least not one that they will honor. But neighbors who wish to get along with us will not ride their horses through our yard, they'll stick to The Road.

The Sheriff may very well treat Our Yard as though it is his. This depends upon whether or not he is party to the idea of respect for other people or not. Many sheriffs, Joe Arpaio in particular, will not be so civilized as to respect that My Yard is subject to my rule. They don't believe they have to be respectful of others.

It is likely that if they come into My Yard I should be careful about what I smoke in My Yard while they are there since they see it as THEIR WORLD and don't recognize it as My Yard.

It's all about agreement. My RIGHT to My Yard stops at the end of Joe Arpaio's gun. Property is a function of agreement, as is a "right."

This is probaby one of the reasons (I just came to realize) why native Americans and Europeons ended up in such conflict. They had different ways of seeing the world and so what one saw as His Yard, the other saw as something completely different. Just as the father and the boyfriend each have differing views regarding the girl and their relation to The Girl. Negotiation and agreement on the parts of ALL parties are what really define the limits of relationships. And sometimes force may be employed. It is not so simple that it can be defined and put in a book and then assumed to be The Rules.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

It seems essential in this position then, to back up to the agreeing parties; where first it seems we must establish just'ly' how far to back up; therein to assess whether they/"we" indeed, have the author-i-tie to make such agreement to start with... to ask if it's based upon 'clear title'/'clean hands'? --again, apart from act-know-ledgering/accepting inherently in the agreement, 'profit sharing' debt/obligation (for lack of better terms presently) to other 'equals' aka humans *. ["author-i-tie" as: author=writers of the agreement that makes 'us'- plural -voluntarialy now an 'i'- singular -as 'tied'=bound in agreement]

In other words, just who is the "all" as to "all parties to an agreement"?

Otherwise, I 'agree' with what you've placed here in example with 'your' ("my") yard, as to 'an agreement'~
To my mind, we've still not dealt with "the right of king(s)" as to agreement innocence of agreeing parties (as exlusionary) per their 'first come, first own/exclusive own/exclusive "my"... (as per Paine's "equivalent") ?

Why do I feel like... a squirrel??

as to reask it: for me (and my house...) the issue of can/is "land" property, is still up for grabs- as can I post my king flag and claim it "so"?!? sure i 'can', but ya know what I'm askin' is... should it be agreed to?

"my" eye2i~

*note, again, I admit up front that I don't see (yet?) how the said 'profit sharing' would be practically done; I only acknowledge the logic underlying as to property not equaling land/"yards" (thus land not being anybody's "my")~

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

2i2,
As to "equal," I hardly know where to begin on that one. I guess that the best that I can say about it is that we all probably wish to be treated with respect.
- NonE

me\with tongue-in-cheek thinks: "respect"... what if I plug that into yon earlier farmer tale... as what is "good/bad", what is "respect/disrespect"...

oh, 'dis agony of our infernal "probablies"~

2i2

[eye2i2hear]

If I may play some kind of 'advocate' here...

"One of the wonderful things that I am learning here from Marc is the ability to see through some of the pictures that I have created in my mind and see that they are just that. The state is just a picture. I can believe it, if I choose, but that does not make it real."

then...

"The yard is simply a concept. We all understand roughly what it is. My yard. I didn't make it. And if I'm a renter, I don't even own it. Yet it is My Yard. "

why is one "right" (legit/permissible to agree to) and the other isn't, please?

2i2

ps: as to this term "real" ie "believing... does not make it real"... might I offer reconsideration as to this term's defining? again, there are many things, in my reasoning, that are "real" that are mere mental concepts; 'love' for example, your example-- "respect", and even 'mental'; these are not physical or literal as to existence, but neither are they fictious or 'imaginary'; thus to limit 'real' to 'physical' or 'literal' in usage seems an undue limitation (with the vocabulary available to us). i've often pondered this term as to see it as metaphysical. thus it seems there are other terms that will better 'fit' where perhaps using them is merely to break an ole habit~ can we reach agreement?

[NonEntity]

Well, 2i2, it appears that you are asking me for the magic "answer." And of course I keep skillfully dodging your every request. When I say "all" parties to an agreement, what I am alluding to (let's see, does he mean an "aludial title" here?) is that there is no magic phrase you can invoke when the basic beliefs of the current culture are counter to your own. The nature of "property rights" in our current culture is a quagmire. From what I've read (especially in "The Law of the Elephant" as recommended by Butler Shaffer) is that in times past in this country there was a much more uniform and strict understanding, even among unlearned "citizens," as to what property rights entailed. Personally I have come to the conclusion that as regards land and buildings and much else (like businesses and so on) there is no clear cut understanding of property rights and so I have chosen to live a mobile life as it gives me more control over that which I consider mine than I had in the past when I "owned" my own castle.

In the Soviet Union, of course, NOTHING was owned by anyone. It was all up for grabs by whoever had the most clout. We've been moving in that direction for many years and who knows what direction things will take from here. It now appears that a perfectly good title is worthless if someone with a higher paid lobbyist or lawyer wants your land, so that is just the way it is and no amount of screaming and pitching a fit will magically make it different as far as I can see.

Of course over time people may come to view the current situation as untennable and gradually it will change, but that really puts the "all" to my description of agreement, doesn't it.

The economic incentives of zero control over property are hideous and hence the collapse of the Soviet Union. We are heading in a similar direciton in the US. Humanity does not seem to operate upon reasoned reflection, but rather on envy and greed, so lessons are hard learned and probably take the passing of generations to affect serious change.

As was said somewhere, what is, is.

As to kings, it seems to me from my mostly ignorant understanding of history, that they mostly had a relationship with the serfs wherein the kings provided an actual service of protection in exchange for a small percentage of the serfs' output (small in comparison with today's tax load at least.) So in that respect the monarchical view of things was probably a lot fairer than democratic thuggery as we have devolved into. Hans Herman-Hoppe's book "Democracy: the God that Failed" is really good on explaining this and I highly recommend it. Hoppe thinks that monarchy is a vastly superior form of social relationship than democracy although he prefers anarchy.

So the bottom line is that it is a combination of force and agreement that defines property rights, I guess. The more that agreement holds sway then the closer to civilized behavior you get, but sometimes force may be required for balance to be maintained, and then that balance is not anything ordained, but rather just something arrived at by concensus of opinion and force and the whims of reality it would appear.

To the extent that we can use reason and agreement we are better off, but there are no guarantees.

- NonE

Have I equivocated enough on the matter for you ;D ?

Yes, I too feel very much like a squirrel. Or maybe a mole.

[NonEntity]

Here's a quite interesting little essay on humans and homesteading. It lends credence to the idea that there is an evolutionary component, a genetic imprint if you will, to how we divvy up space.

- NonE

[lazerwood]

The article is very interesting Non. It does display "voluntaryst" principles working, and pretty well I might add.

I had to "grin" a bit with this one sentence from the article:

"Today, we rarely see real homesteading in action because much of the land we see already has a legitimate owner."

Yellow highlighting the appropriate words, of course.

[tharrin]

NonE, NonE, NonE...

Hello again my friend. I have been away for awhile handling life. It has unfortunately taken me away from the forum and much has been said during my absence.

First let me say, "You understand me...you really, really understand me." Please hand me an oscar.

Secondly,

I never said the world is good and evil. I said to believe the world is 50/50 good or evil is naive. I restate that the world is what it is.

Knowledge of storms is not necessarily a bad thing. If you study them long enough you begin to see patterns in them just as you do if you study people.

I cannot say enough about how much you are beginning to understand what I have been trying to say over these long months of debate. I wish we could all meet face to face and discuss our ideas where my loquaciousness fails me but we have made much progress in that time.

As to your reference to my being religious in your opinion, that came from a private message you sent me that mentioned my (and people like me) needing god because I could not otherwise make sense of the world. It kind of slipped into this thread indirectly. My apologies.

Again, my problem with stream of conscious typing is I don't necessarily fill in all the detail I should. In the reference I made to..."the only recourse is to reinforce the belief system through use of violence, coercion, theft or murder.", was meant to illustrate what is now in place. The system and its acolytes condone force as a measure useful in keeping illusionary boundaries a violent reality.

I have read through your discussions with eye2eye and see us several months ago in debate. Eye2eye presents you with many of the same arguments you and I have shredded in the past, but it was a good shredding. We have clarified the muddy waters.

As to my use of Palaver. It is an archaic word but it was use when describing meetings between the native americans and the government. The word definitions presented in this post go a long way toward understanding my reason for using it.

To say the native americans were flattered into submission would be outright ridiculous but to say the discussion and agreements between the two parties had an substance is just as ridiculous.

So concepts not in action are just that.