Private Property

[NonEntity]

How nice to have you back, Tharrin.

A quick comment. I just looked up the Private Message to which (I think) you refer. I don't ever recall impling religious motivations in your thinking. My comment was about how we humans think in general, and was not at all intended to make any religious connection with you specifically. It is quoted here:

Maybe it comes down to the same reason people believe in god... the desire for certainty, in a world where nothing is certain. perhaps the idea of property might better be understood if we looked at it like a physics problem where there is a likelihood not a certainty: "this is probably your property, but there may be circumstances where the nature of it is not property..."

I personally do not believe in any gods, yet I do desire certainty. Intellectually I recognise this is a fruitless quest, but my gut still desires it. I believe that our ability to survive as humans, as animals who depend upon a certain level of reasoning as our tool of survival, depends upon being able to predict the future. So it is therefore natural to desire certainty. It eases our mental load.

I would also say that it tends to promote civilization as well, for to the extent that we can depend upon things being what we think they will be, then we can devote our energies to other, perhaps greater, tasks than mere survival. Symphonies are not written nor performed by people scrabbling for nuts and berries.

"Property rights" are quite beneficial when they are used as a form of agreement. When they are used as a tool of oppression and appropriation of course this benefit does not accrue. Perhaps if we were to rephrase the concept as "property agreements" it would work somewhat more harmoniously.

- NonE

P.S. Underlying all I've said above is the simple distinction between Voluntary and Coerced. Ah, yes, that is what it really comes down to, isn't it.

If one views a "right" as something that is arrived at by contract (ie, by voluntary agreement) rather than something handed down from some magical or mythical force of our imaginations, then we must also recognize the same inherent "rights" in others. One cannot come to a voluntary agreement unless one also recognizes that the other party to the agreement as deserving of respect.

But then, "respect" can also indicate a recognition based upon fear. I "respect" someone holding a gun pointed at me. But it is a different form of respect. Maybe we need a new word there as well!!! ;D

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

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

This indeed, was a good reflective example for pondering for me. eye found it encouraging, actually; thanks for linking it.
In my own experience with tailgaiting, it is interesting to reflect back on how "free" space was in the majority of my participation in the events. As to note for example, how "freely" I could walk among those "homesteading" as to find them jovial and receptive to my "intrusively" occupying space (ie just showing up)... notably as in "their" space (ie under their canopy/camp site). Of course, this was when among those rooting for the same team! Hence those seen not as "the enemy"!

I too, as did tharrin (and I'm sure we'd all spot something(s)...?) noted a couple of interesting tid-bits:

"There are enforcement mechanisms to keep people out. Interlopers are scolded, shunned, and sometimes blasted with exhaust fumes and horn blasts."

Voluntary-ism in action... at least initially; interesting how the non-violent seems to approvingly escalate (?) into violence (granted, by minor degree here)...
and:

"In the culture of tailgating, people have a surprisingly certain sense of ownership, and even others are willing to assist in the enforcement of order lest their own homesteading assumptions come to be challenged."

Ah, the ole "Golden Rule" principle~ Interesting too, perhaps, as to consider using "ownership" to this aspect of occupation, aye? Perhaps as to again, consider our defining of the word "rightly" (hehehe)... as "ownership" is nothing more or less than "possession", where possession can literally be no more than one's physical body's dimensions... apart from Golden Rule considered agreement?

What would perhaps really be revealing tho, would be to be from the "opposing team" (aka "non-Statist/non-en-titling/entitlement" camper) and come and "set up a party tent" on "their" property (State-sanctioned/titled property) and see how "natural" of a response one would get...? [fine lines twixt "natural" and "gene-rational" natures, aye?]

Then of course the "tell-tale" inclusion (that skews the whole premise, perhaps?):

"The private interests sell space to them for profit. The public authorities permit them to homestead the space because they are pressured to do so by public opinion."

Yee-gads~ If only said "public opinion" would spread to pressure said "public authorities" to disAssemble period! As after all, presently, there IS NO real "private interests", only some degree of decree... called "real estate".

The interesting consideration for me here, tho, is whether this really conveys people's "natural" tendencies, or rather whether it temporarily supresses their equally "natural" (aka animal nature) tendency regarding (selfish) exclusion? Otherwise, where does the present system come from? Why aren't property lines as easily "close" as to literal proximity in the game of life (the "real world")? [again, I don't know that I have a problem with one person's "property lines" (eg "my yard") being beyond their physical ability to "possess" ie "own"; only that in anything beyond (more than) that then to inherently, as equally, require "profit sharing"/"return on another's investment"/occupational right...?]

One thing that does seem certain, the work includes getting all on the same "team" (Team Liberty?), as to seeing every individual as rooting for the same goal (line)! It somehow always starts there as to win+win. Even with property "rights"?

While then in the mean time, all "one"* can do is individually seek to live by Liberty, as by equality (in authority/ownership/all "right" of ways).

As to the article, I hope the evidence witnessed in tailgating is indeed the truer nature, naturally exposing itself! I hope even more for the day all people seek to restore it as to all of nature!

eye2i2here

*ps: NonE, your inclusion of your present "state" is akin to my own mind-state, as to living "mobily" (rather than the present "mob-lie" of State-meant) and I find it encouraging in my similar state of affairs (literal direction); thanks for noting it again here~

[eye2i2hear]

Again, I wish to express my appreciation for thoughts shared in this post; very nicely expressed~

As to one specific point:

nonentity said:

Symphonies are not written nor performed by people scrabbling for nuts and berries.

Indeed, I've been tossing some aspects of this as to my referral to Thomas Paine (and other's) consideration as to "equal rights" or what I oft refer to as inherent "profit sharing"... as then perhaps, indeed, one aspect of other's "respecting" (recognizing, as to leave as claimed?) property ownership as beyond possession (as limited in this discussion's defining) is that owner's "selling" of the benefit gained (already?) as to improvement to society/"civilization"?

Thus one with say a shovel (or a piano?) factory, where the facility covers more than one's equitable possession (right), might be justified as (agreement) to it's "profits" shared, by said factories' improvement beyond mere "berries and nuts" (aka labor saving and/or enjoyment expansion) for other claimants/authorities?

sounds like at least the expansion of a PR team in the Voluntary State (of affairs/life)...

As to this aspect of equal ownership, equal access, per equal authority ("equal rights"), as then equating to "profit sharing", any one have any qualms, rebuttals, or insights regarding it as an agreement premise?

In other words, how does one logically and rationally justify land as property, ownable as beyond physical occupation ("possession") apart from profit sharing?

2i2

ps: as to "justify", I intend no more than what should (?) be agreeable as to contracturally "equitable"; hence, no appeal to anything ethereal (magical/mystical), but only as to empirical~

[sagas4]

nonentity said:

I would also say that it tends to promote civilization as well, for to the extent that we can depend upon things being what we think they will be, then we can devote our energies to other, perhaps greater, tasks than mere survival. Symphonies are not written nor performed by people scrabbling for nuts and berries.

. . . .

I "respect" someone holding a gun pointed at me. But it is a different form of respect. Maybe we need a new word there as well!!! ;D

Ahhh, Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. (search results here). I think several of us have mentioned things like this before. When your worried about where the next meal is coming from there is little time for your mind to think of anything else when one is in basic survival mode.


We do have words for what you mean. I have no respect for someone who will compel me you or anyone else; however, I may or may not choose to obey depending upon the level of force used and my will to resist.

From Wikitionary:
Respect
Noun
1. admiration for a person or entity because of perceived merit
2. regard for the rights of others; tolerance
3. (always plural): Polite greetings, often offered as condolences after a death.

Verb
1. to have respect for.
2. to have regard for the rights of others.
3. to consent to abide by an agreement.

Obey
1. To do as ordered.
(ie. a command - the compelling of a task; given to an inferior or a machine).

Compel
1. to force, constrain or coerce
2. to exact by force

[NonEntity]

Yeah, almost. But not fully. What about when you "show respect for a loaded gun?" Or when you respect the dangers inherent in rock climbing?

Both of those are legitimate uses of the word "respect," even though they do not corelate with any of your above quoted definitions.

- NonE (respectfully submitted by...)

[sagas4]

You are correct; however the reply was specific to the situation you described.

I still have no respect for someone who points that loaded gun at me, but I might obey if I still feel like remaining on this plane of existence. If I'm looking forward to the next one or more curious if there is a next one I might just tell the one holding the gun to stick it or I might just attempt to turn the table. That depends upon desire to live and fear of death. There are a great many factors that go into that immediate and instant decision in the blink of an eye, but I do not think respect for your captor is one. In all the times I have been taken captive for things that actually caused no harm or damage to anyone I never once felt any respect for my captors. Contempt and a great deal of pain in one instance but never admiration because of perceived merit.

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

But then, "respect" can also indicate a recognition based upon fear. I "respect" someone holding a gun pointed at me. But it is a different form of respect. Maybe we need a new word there as well!!! ;D

If I may "respectfully" offer... ;D
Rather than needing a new word (or even another word) mere shifting of sentence structure more accurately presents what I'd hear as to conveyence/intent, as:

"I respect the gun pointed at me by some thug I fear."

Respect of a gun is natural, as we respect the due power of many natural things as to their potential. Idiot thugs wielding said guns get and deserve no respect. (they're Rodney Danger-fields~ ;D )

btw, an antonym of respect is "consideration" in one reference source~

2i2

[sagas4]

2i2,

that is very true. Thanks for the clear and eloquent illustration.

[NonEntity]

"... never admiration because of perceived merit"

No, and I hope that is not what you think I was intending by my secondary version of the meaning of "respect."

I might phrase it thusly, "recognition of effectiveness or efficiency in accomplishing a given task," where the value judgement on said task is a completely different equation.

I respect that I am in great danger whenever there is a cop anywhere around me.

I also respect that the English language (like any other language) has seri0us limitations in it's ability to clearly communicate some ideas. (That's why we have music! :-) )

- NonE

[sagas4]

No, No, sir, I clearly understand what you are saying as to the multiple meanings; perhaps I have miscommunicated my objection.

You said ," I 'respect' someone holding a gun pointed at me".

It's not necessarily the different meanings (some unwritten but culturally known and accepted for the word) of respect, but the OBJECT it is referring to I seemingly have a difference with you.

I have absolutely no respect for someone pointing a gun at me. I do have respect for the loaded weapon at my head and the situation and may or may not act accordingly depending upon the situation; but is has nothing to do with respect for the individual with the gun.

If you can respect that.

[NonEntity]

Yeah, baby. I kin dig it!

- NonE

[NonEntity]

Recommended:

Butler Shaffer has written another excellent article. It discusses the nature of property rights as a means of peaceable interaction, as opposed to "state" action, which by definition is a violent trespass of property.

People who believe in the private ownership of property are, by definition, peaceful. The property principle confines my decision-making to what is mine. When I have reached the boundaries of what I own, my actions must cease. If I wish to enjoy the use of your property in some manner, I must obtain your agreement. Contract not conquest is the social principle in a society premised on privately owned property.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

Recommended:

Butler Shaffer has written another excellent article. It discusses the nature of property rights as a means of peaceable interaction, as opposed to "state" action, which by definition is a violent trespass of property.

It is indeed, quite a further eye opening article as to the State nature!

But looking back to the crux of this thread's issue:

If I wish to enjoy the use of your property in some manner, I must obtain your agreement. Contract not conquest is the social principle in a society premised on privately owned property.

There is in my mind, still, the internal question, as to see within this quote even, the crux of the matter.
I would agree that property centers in agreement, as then contract. I agree that equal need as to life's calls is central to establishing property. But there seems a presumption here (as to my "i"/eye)

The core problem still remains in: is land ownable? Or is land equally everyone's? When it comes to the land, does each person have equal need, thus equal access... to contract? (more as to the article's compromise/agreement importance as we go)

Where then, if by birth-equality ("birthright" = equal authority), land is everyone's, how does one (1 "owner") "obtain" all parties'- present and elsewhere, including future? - all parties' "agreement" as to said "contract"? For to my thinking, for two (or simply those asked via convenience or timing... or selfishness?) agreeing at some time specific to what I have equal contractural authority interest in, apart from "might makes right (conquest)/first come first serve" (linked presently with inheritance perpetuation/posterity/'eternity') is dishonorable as inconsiderate of equal authority. Are these (e.g.'s) natural 'laws' or principles of equal authority? Can 'first come, first serve', regarding the land, be a contractural premise- at core, beyond 'need' and 'necessity'? [ie does one person 'need' an acre? 10 acres by necessity? 100 acres? (are incorporations 'persons'? with contractural land 'needs'?) Who has the authority to say? Should voluntaryists seek first to find agreement as to 'basic' needs, where then beyond that, profit sharing becomes inherently, timelessly included in the terms of the contract? Again, if I understand him correctly, this is Thomas Paine's general position, tho said profit sharing was a pre-set lump-sum, one-time (arbitrary?) 'settlement' amount]

I might add, that I grasp the, perhaps equally inherent, complication of this matter and recognize it indeed appears to require compromise or acceptance of some degree of 'first come, first serve'. [where 'might makes right' may hinge in argument skills with all future claimants!]

But I still ponder, to quote again, if this doesn't capture a center focus: "If I wish to enjoy the use of your property in some manner, I must obtain your agreement."

Is there a nature of "profit sharing" inherent, where obtaining everyone's agreement is a perpetual obligation with no "statutes of limitation" (ie 'snooze you lose'... even if it's spacial/positional... including prenatal?)?
Is there a distinction worthy of (requiring) consideration in "I wish" and 'I need'?

Fine line it still seems to my "i" as to where said one's "conquest" begins in said (alledged..."Stated"?) 'your and my-my-my' "contract"...?

eye2i

[tharrin]

Do we differentiate between the legal definition of "Ownership" (A contractual agreement recognized by the state as valid and binding; and enforceable by the hired thugs there of) and between the common definition of "Ownership" (That mountain belongs to the Waltons, so be so kind as to ask before you hunt on it). Both imply the existence of a fiction but one is not a fiction backed necessarily by force.

[NonEntity]

My opinion, Tharrin, is that the idea of "property" (which preceeds the idea of "ownership" for one cannot own something unless it is "ownable", ie. property) is that it is separate from government. Government has tried to move into the regulation of ownership, just as it has tried to get into the relationship of marriage as well, but "property" and "ownership" are concepts that we humans have develped because they help us reduce conflict. Since we ARE social animals, this is a valuable addition to the culture of human society.

So... what I'm trying to point out is that when I discuss "property" and "ownership" issues, I am NOT talking about anything that the government has tried to define or regulate. I am talking about the evolved understanding that our cultures have developed over the years.

So. I think I'm agreeing with your last post, as I understand it.

- NonE