NonE's call about self-ownership
Current time: 12-18-2017, 03:13 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Dionysus
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 254
Views: 168849

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NonE's call about self-ownership
08-15-2012, 11:46 AM
Post: #131
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Tharrin,

S...okay. Here we go.

First let me say I will get to your initial point (possession) later.

Second, I think you've missed my meaning. It appears that you are thinking in the "it's mine because I declare-it/made-it/bought-it/whatever" mindset. I see this as a fallacy, which I tried to explicate. It's MINE is a unilateral declaration. The point that I tried to convey is that ownership is not something one can claim. Rather it is a gift that is granted to you by others. You have no control over whether or not you own something, regardless of whether you made it, gave birth to it, were granted it in perpetuity by the Grand Poobah or whatever. Ownership is something that is a measure of respect, of you, of social norms, of the greater good of humanity... whatever... it is a gift of respect that others bestow upon you.

It is only through the respect that others bestow upon you, or upon social norms, or whatever it is, that people will leave "your" stuff alone. THEY grant the ownership of stuff to you.

As I ended the article, ownership is like love, it must be given, it cannot be claimed. (Paraphrasing whateverthehell it was that I actually sed.)

I also think that I see that you believe ownership is cut and dried, yes or no. I think that is an oversimplification of things. I don't think life can be so easily parsed. We are social animals. We, and all life, are hugely complex dances of stuff. It is now understood that human beings are made of of MANY more bacterial cells than actual "human" cells, so that thing that we call "me" is actually an extraordinarily complex society of various living beings working together, like a city, for instance, and NOT "ME."

I think ownership is similar. There are limits to it. And these limits may very well be, probably ARE, fluid, depending upon constantly changing circumstances. If you see a sniper entering your "property" with obvious ill intent it make sense for you to shoot him/her. Not so much with the little girl picking flowers or the kid fetching his errant baseball.

This is where the "libertarian" concept of property is so absolutely and stupidly wrong and destructive to voluntaryist thinking.

To refer casually to the hammer thing wherein I lost it and you found it and then moved to someplace far away and built a life upon it's functionality, well it is sorta mine, but sorta your's too, in that I lost it, you found it, you've invested much into ownership of it for so long that that must be given some consideration by any generous thinking person. It ain't black and white.

Now if I saw you with it a week after I'd lost it, and confronted you and showed evidence that it was mine and I'd just lost it, well then it would seem to me that the weight swings more in my favor, but it is still a dance, and the fact that we are social animals plays one instrument in the band, if not more. If you proclaim that you found it and that is all that matters, well then it might be more profitable for me to now know that you are a self centered scumbag and that I should never trust you with anything ever again than it is for me to actually have the hammer back. A hammer is probably a small price to pay for that knowledge. And sharing my experience with others will make the community as a whole richer, which also increases my own wealth along with it, so in the end I may be better off that you DIDN'T give back the hammer.

I'll stop now and get into the other issue later, as it deserves a lot of attention and I don't have it at the moment.

- the Very Good NonE (a declaration that Notavoter made by mistake and which I have TAKEN as if it were real, and wear in all silliness as a flag of righteous pomposity!) Angel

P.S. We like to think things are simple, that we can have rules that never deviate. But that is the sign of a small mind. A wise person understands that life is hugely complex and that rules are guidebooks only and that wisdom and charity are the best tools for living a good life, and that one can never be sure of anything... not REALLY sure.

Leastwise, that's how it seems to me at this moment. Big Grin


(08-14-2012 06:17 PM)tharrin Wrote:  Okay NonE

I read your piece. Well constructed.

The first line of the first paragraph states. "Obviously we possess our bodies." Really? Doesn't that depend on no force being applied to your alleged possession? If I sneak up on you and hit you in the head with you alleged hammer, then mummify you with duck tape and parade you around on a golf cart. Then roll you in the mud. Paint your eyelids purple. Get tire of you and give you to a friend to do with as she or he will. Do you still possess your body? Or does the person that controls your body possess it? Kind of goes back up to my earlier post about the doctor paralyzing you with a drug. After which he could tie your arms and legs with ropes and play marionette puppet master with your body totally against your will and despite your claims of ownership.

You may call him a thief or cry fowl but what does that change? I still struggle with the agreement part and here is why? Let's consider your hammer example. You and your hammer have a long illustrious relationship together. You've built your dream home and have played whack a mole for a quarter century. One day during an extreme game of whack a mole you swing and the hammer flies from your hand into the nearby jungle.

You search and search but never find it and you reluctantly go get another hammer. I happen to be wandering around the jungle and stub my toe on your alleged hammer. After a long interval of cursing and spitting I realize what I have found. I grab it up and take off to build my own dream house. A quarter century later you are walking along the beach admiring the home I built with your alleged hammer.

You marvel and say what a fine house I have and you ask who built it. I proclaim, my hammer and I did and I show it to you proudly. Where upon you recognize your old friend, call me a thief and punch me in the nose.

Do I realize at this point the hammer is yours? No it was a found item. You just might like it and want to possess it yourself. The whole thief thing may be a clever ruse on your part to get the hammer from me. There is no empirical evidence you ever possessed it.

Maybe you got mad and threw it away intentionally. The hammer has then become an abandoned item claimable by anyone.

Both of us understand the concept of possession and agree on that concept but that doesn't mean either of us want to give up the hammer and quite possibly both of us have a legitimate claim to it.

I THINK I own it and you THINK you own it. We both understand the concept of ownership but again it is only a mental construct and neither of us are granting the other the claim to ownership.

You said," If you simply take my hammer that I left laying on the ground, not knowing that it is "mine," you have not stolen it, you have simply acquired it. It is not theft until you know that it is mine."

Or is it more correct to say, it is not theft until you make a claim of ownership? At which point you make a decision to move against me to reclaim what you perceive as yours and I move to defend against believing the hammer is mine. It ultimately comes down to what amount of force are you willing to use to support your statement? Neither of us can factually prove ownership exists outside the bones of our skulls any more than we can factually prove a state exists.

What happens when I run off with your alleged hammer to the island called New Zealand? I live there several years quite happily hammering away. My neighbors marvel at my hammering abilities. They have seen me with the hammer for years and one day you show up and claim it is yours. My neighbors understand the concept of possession and ownership and believe the hammer to be mine. I, having found the hammer originally, grew tired of you pestering me with your claims about your alleged hammer and decide to move to New Zealand. In your lust for your hammer which aided you in the building of your beautiful home, which you have such wonderful memories of and believe that I wronged you terribly by leaving with it, you decide to hunt me down to retrieve it.

My neighbors see you confront me. They have only known me as the possessor of the hammer. I have never given them reason to doubt my honesty. You move against me to retrieve what you believe is your property and you think I just won't see reason. I defend, my neighbors come to my aid thinking you are some kind of maniac.

Everybody in this scenario understands possession and ownership but all the pieces are not in place for all involved. The people have no knowledge of your history with the hammer. I have no knowledge of your history with the hammer. I only know you claim it is yours (without factual proof) and are willing to move against me to retrieve what you believe is your property (possession).

So how could all of this been avoided? Scribble your initials on the hammer handle? Still that does not prove you own it only proves that at one point you had access to it to scribble your initials on it as a basis for your claim to ownership. Even if I see you scribble your initials on it does not prove anything. All the scribbled initials prove is you are making a claim of ownership and still there are no facts that you own it only a mental construct that you can either act on aggressively or not.

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 07:23 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 09:03 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 10:09 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 10:48 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-30-2011, 02:00 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 10-30-2011, 08:09 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - soveREIGN - 11-01-2011, 04:51 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 11-08-2011, 08:42 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 11-20-2011, 04:34 AM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 08-15-2012 11:46 AM
RE: Celebrate...celebrate... - eye2i2hear - 10-01-2012, 02:15 PM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)