NonE's call about self-ownership
Current time: 11-22-2017, 03:10 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Dionysus
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 254
Views: 166146

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NonE's call about self-ownership
08-15-2012, 02:08 PM
Post: #135
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Oh Very Good NonE

I think my example also illustrates that the concept called “possession” has many a blurred line and it is no more black and white than the concept of “ownership”, also incredibly blurry. I don’t see the concepts of “ownership” or “possession” as anything more than statements or declarations one has to defend in order to validate them.

Yes, I get what you are going for in your strike the root piece. Yes, it does take agreement which in itself is a many mined field and my good friend, mankind is going to have to make such a departure from the way he operates now that I scarcely believe it possible.

As I examine what passes for laws, I see a common thread in them. The majority of what we call laws rest or are based on the concepts of ownership or possession.

Example: Traffic Ticket. We, the “authorities” own the roads and therefore you must pay homage to us. Regardless if they say it outright or obfuscate it in 2000 lines of legal gibberish it equates to the same thing. We control it you must pay for use and not following our rules.

Example 2: I own my house (at one time that was my belief). That belief in ownership virtually means nothing unless backed up by a group of people that believe in ownership and respect it. The downside is it is still a meaningless concept which remains harmlessly & ineffectual until it has to be defended. Then the teeth of animal are bared. Once a challenge has been issued (your F*@%4n fence is over my property line.) then the game is afoot.

It boils down to how much violence is one party willing to visit on another party in order to validate their belief in that imaginary boundary they call “property line”. Whether that violence is in the form of a crushing court room battle where each party places their fortunes on the line or they start shooting across that line like the Hatfield’s & McCoy’s. The belief is baseless. It is imaginary.

So ownership and possession each carry with it damage causing elements. On the other hand the alleged owner or possessor reaps the benefits (i.e. water, minerals, vegetation, location, etc.) above and beyond all of his supposed equals. So a concept based solely in the minds of men with no factual existence in reality is allowed to manifest itself to the benefit or denigration of one person over another or one group over another and can only be preserved through violence in one form or another.

I agree with your strike the root piece. Possession should be through mutual agreement and respect but you and I do not live in the world your piece portrays. We live in a world of finite resources, of varying class levels from poverty to mega-billionaires. The haves and have not’s.

In this world possession is 9 tenths of the law and ownership can be claimed only so long as you can control it or get a group of people to back you.
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 - tharrin - 08-15-2012 02:08 PM
RE: Celebrate...celebrate... - eye2i2hear - 10-01-2012, 02:15 PM

Forum Jump:


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