Private Property (Cont..?)
Current time: 04-29-2017, 06:25 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Lummox3
Last Post: Freerangecanuck
Replies: 242
Views: 86387

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Private Property (Cont..?)
08-05-2007, 03:07 AM
Post: #1
Private Property (Cont..?)
Heyo!

I thought I would perform some thread necromancy and bring the private property discussion to life again. (I hear groaning....)

Not just on a whim but I have something that vaguely looks like a solution to one of the key aspects of private property as regards land ownership.

At it's heart, land ownership is myth. We know this. If it's nonsense for the state to annex parts of the world and want dominion over them, then it's nonsense for you or I to do it to. "But how do we live?" goes the prefectly sensible cry.

Basically the position is two fold.

1) Drawing imaginary lines around a field (or something else that occurs naturally) breaks the non aggression principle. It's a threat. That means that capitalism is based upon coercion in the first instance, and only afterwards becomes about mutual benefit. Arguments about minimising coercion are at a loss if the average bloke can't acquire the basics of life such as food without becoming a serf or a thief (or a slavemaster).

2) We have to do this, or all the good stuff that follows from doing it - agriculture, economies of scale, the ability to plan ahead are impossible.

So what's this magical solution to making the drawing of imaginary lines non agressive?

Easy, and very free market.

Pay for it.

Theres a really weird place this line of inquiry takes us to, but for now I am going to see if anyone chimes in.
Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2007, 05:51 AM
Post: #2
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
To whom do we make this payment, the owner of the land???????  ;D

- NonE

- 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
08-05-2007, 07:22 AM
Post: #3
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
NonEntity Wrote:To whom do we make this payment, the owner of the land???????  ;D

- NonE
And how do we define the amount we payed for?
Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2007, 12:09 PM
Post: #4
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
hey Lummox[n] , didn't you see the article I found a few weeks ago, showing that agriculture is actually evil? Wink
Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2007, 02:27 PM
Post: #5
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
Darren Dirt Wrote:hey Lummox[n] , didn't you see the article I found a few weeks ago, showing that agriculture is actually evil? Wink
Would that make vegins(radical vegetarians) the most evil users of natural resources?
Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2007, 04:14 PM
Post: #6
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
So land owners are turned into tenants with society as their landlord?
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2007, 06:50 AM
Post: #7
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
NonEntity Wrote:To whom do we make this payment, the owner of the land???????  ;D

- NonE

Nope, the person who wants to be "owner" of the land has to pay everyone else to NOT be owners. That's cos ownership is inherent in everyone else. I "own" everything. So do you. It's a mistake to think of ownership as active, a positive. It isn't, it's a negative.
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2007, 06:51 AM
Post: #8
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
learnin2 Wrote:
NonEntity Wrote:To whom do we make this payment, the owner of the land???????  ;D

- NonE
And how do we define the amount we payed for?

How does anything get a price?
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2007, 06:55 AM
Post: #9
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
Free Radical Wrote:So land owners are turned into tenants with society as their landlord?

They are already, At the moment, people who CAN use resources/raw materials are prevented from doing so by threats. Also known as "property rights" to some and "theft" to others.

Not to sure what you mean by society tho.
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2007, 08:30 AM (This post was last modified: 10-19-2011 09:13 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #10
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
Free Radical Wrote:So land owners are turned into tenants with society as their landlord?

Land owners = individuals with a claim

Society = individuals with a claim

Authority settles all claims (as "authority" then is equally a claim/concept).  Validate one's claim; validate one's authority over any other's.  How did you get here; how did I get here?  What settles or validates authority/claim from there?  The emperor has no clothes and stark nudity has no emperor (no "cloak of authority"/higher-archy).  *[tho for most males, such nudity does tend to reveal the ruling and reigning "head"]  8)

Claims are then addressed one individual at a time.  I'd say this bit we call "standing" might be a crucial foundation block just here, no?  Perhaps a crucial aspect being the ability to individually "stand one's ground"...back up one's claim(s)?  Not with violent "enforcement", nor the threat thereof, but with honorable, empirical reasoning?  Voluntary association rules-- and as the rule.


Meanwhile, I applaud you lummoxn for seeking out honorable principle/foundation in this crucial area of voluntary association. 
Duly noting as well, that as(s) NonE  Big Grin has noted elsewhere, as a general population (of individuals) associating-- emphasis on the "ass", as too typically today's 'sociating'--, "we're" seemingly a very l-o-n-g way from finding individuals seeking to do the honorable thing regardless of how many others don't/won't.  [que the ole Foreigner song "Long, Long Way From Home here; hearing "she" in the closing lyrics, as wisdom, honor, and virtue ]

It seems to me, life's "deal" is simply first cross-examining the guy (or gal) 'standing' in the mirror.  Does the mental image match the reflective one as closely to factuality?  All else follows as either part of a standing problem or part of a standing solution, no?  "Practical" starts as individual practice?


ps: no statements made herein are intended as State-meant!  Wink  Merely offered for your voluntary consideration... and acceptance or rejection-- hopefully based upon honorably arguable, empirically centered reasoning, rather than more State-speak (emotion-speak/fear-speak/power-think/tradition-think/culture-think/faith-belief-think/etc)...  8)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2007, 01:12 PM
Post: #11
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
Lummox3 Wrote:
Free Radical Wrote:So land owners are turned into tenants with society as their landlord?
...Not to sure what you mean by society tho.

Like what you meant by "everyone else" in your reply to NonEntity.
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2007, 02:18 PM
Post: #12
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
Free Radical Wrote:
Lummox3 Wrote:
Free Radical Wrote:So land owners are turned into tenants with society as their landlord?
...Not to sure what you mean by society tho.

Like what you meant by "everyone else" in your reply to NonEntity.

Ah right.
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2007, 03:40 PM
Post: #13
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
Quote:Land owners = individuals with a claim

Society = individuals with a claim

Yup. The question is how to sort out these claims without using violence. At least in theory. If we can't, theres not much future in taking a principled stand about the non aggression issue. And if we can do it in theory, then practice can come afterwards.

Quote:Authority settles all claims (as "authority" then is equally a claim/concept).  Validate one's claim; validate one's authority over any other's.  How did you get here; how did I get here?  What settles or validates authority/claim from there?  The emperor has no clothes and stark nudity has no emperor (no "cloak of authority"/higher-archy).

Yes. Especially when we deal with an issue that has no empirical basis, such as "land ownership".

Quote:Meanwhile, I applaud you lummoxn for seeking out honorable principle/foundation in this crucial area of voluntary association. 

Thanks. And I like the Lummox(n).  Smile

Quote:Duly noting as well, that [naughty bits deleted] NonE  Cheesy has noted elsewhere, as a general population (of individuals) associating-- emphasis on the "[naughty bits deleted]", as too typically today's 'sociating'--, "we're" seemingly a very l-o-n-g way from finding individuals seeking to do the honorable thing regardless of how many others don't/won't.  [que the ole Foreigner song "Long, Long Way From Home here; hearing "she" in the closing lyrics, as wisdom, honor, and virtue ]

Oh I don't know. Seems to be (as Stefan Molyneux has pointed out elsewhere) that people ache to be moral, they just have a "head full of broken biscuits."

Quote:It seems to me, life's "deal" is simply first cross-examining the guy (or gal) 'standing' in the mirror.  Does the mental image match the reflective one as closely to factuality?  All else follows as either part of a standing problem or part of a standing solution, no?  "Practical" starts as individual practice?

Yup. I don't..indeed can't really control others very well. So, for me at least, the question is.....what am I prepared to do for myths? How essential are those myths to my well being? Decent questions imo. What do I do when others believe certain myths are real and seek to hurt me because of them?

I can take a myth and use it, then drop it again. Is this ability innate, can it be taught? /shrug I have no idea, hence the discussion. Smile
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2007, 05:18 PM
Post: #14
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
Wow.  I'm not sure what the hell all of that was, but the salient point that jumped out at me was, as I've been saying now for neigh on forEVER, that it's about conflict resolution.  Another way of saying that might be to say that there is no "property" and no "rights," but only conflicts of interest.  And the ideas of "property" and "rights" are but imperfect tools designed with the intent of easing the process of said conflict resolution.  OR, as Tharrin might say (if I were to put words in his mouth), concepts of "property" and "rights" were, like 9/11, designed to hoodwink the rubes into giving up everything to the carnies.

- NonE

- 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
08-06-2007, 06:29 PM (This post was last modified: 10-19-2011 09:10 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #15
Re: Private Property (Cont..?)
Lummox3 Wrote:
Quote:Duly noting as well, that [naughty bits deleted] NonE Cheesy has noted elsewhere, as a general population (of individuals) associating-- emphasis on the "[naughty bits deleted]",...

Hmmmm...
[note to self]: look up definition versus daffynition regarding "ass" to double check to see if its not "a sometimes stubborn & obstinate beast of burden, at other times a most beneficial & hard working team"... ?? [/note]

Update:
Quote:ass 1.
...Any of several hoofed mammals of the genus Equus, resembling and closely related to the horses but having a smaller build and longer ears, and including the domesticated...
---The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

side note: one other source added this:
...Any of several hoofed mammals of the genus NonEquus...

8)
(we won't note that source, of a horse, of course, of course...) [Image: 98-emoticonos-mundo-msn.gif]2

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


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