'Let him die.' -- a perspective on the individual mandate by NewOldBrownCoat

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But there is also the consideration that a person who would take something from me by force or threat of violence is by definition threatening my life.

What about if that person threatens to steal a packet of salsa? Seems a might overblown description for something so trivial.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:18 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There are, oddly enough, societies where if a man hunts and kills an animal he is required to share it equally with everyone in the village. Just b/c you can't imagine it doesn't mean somewhere someone else hasn't.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

Hello,

If he is required to share it equally, then everyone gets a share.

If everyone gets a share, then they are, by law or custom, apportioned a thing that belongs to them.

Property.

Is he allowed to take it back?

If not...

Property Rights.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:20 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"What about if that person threatens to steal a packet of salsa?"

Hello,

I would probably give him the salsa if he was not threatening me harm in the process.

But arguing the various ethical force responses to various types of theft is not the same as arguing for a lack of property and property rights.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:25 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Anthony

When given a choice between property and social support of all you chose property.

It's pretty obvious to me you hold property in higher esteem than human life.

Just sayin' ...

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:34 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Anthony

When given a choice between property and social support of all you chose property.

It's pretty obvious to me you hold property in higher esteem than human life.

Just sayin' ...

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

Hello,

I'm not sure what you mean? How can humans live in the company of other humans without property and property rights? I don't see how they can, and so it's not one or the other.

If human beings are to live together, then life requires property.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
How can humans live in the company of other humans without property and property rights? I don't see how they can, and so it's not one or the other.

Clearly, you have not studied history or sociology.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:54 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I am not a Historian or a Sociologist. Do I need to be in order to understand this?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2011 7:47 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There HAVE been societies without property.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:08 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Anthony

This is how I see your argument

In order to protect 'your property' from the (overt appearance of) influence of the society around you, you are willing to endure the ultra-wealthy and powerful having 'their property' free from the influence of the society around them - no matter how distorted, inhumane and unpopular with the majority such a system might be. You are willing to enforce, under penalty, a system that may in fact be killing other people through the brutally unequal distribution of property.

You find that preferable to a system where people are required by society to give up (the appearance of) total control over their property in order to preserve the health and lives of the members of that society.

The first you see as freedom. The second you see as oppression.

You are choosing property over lives.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:46 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There HAVE been societies without property.

You are quite correct. Australian Aboriginals had/have very disimilar ideas of property and land ownership, as they are a kinship society. It has and continues to create a whole host of cultural clashes.

Anthony, I don't understand how treating someone ill or giving someone a drink of water infringes on anyones rights/ Could you explain it to me?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 1:45 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

This conversation's recent turn reminds me of how the Native Americans were so easily screwed out of "their" land in the first place. White men persuaded them to sign over their "ownership" of the land, because to the natives, there was no such concept of "ownership" over the land. One could no more "own" the land than one could "own" the sea or the air - they quite literally had no concept of property rights when it came to the land.

That's an oversimplification, of course, but it gets to the basic concept of a world without strongly-defined property rights.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:59 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"no matter how distorted, inhumane and unpopular with the majority such a system might be. You are willing to enforce, under penalty, a system that may in fact be killing other people through the brutally unequal distribution of property."

Hello,

I don't know if I am or not, because your view of my views is obviously not my view of my views.

Could you be rather more specific as to what precisely in my views is distorted, inhumane, and unpopular with the majority and causing the deaths of people?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 4:19 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Anthony, I don't understand how treating someone ill or giving someone a drink of water infringes on anyones rights/ Could you explain it to me?"

Hello,

You are an individual. You have the right (in my view, obviously. There is no divine referee enforcing this) to make choices about how you conduct yourself and what you will do with your life. The only time such rights are in question (ideally) is when you make an action that infringes on someone else's rights and freedoms. (Again, this is my view, there is no omnipotent enforcer.)

You could, for instance, decide to punch the air. No one could tell you not to punch the air. Or you could decide not to punch the air. And no one could tell you that you must punch the air. Such choices about your conduct are your own.

If you punch my face, however, you have overlapped into my rights, and there is conflict.

So far, so good. (Probably. Unless you are advocating the right to punch me in the face, which... well, some people would probably like that.)

Now, let's say there is a hiker who has fallen in a tumble of stones, and is pressed under a boulder. I am trying to lift the boulder, but it is too heavy. I approach you, and I tell you that you must lift the boulder with me. Together, we will be strong enough to lift the boulder.

But perhaps you don't wish to lift the boulder. You may be tired, or you may have a bad back, or you may just be an asshole.

But, in my view of freedom, you have (ideally) the right to be an asshole. You don't need a permission slip from some authority to be excused from doing something you don't want to do. It is entirely up to you how you conduct yourself, just as long as you aren't interfering with me.

NOT helping me isn't an oppressive action on your part. It is your free choice. And so, I have no help with the boulder. And so, the hiker will die under that boulder. And so, you are an incredible asshole.

But I have no right to interfere with you. (ideally.)

The moment I pull out a revolver, press it to your forehead, and say, "You are GOING to help me move that boulder or I am GOING to paint this landscape with your brains, asshole!" Well, here I am infringing on your rights. I am doing it for a noble purpose: to save a human being from dying under a boulder. I am only asking you to do something that is probably within your power. The only thing I am depriving you of, is the right to be an asshole.

Free Choice.

The loss of Free Choice is worthy of weeping. It is not the loss of a life, but it is the loss of part of what living is. And so, when I tell you that we should be sick with regret when we take such choices from people, it is because we have ripped away a core principle of humanity from them.

Now, if you've been paying attention, you know that I am actually willing to reach into someone's core and rip out this precious right- the right to be free in themselves, in their actions or inactions. The right to be unmolested by me or the community they live in.

But I approach such thievery- this robbery of basic humanity, as a grave crime committed only to avert a greater tragedy. It should not be lightly done, it must always be carefully considered, and it should be minimized always. Why? Because it makes a slave of a man, even if only a little bit, and I take no cheer in being a slavemaster.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Could you be rather more specific

I thought I was rather explicit...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:13 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Could you be rather more specific
I thought I was rather explicit...

Hello,

Well, if that's the best you can explain it, then I'm just not getting it, Signy. I apologize.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Tony

Quote:
You are an individual

No, you are not. Everything you have is made by the cooperative efforts of others. Unless you are willing to give away everything that was not made completely by YOUR hand... and I mean EVERYTHING.. cotton grown in Azerbaijan or Egypt of the Central Valley, spun in China or Vietnam and fabricated in Guatemala or the Marianas... you are AT BEST a cog in a highly complex society, which represents not only economic and military relationships but also personal ones.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:22 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tony

Quote:
You are an individual
No, you are not. Everything you have is made by the cooperative efforts of others. Unless you are willing to give away everything that was not made completely by YOUR hand... and I mean EVERYTHING.. cotton grown in Azerbaijan or Egypt of the Central Valley, spun in China or Vietnam and fabricated in Guatemala or the Marianas... you are AT BEST a cog in a highly complex society, which represents not only economic and military relationships but also personal ones.

Hello,

So, in order to be an individual, I have to be alone and apart from everything?

It is interesting that you should think so, because that is the only condition where I consider it possible to live without property rights. It is the only state of affairs where the use of an object can never be in dispute.

In any event, whether you consider me a cog in a vast machine or not, I will at some point have to be dealt with as an individual. So denying my individuality seems odd. If you want to say I am an individual who has benefited from and who benefits the world around me, I can grasp that.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So, in order to be an individual, I have to be alone and apart from everything?

By jove, I think he's got it. Once you start entering into relationships of economic dependence... even if mutual... you are no longer able to do exactly what YOU want, and must start considering what the other person wants and what happens to him, or her. For example, you need someone to bring you medicine. Unless there are a lot of choices out there, you may be stuck wondering where your medicine-giver has got to when s/he doesn't show up on time.

Quote:
It is interesting that you should think so, because that is the only condition where I consider it possible to live without property rights. It is the only state of affairs where the use of an object can never be in dispute.

It's not a leap I would have made, but you may be on to something there. Because an individual would never HAVE to exchange or barter items, or promise away his time for something he couldn't do himself.

Quote:
In any event, whether you consider me a cog in a vast machine or not, I will at some point have to be dealt with as an individual.

Really? By whom? Certainly not by business... you are entirely interchangeable. I can show you theories of management on why and how to reduce individuals to cogs.

Quote:
So denying my individuality seems odd. If you want to say I am an individual who has benefited from and who benefits the world around me, I can grasp that.

There is an imbalance of views here., YOU think you're an individual. TPTB- heads of banks to heads of state- think you're less than an ant in an ant hill. So, what are you? It's prolly directly related to how much real say you have in your life about anything important - where you work, how much you get paid, whether you're treatable for illness, what happens to you when you go bankrupt.

Oh, dear, Tony. I'm not seeing much "individual" there. Looks like a cog from here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:44 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Even a cog is an individual cog. When it breaks, you will have to find a cog to replace it.

The importance someone assigns to me does not define the importance I associate with myself. And just because someone says *you* are a meaningless cog does not mean I am prepared to treat you as unimportant or without meaning.

We get to decide that for ourselves. The self-defining cog, within the means available to us. (Which, admittedly, are not as vast as I'd wish.)

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:13 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Just coming back after I left with the question:

Anthony, I should have been more specific. I should have asked "would you pass a tax that would save that person?" Mea culpa.

Quote:
If that prospect is pleasing to anyone, I would be surprised

Actually, it does. It's difficult, but I for one have been proud to live in a country that doesn't just let people die when there is an alternative. I have lived in a country that did; THAT I found repulsive in the extreme. I have visited a country where they deliberately maim their children to make money off them; countries who kill extraneous children without hesitation.

You interpretation of being "forced" to give a drink of water to a dying man is that it is

Quote:
I found myself willing to accept this gross violation of personal freedom out of ethical concerns.

That is an example of what I mean; to me it is such a small and insignificant thing, and the fact that it is even necessary to require it is what I find repugnant, but you see it exactly the opposite.

I don't agree with, nor do I believe, that "life trumps freedom". I think that is a very simplistic statement about things which are much more complex.

Over time I've begun to, I believe, understand an aspect of your thinking. Freedom, unhindered by anything, is very important to you, to the point where even small hindrances anger you--respectfully, I might say in my opinion "disproportionately". You see things very, very differently from me when you say "freedom". I feel you interpret things through whatever caused you to feel that extreme about totally unhindered freedom as a concept. It's neither right nor wrong, we're all different, I have just come to notice it and wonder about it.

I'm also confused by

Quote:
If he is required to share it equally, then everyone gets a share.

If everyone gets a share, then they are, by law or custom, apportioned a thing that belongs to them.

If one person's effort and time are putting into hunting and killing, and therefore "possesses" something, how can being "forced" to share it with everyone, how can it belong to those who didn't hunt and kill it? Isn't it his personal property, which he is being forced to share? That seems a dichotomy to me.

Quote:
If human beings are to live together, then life requires property.

That's not true. It's an extreme example, but did you ever see "The Gods Must Be Crazy" (I think that's the title)? A tribe where there IS no "owned" property, where everyone uses everything and shares everything without any proscribed property rights, falls apart when a bottle falls from the sky and everyone wants to use it. Ergo, the concept is that where there is property, there will be contention, not that life requires property. I believe there have been and perhaps still are social systems where property is not a right, and when the concept of property rights is brought in, it is detrimental to the society.

There is an example of a society which you cannot stomach, of which you would say

Quote:
I have trouble envisioning any system where I can not own anything, and any item in my possession can be taken from me.

The system functioned quite well with no property rights, yet to you it is unthinkable. That you can't even envision such a thing speaks to what I said about it being such an extreme issue for you.

The other thing I think I see is a sense of the extreme: ANY restriction on property rights is seen as

Quote:
we have ripped away a core principle of humanity from them.

I disagree that your vision of "freedom" is a core principal of humanity, and offer the examples of the Aborigines, the African (I believe it was?) tribe who had no concept of property, and the Native Americans, to whom "owning" property was alien.

I don't know how to put it into words properly, but I feel there is a dichotomy between your belief that people should own whatever they can possess so absolutely, without any recognition that the opposite of what you say is true. My interpretation would be that "If human beings are to live together, then life requires sharing", as in things made by others like the examples Sig gave. I believe you see property rights as an absolute, despite being WILLING to give up some for certain reasons. Yet you don't see the need to ask everyone to share among the community for the good of the community as an absolute, or anything even close to it. For me being part of a society REQUIRES sharing, even in some cases "forced" sharing, or tee society at best is unhealty; at worst doesn't survive.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:14 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte; absolutely. The world is pretty much ALL grays when you come down to it, I agree. I disagree that oil companies actually BELIEVE what they do is for the greater good, I think that's propaganda. I think money is their real priority, and they just say that because it's what works.

And again: There is no such thing as "foreign oil". That is one of the most effective pieces of propaganda I've ever heard, and despite it being false, it has persisted very thoroughly.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:15 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

NewOld, I agree thoroughly with

Quote:
Administrators and insurance brokers and salesmen do not. They should be reduced to the absolute minimum of numbers, not allowed to take extreme vacations and frequent golf holidays, not be allowed to make " obscene" profits. The notion of "profit" should not be compatible with health care- making a living from doing it, yes. Making money from it without being in actual contact with the patients should not.

Personally, I would add "teachers" to the list of those I believe should live decently, which most of them do not, and I would add "elected representatives" to the second category.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:17 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Kiki,

Quote:
if you are going to gag at a law, why gag at one that makes society help its members, rather than one that enforces power of one over another?

Excellent point, in my estimation. It's a simple question, given such laws do exist, yet I don't think Anthony addressed the question. He extended it to "a world without property rights", which takes the question to the ultimate limit, but he didn't address whether he is against the laws that protect property rights, and I'd like to hear his response to the exact question.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:17 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Could you be rather more specific as to what precisely in my views is distorted, inhumane, and unpopular with the majority and causing the deaths of people?"

I was VERY specific - property rights. Please re-read my post.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:19 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike, that's another excellent example of a society without property rights, with respect to the land at least. There was a lot of "property" that was "owned" by individual Native Americans, but the concept of "owning" the land was totally foreign to them. "We" came along with our concepts of owning and property, etc., and because it wasn't conceivable to them, we introduced a society which stole their land.

It's interesting that this discussion evolved into kind of Anthony on one side speaking in absolutes, and everyone on the other side trying to say "It's not an absolute". Pretty much nobody else responded directly to the question of what they would do if faced with a dying person and the power to enact a law that would require he be cared for; from that I'm assuming everyone else would enact the law?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:37 AM

I think I've figured it out. This is an argument between lawful good and chaotic good. But the lawful types sometimes believe in chaotic means to their end of creating a good humane society, and the chaotic types sometimes believe in lawful means and so on.

Niki: Oil, here in the US... Well, there's off shore oil? The only other kind of petroleum we really have happens to be oil shale and natural gas shale, which... Kinda suck. Both off-shore drilling and shale drilling are pretty bad ideas, which is why I lean towards alternative energy and new inventions/renovations.

I'd say there's a lack of good and easily accessible oil in the US due to an unfortunate result of the sediment layers and geohistory of what we were laying down when CO2 levels were high enough in the mesozoic to produce lots of petroleum products under pressure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:38 AM

Quote:
from that I'm assuming everyone else would enact the law?

wha? Do people keep missing that Anthony has said he supports the "give a man a drink" law?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:45 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I disagree that your vision of "freedom" is a core principal of humanity, and offer the examples of the Aborigines, the African (I believe it was?) tribe who had no concept of property, and the Native Americans, to whom "owning" property was alien."

Hello,

I'll first and foremost disagree with you that Aborigines, Africans, and Native Americans have no concept of property. I know for a fact that Native Americans owned property and traded it. Where they differed is in what things they considered property, and the things they considered worth getting upset about.

In the example of The Gods Must Be Crazy the conflict existed because the Coke Bottle was the first Unique item ever introduced into their world. All other things in their world were readily replaceable, and thus not worth fighting over. Even though they lived in a state which we consider poverty, it was a state of abundance from their perspective, in that there was nothing that you could take from them that could not be replaced.

Because they had no protocol for Unique objects, objects which were not universally replaceable, they had to invent a new protocol when they were introduced to it. Their solution: Get rid of the unique object.

Native Americans had personal possessions. Articles of clothing, decoration, and weaponry that were most definitely considered property, and if you wanted such articles, you relied on either the generosity of the individual who held them, or the value of a trade. They may not have had the concept of property permanence, in which a property belongs to someone forever. Finders Keepers. But Keepers indeed Keepers.

I argue that, absent a state of utter abundance, where anything is replaceable practically at a whim, every society needs some concept of property and property rights. This prevents someone from swooping in and taking the stuff you need to survive. In a world where nothing belongs to anybody, everything belongs to whoever can take it. Hence, life requires property rights if life is to be preserved.

It is on this premise that violence is warranted to preserve property. You may argue how much violence is warranted for which property. But without property rights, I can come and take everything you need to sustain yourself and your family and you have no right to stop me. I can take any item you poured your labor into creating, simply because it suits me. You have no defense and no protection.

Property = Life, and if there is another way of looking at it, I need it explained to me.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:51 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
from that I'm assuming everyone else would enact the law?

wha? Do people keep missing that Anthony has said he supports the "give a man a drink" law?

Hello,

Yes, everyone keeps overlooking that I support Universal Health Care and giving thirty people water.

I suppose the fact that I do not do these things with unfettered relish is the source of great consternation to them.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:52 AM

For the question about property rights, I think I'm less against laws protecting those more than I'm against something that could damage livelyhood, which in some cases could be directly related to health and life.

For example, a subsistence farmer who lives off the food he grows on his land might die if that land were taken away from him.

This is very similar to what happened to the Native American tribes - I believe they had a claim to those lands simply because they NEEDED those lands to live, even if they themselves weren't able to relate to the concepts of landownership that Europeans had. That's why I consider what happened to them a crime on the level of atrocity and genocide.

Property that isn't a matter of life-and-death, need, or personal identity, I suppose those aren't as important to me. I wouldn't really have a problem seeing anyone who willfully exploits other people being laid low, though vindictive person that I am, I'd prefer to see it happen by their own hands, which I consider inevitable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:58 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Mike, that's another excellent example of a society without property rights, with respect to the land at least. There was a lot of "property" that was "owned" by individual Native Americans, but the concept of "owning" the land was totally foreign to them. "We" came along with our concepts of owning and property, etc., and because it wasn't conceivable to them, we introduced a society which stole their land."

Hello,

It should be kept in mind that the reason the Native Americans had no concept (or at least a poor concept) of owning land is because there was an incredible abundance of land and they moved throughout the land, back and forth, as a means of survival.

When land abundance fell away (because we kept seizing it all- a concept that was utterly alien to them before) then the ownership of land became something they cared a great deal about. Unfortunately, they had no means to secure their property rights. They did go to war, but they lost, and they were left only with what we considered valueless, and then only because of our generosity born of guilt.

A lack of recognizing land property rights allowed someone to come in and decimate them. Property = Life.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 7:04 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"he didn't address whether he is against the laws that protect property rights, and I'd like to hear his response to the exact question."

Hello,

If I have not been clear on this matter, I'll be clear now. I support laws that protect property rights. I consider such laws essential in preserving life.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 7:09 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"It's interesting that this discussion evolved into kind of Anthony on one side speaking in absolutes, and everyone on the other side trying to say "It's not an absolute"."

Hello,

I find this interpretation of my stance to be quite remarkable. It is the other side arguing against property rights- absolutely. They envision a society where nobody has something considered 'personal property' and where there is hence no way to preserve possessions from seizure.

I am arguing against that puzzling absolute, and am being called an absolutist for it.

Then, when I express the great pain I feel at infringing on people's freedoms, but my willingness to do it in order to preserve life- I am again called an unmoving absolutist, despite my repeated willingness to compromise my ideals in favor of society.

What are you people reading and who are you arguing against? It's as though if I do not rob merrily then there is something amiss with me.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 7:17 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Anthony

Your vision is very much clouded by your father's history. You assume things you shouldn't, and fail to recognize things you should.

The story goes like this: there we were, living on our farm, bothering nobody, when all of the sudden those nasty people came and stole our farm to make their lives better for them. Therefore, freedom is about being free of those nasty people who want to take our stuff.

Here's the problem: 'your' farm.

The idea of 'your' property was an idea you got from the society around you. The definition of what that meant that you could and couldn't do with 'your' property was set by the society around you. The boundaries of 'your' property were described and recorded by the society around you. The recognition of 'your' property was taught to the others in society by the society around you. And the protection of 'your' property against others was performed by the society around you.

'Your' property is a social fiction held by society at large. If you wish to be free of that society (if you value freedom) then you need to let go of the idea of 'your' property, b/c it exists only at the at the whim of society.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 7:20 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I support laws that protect property rights. I consider such laws essential in preserving life."

I consider the human resources of the human society to be far more important in preserving life. Without that, nobody would even get as far as surviving infancy.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 7:29 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

'Your' property is a social fiction held by society at large. If you wish to be free of that society (if you value freedom) then you need to let go of the idea of 'your' property, b/c it exists only at the at the whim of society.

Hello,

Leaving aside my 'father's farm' for a moment. (We will have to discuss my family another time.)

How can I have anything if property is a fiction? If there is no property, and therefore no property protection, how can I secure the things I need to survive?

" I consider the human resources of the human society to be far more important in preserving life. Without that, nobody would even get as far as surviving infancy."

I consider human resources vital, as well. But I feel you are implying a leap over a chasm I can't see?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 7:42 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"How can I have anything if property is a fiction? If there is no property, and therefore no property protection, how can I secure the things I need to survive?"

Group utilization. Cooperative effort. Non-ownership which allows you to freely (in every sense of the word) drink water from the stream ... freely use local resources to build your shelter ... freely hunt game ...

I have to go ... but the idea that you 'need' to have 'your' stuff just to survive is not supported by observation of the many societies past and present.

BTW - I am not necessarily in favor of collectivizing all property. Even the aborigine probably had a favorite hunting boomerang that he made, and used all the time. But property is not a sacred right. It's a social agreement, and society, as its creator, gets to set the terms.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 7:49 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

One man's freedom is always going to be another man's shackles, in some way or other. If I like flailing about and then somebody sticks his face into my flailing about space, either I'm allowed to clock him in the face, or I am forced to adjust my routine, so as not to bloody him.
There is a simple natural law that typically settles such an issue. Might makes right. If I have tree trunks for arms and I flail about, you will avoid my space or get your head knocked off. If I have twigs for arms, I'll probably be flapping them furiously after being flung over a cliff by the big fucker who decided he liked where I was standing.

I personally see democratic government, in its idealized form, as adding a another dimension into that equation- ethos. Our nation's ethos at best is informed by our Constitution, and at worst, is tethered by it(hopefully).

If the best the natural world can offer is might makes right, then of course the power of a man-made government is going to come from its might over other powerful forces. But that power is wielded based at least partly on collective conscience. The Tiger doesn't necessarily get to eat a chimp today. In fact, the Tiger may be astonished to find chimps throwing sticks at it and pulling its tail. Counter examples will abound.

And of course there is nothing that says the Ethos of our nation will be a positive one at any given time, or that our officials will reflect the national ethos in their charge to represent us.

The bottom line though, is that some freedoms will be curtailed so that other freedoms flourish, no matter what the system in place. In the absence of a democratic government, the person who is biggest has the freedom and the range, and the rest of us have the freedom to find our own pond to drink out of, assuming they aren’t all spoken for by giants.

There is no such thing as a system where somebody will not be forced to do something he or she doesn’t want to do. Technically, you aren’t forced to work a giant’s land for a cup of muddy water…you can choose to die. You aren’t forced to pay for somebody’s medical bills through taxation either, you can choose to go to jail…but collectively, we are getting to choose what we as a people want to do, what we want to be. This isn’t robbing us of humanity, this is us defining it.

There’s not a game in town that doesn’t have rules that everybody is expected to play by. If those rules aren’t enforced, the game suffers for it. If no rules are established, then you have a game where the most vile, unsportsmanlike tactics will prevail, and in prevailing will be the thing to emulate.

Because I believe that the national ethos is more strongly tethered to our Constitution than local pockets of government, I am an advocate of Federal Government being strong, and capable of setting standards and regulations for the States on down, to follow, where the national government is not overstepping its Constitutionally awarded powers.

What I find most frustrating is the third of our population that are such staunch detractors of national government, due to its past and current abuses, due to corruption and constant subsidization of the powers that mostly own it, such staunch believers in some romanticized notion about the freedom to choose, which cannot exist as they think it can, they continue to allow our government to be owned by refusing to take some money out of the hands that spend to own it.

By that I mean they continue to vote against a healthy distributive cycle to keep the country green. They don’t like the corruption that gives the money to GE and Exxon, but they find redress in the simple form of taxation, wholly distasteful on principle. They continue to ensure that once the money trickles up, it stays there, because they don’t want to make a determination about how that money got there(fair enough), because they don’t believe in class warfare(at least when fought from the bottom), because they weigh individual property rights and the right of the individual to horde resources, over the health and sustainability and future competitiveness of the nation as a whole.

And sadly, in terms of the state of our Federal Government, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy in this. It continues to be owned and it continues to be the thing that should not be trusted with our money, because on principle, it would not be right if our money actually came back to us once its already been given away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 7:52 AM

I never realized until now just how much the full extent of human society and civilization can take away lives and livelyhood at a whim for the greater good, and how utterly evil and terrifying it all is.

there is something very wrong with all of us. >_> <_<

I'm going to... hide... now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 7:59 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Group utilization. Cooperative effort. Non-ownership which allows you to drink water from the stream ... use local resources to build your shelter ... hunt game ..."

Hello,

Would such a society require me to live as a simple tribesman? What if I wanted an Alienware computer so that I could play Shootemup 9000, would there be one waiting for me at the community supply depot?

I think that such a society can only function in an atmosphere of abundance. In the case of tribesmen, their needs are so meager, and the bounty of (unpolluted/unindustrialized) nature so profound, that there is never the sense that there won't be enough of something to go around.

Or, if you take the fictional United Federation of Planets from Star Trek, they have technologies which create abundance. There are fusion reactors and antimatter reactors to create near infinite energy, and matter replicators to produce anything a person might desire. There are even new worlds to explore for people who want more space to occupy. Everything is in abundance. So, in this setting, Earth is a Utopia where everyone is free to do what they wish to do and all needs are provided for. I would delight in such a society.

But how does it work in an atmosphere where there is not abundance? Where there is only so much of X or Y to go around?

"BTW - I am not necessarily in favor of collectivizing all property. Even the aborigine probably had a favorite hunting boomerang that he made, and used all the time. But property is not a sacred right."

I wonder if his favorite hunting boomerang isn't actually important to his survival, and hence a sacred right.

"It's a social agreement, and society, as its creator, gets to set the terms."

Our society has set the terms. You find those terms to be unfair. I have worries that the terms of a collectivist society might also be unfair, in addition to being dangerous.

I wait your return to learn how it all might work.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 8:04 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I never realized ... how much the full extent of human society and civilization can take away lives and livelyhood at a whim for the greater good ..."

And you have also probably never considered that you would not be alive if it wasn't for the society around you, either.

Think about it - there you are - newborn, small, naked and helpless. Without the knowledge of the people around you - transmitted by language - the resources of food - the getting of which is socially learned - shelter - the creation of which is knowledge transmitted by society - tools - fire - clothes - gas furnaces and refrigerated milk - you would survive less than a few hours.

As you are alive today - if you were stripped of all that was socially acquired - clothes, food, shelter - language - you would die. People do not survive without society. As much guff as she took for it, Clinton was right - it takes a village.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 8:07 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Anthony, I believe you are wrong. If I recall correctly (and if need be, I'll look it up), the tribe in question did NOT have personal property, everything was shared and nobody considered anything "theirs". It was exactly the uniqueness of the bottle which caused them to argue over who "owned" it at any given time, yes, but I seem to recall that prior to that, nobody "owned" anything. Yes, things were abundant and easy to make, but someone had to make them, or by their own sweat dig them up, and it didn't matter who made them or dug them up, they all shared them without the concept of ownership.

I wasn't specific enough about the Native Americans, I meant they had no concept of "property" when it came to actual PROPERTY, that being land.

In my opinion

Quote:
In a world where nothing belongs to anybody, everything belongs to whoever can take it.

is false. Your assumption is that someone will always want to take something from another. In my opinion,

Quote:
within a society where nothing belongs to anybody, everyone can share property

You have said "world", I posited individual societies. And certainly anything can be taken if a more powerful group decides to, history shows that, but I maintain that individual groups of people can exist in a simplified form where individual property isn't necessary.

I did not overlook your ACQUIESCENCE to health care laws; it is something you stated you are against, but are willing to accept in that specific instance. Not something you believe in, but something you are willing to accept DESPITE what you believe absolutely.

As opposed to your "life = property", I abhor that concept of a world in which that is an absolute. Unfortunately, the world in which we live makes people believe as you do, but it's too simplistic for me. Question: Has it been proven that QUALITY of life is determined by property? If I can't have quality of life, why should I want to live? This is all theoretical, but I believe that if you want to take it to extremes, a society in which life is not determined by property would be a healthier one by far.

So by your statement, all laws which protect property are good; all laws which protect PEOPLE from being abused by property rights are bad. Thank you for clarifying that, it was what I assumed to be true.

Quote:
I find this interpretation of my stance to be quite remarkable. It is the other side arguing against property rights- absolutely. They envision a society where nobody has something considered 'personal property' and where there is hence no way to preserve possessions from seizure.

No, that is a false interpretation. Others have been arguing that there is a middle ground, that some laws to protect property are good, and some laws protecting people from property rights are good, and some of both are bad. I and a couple of others have presented examples of societies without the concept of property (in part or in whole) in an attempt to meet your extremist stance, which was a mistake. We should have attempted to give examples where property rights can TAKE life and are therefore bad, because your stance is that ANY laws inhibiting property rights are bad (even if you acquiesce to them). That was our mistake. You have been unbending in insisting that any law which overtakes property rights is wrong, period, even those which you accept--against your own belief.

Nobody also stated that "where nobody has something considered 'personal property' and where there is hence no way to preserve possessions from seizure". We have argued FOR the concept of sharing within a community, of ALL rights being weighed rather than giving property rights absolute power.

Kiki, thank you for helping me understand. I knew nothing of Anthony's background, but your explaining it to me helps me better understand his stance. Under those circumstances, I see how one could come to believe as he does, and how life WOULD equal property.

Anthony,

Quote:
If there is no property, and therefore no property protection, how can I secure the things I need to survive?

That is how you view it, and the "protection", "secure" and earlier "seizure" are telling. There truly IS no "property rights" when it comes down to it, and myriad examples exist to prove Kiki's point that "property" is determined by the society at large. Banks legally "sold" property to people they knew couldn't pay for it, then "seized" it when that came true. There are no laws to protect those people's "property". "Imminent domain" has taken many, many people's legally-owned property from them. People who break the laws surrounding drugs, made by society, have had their property seized. Society determines what one owns, there is nothing natural about it. So in essence, in the world in which we live, nothing is truly "owned", it can only be considered "ours" until society makes laws which remove that ownership.

It may be wrong, but it is the society within which we live. Anyone who is absolutely in favor of property rights being inviolate is excepting themselves from society, which provides property in many ways that are wrong as well as decides laws which make that property "violate" if you will. The only way to LIVE by what you believe in the extreme is, as was discussed previously, to remove oneself from society. To see it as an absolute ignores the real world, which protects nothing we own absolutey.

The point I believe everyone is trying to make is that property rights are not an absolute, and some of us have been trying to say that they shouldn't be, that the issue is far more complex than ownership of property being an absolute right. To you, a glass of water is being "seized" for the use of a thirsty person...that it comes down to such an extreme absolute is where I believewe disagree with you.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 8:19 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"There is no such thing as a system where somebody will not be forced to do something he or she doesn’t want to do. Technically, you aren’t forced to work a giant’s land for a cup of muddy water…you can choose to die. You aren’t forced to pay for somebody’s medical bills through taxation either, you can choose to go to jail…but collectively, we are getting to choose what we as a people want to do, what we want to be. This isn’t robbing us of humanity, this is us defining it."

Hello,

First, my compliments on a well-written and well-considered treatise.

Here you describe something that sounds like robbing the humanity from individuals so that it can be gifted it to society, and thereby redefining what an individual is allowed to do and to be. This is the compromise I have repeatedly (and lately it seems endlessly) discussed. What I have advocated is that each deduction from the individual in order to serve the whole should be weighed carefully, with empathy for the giver as well as the receiver, and that we recognize that we are taking when we do take- so that such taking can be minimized to what is necessary and only what is necessary.

I consider this to be a simple, reasonable road.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 8:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, my point about there being no foreign oil is that ALL oil is sold on the international market. We can't know where it comes from. We have oil, one only has to drive through certain areas of the country to see the derecks (sp?) all over. But we sell that oil on the international market, as does everyone else, so nobody knows from what country the oil originated. Ergo: there is no such thing as "foreign" oil. This has been discussed previously, but even here we continue to refer to "foreign oil", so when we do, I keep reminding people that there is no such thing.

It's a term someone came up with which is wonderfully visceral; even moreso is "oil from the Middle East"...the population at large has never grasped that ALL oil is sold on the international market, so those sound bites work.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 8:39 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, Righteous, what a beautifully-written treatise which reflects reality and logic. I thank you. And agree with you. And wish I could put it so well. I might venture to say that in the use of language, I'm the flounderer and you've got the big sticks!

Damn, I both hate and love it when you guys come up with wonderful, intelligent debates like these two. It engages me and impresses me, but at the same time it engages me and I spend WAY too much time enjoying being challenged and participating in it. Here it is nearly noon and I've been here since soon after I got up; there are so many things I need to do and want to do, but here I sit, enjoying your intelligence and trying to keep up. Very frustrating, that!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 9:02 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"all laws which protect PEOPLE from being abused by property rights are bad. Thank you for clarifying that, it was what I assumed to be true."

Hello,

I'm not sure where I said that, or how you inferred that. I have never wanted people to be abused by anything, and consider laws which prevent abuse to be good.

"Imminent domain" has taken many, many people's legally-owned property from them. People who break the laws surrounding drugs, made by society, have had their property seized."

Yes, and I'm not particularly fond of those laws, either. When I see them enacted it is with regret and trepidation, often with sadness and sometimes with anger. Often abused is the power that society uses to take from the individual.

"It may be wrong, but it is the society within which we live. Anyone who is absolutely in favor of property rights being inviolate is excepting themselves from society"

Obviously. We all must make some exceptions to our ideals in order to live together. But I do not believe in making such exceptions casually. Any such abuse of the individual to serve society should be done carefully and regretfully as a necessary evil, not a joyful vengeance. Taxes are not happy affairs, whether they tax money, property, or free action itself. It may be the medicine that society needs to get well and to function, but it is a bitter remedy.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 9:35 AM

Quote:

And you have also probably never considered that you would not be alive if it wasn't for the society around you, either.

Grk. Okay, society has the power of deciding whether I live or die. Society IS the process of deciding who lives and who dies.

I get it. You can stop terrifying me. It's time for me to start running away very fast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2011 12:19 PM