[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
Tue Jun 18 11:37:05 UTC 2002
Against my better judgment, I'm going to reply here.
Mr. Henshaw attributed a whole pile of beliefs to me. Few, if any, are
actually mine. Some are inferences he's made based on snippets of other
conversations. Some are misunderstandings that he's taken to be truths.
I'm going to take a moment to respond to a few of them, but I should write
first that it's always a mistake to try to state someone else's position
for them.
(I'm gonna skip this whole nonsense about gold being more sensible to
trade for food than ink and paper. They're both just something someone
else values that has no value to me.)
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, J Henshaw wrote:
> I have tried to reason with that one, many a time before you
> apparently were listening, and he is not here to add to the discussion
> but only to spread disorder and lies, misdirection and sleight of
> hand.
I leave it to all of the others here to determine whether my words are
"lies, misdirection and sleight of hand."
> He is ignorant of his own foolishness or he is a tool of evil, but
> either way he has a goal that is contrary to the Law of this land
> which makes him an enemy alien.
Oh, I have plenty of goals contrary to the laws of this land. You can
count on that.
And since the laws of this land require the accomodation of residents who
do not speak or read english, I think you have goals contrary to the laws
of this land, too.
Are you an enemy alien?
> He does not respect our Justice system based upon reaping what YOU
> sow, building houses and living in your own house, and private
> property rights beginning with the right to wear shoes.
I think very few people would agree that isolationism and selfishness are
parts of the Justice system.
> ( I am serious, yes, he has claimed he has a right to the clothes in
> my dresser and shoes in my closet which I have sown to wear on my feet
> while I plow the fields )
Actually, that was a misunderstanding on your part that you've taken to be
fact.
I was arguing from a theoretical perspective, sharing the arguments behind
a particular doctrine that advocates the abolition of private property as
a whole. I specifically stated several times that I did not necessarily
subscribe to that doctrine.
> He thinks someone else has a claim to not only your house, but it's
> entire contents and all your your harvest.
>
> Who else is more deserving than me, to eat the wheat I sowed for my
> children?
This has nothing to do with me or anything else that's been discussed, but
I'd just like to write that I'm really sick and tired of these false
appeals to a non-existent agrarian ideal when arguing for individualism
and self-reliance. The pre-capitalist, pre-industrial world whence all
the agrarian metaphors come was far more cooperative than competitive;
more collectivist than individualist.
> Whether or not that someone else is a criminal illegal alien or a man
> who does not share the same worldview, he thinks that he has a right
> to tell me that a Great Plan for "A meal for every table" shall be
> forced upon me if he has his way, by mere virtue of majority, whether
> or not the majority is jumping off a cliff so to speak in their
> foolish misguided attempt to achieve a nirvana world where no one goes
> hungry and the grass is always gree; And he does not have an answer
> for where my beliefs can peacefully coexist with his antithetical one.
This part's just plain false. I didn't say that, I didn't write it, I
don't believe it, and I didn't even argue the principle behind it.
I think it should be evident to all who read my writing that I am no fan
of the "Great Plan" of any sort. I believe certain modes of conduct
(including peace, love, and understanding) should be encouraged and
developed by all people in all other people, but I don't believe in
coercion or destruction. The ends never justify the means. Life is all
means. If we do it right, there is no end.
However, it is true that I wrote that I didn't have any hard solution for
how the folks who totally oppose property could coexist with those who
believe in amassing personal wealth at the expense of others. I'd be
interested to hear all suggestions, however.
> The main difference between him and me is that my plan allows him to
> be an ignorant fool ( but does not require me to provide him his
> sustanence while he's at it.)
The main difference between him and me is that he's an incoherent crank
and I'm a coherent one.
But seriously, I don't have a plan.
But, to turn the tables a bit, Mr. Henshaw has one and it requires every
person to participate and it does not allow any person to survive without
allowing one's labor to be exploited until wealth can be accrued to
exploit the labor of others or run away to a hermitage -- neither of which
is really sustainable.
> Is might makes right just? Tyranny of the majority just? History, if
> not reason and common sense, shows it is not, yet he clings. What can
> I do but call him a fool?
You can be tolerant, respectful, and kind, sir. But failing that, you can
sling shit and call names.
J.
--
-----------------
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
-----------------
[cc] counter-copyright
http://www.openlaw.org
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list