[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
Wed Jun 19 08:02:51 UTC 2002
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, J Henshaw wrote:
> > I think you're stuck in your own perception of property.
>
> I know I am freed by it
I mean to say that you don't appear to be able to understand that there
are other philosophies and traditions of property than the one you hold.
> > You believe that property is either owned or not and if nobody claims
> > ownership, there is no claim of any sort.
>
> Well, that is sorta the general meaning of the word, okay then...
> Citizen: "Officer, I would like to report a robbery"
> Officer: "By whose definition"
Citizen: "The one in the regulatory statutes that describes an act that
is illegal."
That doesn't preclude other definitions which describe an act which is
equally wrong, if not illegal.
> > I've been trying to express to you that there are OTHER philosophies of
> > property that have nothing to do with the European tradition of private
> > property. The Native Americans had one of these OTHER philosophies.
>
> I am a native american, get over it
Get over what?
> > They're general philosophy was that no individual could claim ownership of
> > the land because the land is forever. It is not a thing man made and
> > therefore it is not a thing over which humankind can claim dominion.
>
> Neither is my spirit man-made, and no corporation will turn me into a
> zombie
> Neither is the wheat we harvest man-made but it defies you definition of
> "new math" ownership.
Huh?
I would like SOMEONE to try to explain the above to me.
I'm not inventing a NEW concept of ownership; I'm describing an ancient
one that is probably older than the one to which you subscribe.
> > Claiming dominion over the land occupied and used by the Natives of this
> > continent was a violation; an invasion.
>
> Again, all one continenet at one time, before the races were split
Yes, there was one continent. That was before any concept of "property"
or "dominion" existed, too. I don't see how that has any bearing on this
discussion whatsoever.
> > Claiming land for an individual
> > person that is not in the dominion of humankind is theft from the commons.
> >
> > Consider the European invasion of North America as a massive Denial of
> > Service attack.
>
> Consider your mental block massive denial
What are you calling a "mental block"? My insistence that your view of
property cannot be extended back and applied to all people at all times to
justify their actions?
I explained to you how theft can take place without personal property
(theft from the commons). Do you take exception? Do you deny that such
an act is a kind of theft?
J.
--
-----------------
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
-----------------
[cc] counter-copyright
http://www.openlaw.org
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list