[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

J Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Wed Jun 19 10:13:11 UTC 2002


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeme A Brelin" <jeme at brelin.net>
To: "PLUG off-topic discussion" <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)


>
> 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.

Lame statement,  really,  Jeme, come on.
I just try to communicate the problems and fallacies associated with these
other philosophies.
This is not new stuff we are discussing. I has already been hashed and
history is proof of the accuracy of certain things.

Unless you use new math where every asnswer is correct,  that is.
That only works for so long,  then you still pay the piper, for you reap
what you sow.

>
> > > 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."

"Officer: Not the way I read it. It's 6000 pages and full of wiggle room"

>
> 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?

Many have tried to tell me nativity is a race.
Etymology of the word nativity proves them wrong.

>
> > > 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.

In other words,  do you claim ownership of your daily bread?
Is it man-made or God-given?

"It is not a thing man made and therefore it is not a thing over which
humankind can claim dominion."  is your philosophy.
Substantiate it.

>
> 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.

Funny that,  because you once told me I was "outmoded" because I am over 30
yrs of age.

>
> > > 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.

Of course you don't see,  it's the new math.  And I don't think that you
could substantiate a claim that there was no concept of ownership before the
tectonic plates we all sat on moved around a little.
So are you saying ownership of territories is determined by happenstance,
whomever sat on plate 3 after it all split nows has eternal rights to
inhabit the dirt there,  have more right than other ment to eat food?
As long as they are brown-skinned?
This is what you were taught I suppose,  but it doesn't hold up under
scrutiny.
Consider the "I'm coming over to you house and crawling over your fence
uninvited" argument I keep repeating that no one will touch because it
proves you all wrong.


>
> > > 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?
>

The words like invasion are perjorative,  you are prejudiced.

> 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?
>

Not at all,  but a misdirection from the actual argument is not a proof of
anything,  once again,
So please focus.

It's like when I said to you "And the converse of theory is not fact is fact
is not theory"  re economics.

You stated the former,  as if it added anything but misdirection, me the
latter - to point out your folly.

jH







More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list