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

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Thu Jun 20 08:13:45 UTC 2002


On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, J Henshaw wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I just try to communicate the problems and fallacies associated with
> these other philosophies.

Your "problems and fallacies", however, are always based on your own
philosophy of property.  A philosophical system is only invalid if it is
internally inconsistent.  It doesn't have to be consistent with YOUR
system in order to to be valid.  You must attack a philosophy on its own
terms in order to say that it is fallacious.

If you simply want to say that a philosophy is INFERIOR, then you lay out
your criteria for a good system and then show how one system meets it
better than another.  However, your criteria seems to always be the same
as the definition of your system.

> This is not new stuff we are discussing. I has already been hashed and
> history is proof of the accuracy of certain things.

I'm going to assume that you're meaning that somehow history proves your
theory of property because it is prevalent?

I think the prevalence of that theory of property only proves that greed
and selfishness are extremely efficient ways to coerce people and entrench
and consolidate power.

> Unless you use new math where every asnswer is correct, that is.

Nobody said every answer is correct.  There's just always more than one
answer.

> > > > 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"

The definition of "robbery" in the regulatory statutes is 6000 pages?  You
should get the version they print in english.  It's much more succinct.

> > > 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.

Do you have a better name for the race that occupied this continent from
the ice age to the European invasion?

I use the capitalized, proper noun "Native American" to describe the race
and the lowercase simple words "native american" to describe a person born
in North or South America.  However, I rarely use the latter at all
because it's so vague.

> 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.

It's not MY philosophy, it's one way of describing the relationship of
humans to land in my interpretation of the prevalent Native American
philosophies.

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

I said that many of your views are outmoded and I said that they were
common in people over 30.  You take things too personally.

> > 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.

There was no concept of ownership because there was no brain complex
enough to conceive it.

> 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?

Neither.  I'm writing that a people that occupy, use, and are willing to
share the use of a land have a greater right to it than people who want to
put up fences and claim exclusive dominion.  One is being honest about his
needs and respecting the needs and desires of others, while the other is
being selfish, greedy, and disrespectful.

> This is what you were taught I suppose, but it doesn't hold up under
> scrutiny.

No, I was taught that a person should take what they can in this world or
else someone might take it from them.

I realized there had to be a better way and discovered several better
ways.

> 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.

What does it prove?  It proves that people have been cowed by the property
owners into fear and disrespect.  They cannot ASK to be invited because
they know the answer is "no" because they are dealing with selfish, greedy
people who do not care about the needs of others.

People do not enter my house uninvited, but people who ask to enter my
house are VERY rarely told that I would prefer they did not enter.  
Compare that to your house (complete with fence and gun).  Would a person
ask to share your shelter and garden?  Do you make it inviting?  Or do you
make it clear that "welcome" is a privilege for the few and asking is a
waste of time?

> > 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,

"Invasion" is accurate, not pejorative.

Again to Webster's:

invade
  1.  To go into; to enter
  2.  To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view of conquest
or plunder
  3.  To crowd into; throng; as, the children invaded the kitchen
  4.  To intrude upon; infringe; as, he invaded my privacy
  5.  To enter and spread through with harmful effects; as, disease
invades tissue

So, the "enter" and "crowd" senses all apply.

Senses 1 and 3 are simply, factually accurate even before value judgment
is made.

Sense 2 is accurate from all sides, if you take the portion that reads,
"to enter with a view of conquest".  You will find that even the Europeans
refered to the invasion of their New World as "conquest".  And certainly
no one will deny that there was plunder.

Sense 5 is the only one that requires a value judgment to apply to this
situation (sense 2 requires a value judgment, too, but, in this case, the
judgment is the same from all terrestrial perspectives).  Were the effects
harmful?  I would argue FIRST that it doesn't matter because the other
three of the four applicable senses of the word are justified.  But I
would argue second that, from several perspectives, the entering and
spreading of Europeans across North America was harmful; to the natives
and to the land itself.

> you are prejudiced.

I have already judged.  That doesn't make me "prejudiced".  I have judged
THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION.  "Prejudice" is when you let your decisions about
one situation or circumstance apply to different sitations or
circumstances.

Prejudice is when you assume the guilt of a person for today's crime
because he committed crime yesterday.

Prejudice is when you are inclined to distrust a Mexican woman you met
this morning because you had been cheated by a Mexican woman you knew as a
child.

Prejudice is NOT when you refer to the person who committed a crime as a
former criminal.

Prejudice is NOT when you make comments about the monopolistic practices
of a software company after you were the official Finder of Fact in an
antitrust suit against that company and found them to be anti-competitive
and monopolistic according to the law.

Yet you call my statements here prejudiced and Judge Jackson had his
sentence remanded.

I think it's clear that our attempts to teach each other about the dangers
of prejudicial action and thought were not universally or completely
understood.

> > 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.

That's not a misdirection.  It's a direct reply to the argument (or at
leas the sub-quarrel that you started within the greater argument).

You took exception to the use of the word theft and asserted that theft
cannot take place if the property said to be stolen did not have an
owernship claim attached.

You have now rescinded that assertion, so I think I can safely claim
victory in that little argument.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list