The Use Of Land Is A Natural Right

[Stars]

We have given ourselves the right to own land in the same way that we have given ourselves the right to free speech, to vote, to freedom from discrimination etc etc.

We can similarly give ourselves the right to molest children or gas jewish people; what you are presenting again is a moraly vacuous description of what some people did

O

[Injin]

But, hilariously, In this you do agree with me.....and everyone else in the thread you have made this point to

Thenyou've missed the point (which is my fault) and why my point is different to your point.

Land is important because it is the only remaining pillar of coercion which is camouflaged effectivly as property - a camouflage that is more or less accepted at face value by most and confuses the hell out of nearly all issues

land isn't important because it's a subset of a larger problem, it also doesn't exist.

There is no land, there never has been and there never will be. Get that and you see all discussion about it as irrelevent, except to state clearly that it's non existent to start with.

[Injin]

Society has given me the right not to be murdered.

Who, what, where, when?

Specific please.

Most people choose not to violate that right. If someone chooses to violate that right, society is currently set up to punish them.

How can society be arranged so that absolutely no-one will choose to violate any of the rights that society has granted us in the absence of punishment?

Not got the slightest clue what any of thsi refers to.

Try again, but with more definition and some facts?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Injin

[LuckyOne]

We can similarly give ourselves the right to molest children or gas jewish people; what you are presenting again is a moraly vacuous description of what some people did

All of the rights that we have given ourselves exist in the context of media, religion, crowd psychology, service organizations, convention, accumulated wisdom, politics, fear, greed etc etc.

There is no benevolent force that defines what is right and what is wrong and laughs at us little humans when we try to muddle our way through life.

Societies end up doing the things that you or I might agree is morally supportable in most cases. There are exceptions which, with hindsight and the victor's right to write history, might be because either you, I or society are "wrong".

[LuckyOne]

Who, what, where, when?

Specific please.

Not got the slightest clue what any of thsi refers to.

Try again, but with more definition and some facts?

Do you have the right to come to my house this evening and chop off my head with an axe?

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

We can similarly give ourselves the right to molest children or gas jewish people; what you are presenting again is a moraly vacuous description of what some people did

O

Governments are at the heart of the madness

link

The U.S. imperial policy, in effect since 9/11, has created Kurtz’s across the globe. Absolute power leads to acts of madness because there are no social mores to restrict the behavior of normally law abiding citizens. There is potential madness within everyone. In the wrong circumstances human fallibility can lead to unthinkable atrocities. The German people were cultured, educated and law abiding as the 1930s dawned. By 1945, they had started a World War leading to 65 million deaths and systematically exterminated 6 million Jews. Absolute power led to madness on the part of an entire population. Examples of absolute power leading to the mistreatment, torture, and murder of local inhabitants by Americans in the last nine years are numerous. American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq committed unspeakable acts against Iraqi prisoners. The photos are despicable and inhuman. The U.S. Military had absolute power over prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. In the name of protecting America, these soldiers have been given free rein to water-board, commit other acts of torture and brutality, and even murder all in the name of democracy. Our CIA has been given complete authority to use predator drone missiles against anyone they suspect is a terrorist in Afghanistan. If a few women and children are killed, they are just “sand niggers”, so no major concern. That is pure madness. We’ve unleashed Kurtz’s all across the Middle East.

The Absurdity of Evil

"When the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys." – George Orwell – Shooting an Elephant

[Game_Over]

Yes, there is.

Discussion, preferably using facts and evidence.

Agree?

Based on previous experience, I don't believe a discussion would get us anywhere

The only real way to resolve our differences would be a fight to the death

And the one who won would be 'right'

Which rather nicely proves my point I think.

[Injin]

All of the rights that we have given ourselves exist in the context of media, religion, crowd psychology, service organizations, convention, accumulated wisdom, politics, fear, greed etc etc.

There is no benevolent force that defines what is right and what is wrong and laughs at us little humans when we try to muddle our way through life.

Societies end up doing the things that you or I might agree is morally supportable in most cases. There are exceptions which, with hindsight and the victor's right to write history, might be because either you, I or society are "wrong".

Like many peopel I think you've got it all backwards.

"Rights" in the sense they were originally described where akin to abilities and those abilities could only be impeded.

So to take a simple example - you have the right to free speech - that is you always and forever have the right to say whwtever you want, you just do and nothing can remove that ability you have. To have a right (in the political sense) extends from that truth to mean that when you do exercise your abilities that you are not attacked for doing so. Again, this cannot be granted by anyone it's a default state of things, it's an absence of coercion.

To get more on topic, everyone, always and everywhere has the ability to wander around the earth - and that ability (right) can only be prevented. Where that is prevented is where you have a political right to do it but the things you are able to do are never, ever granted to you, they can only be taken away and they can pnly be taken away by force or threats in order to persuade you to not do them.

[Injin]

Based on previous experience, I don't believe a discussion would get us anywhere

The only real way to resolve our differences would be a fight to the death

And the one who won would be 'right'

Which rather nicely proves my point I think.

You do realise that any response to my post that isn't actually beating me to death proves me right, right?

[Stars]

All of the rights that we have given ourselves exist in the context of media, religion, crowd psychology, service organizations, convention, accumulated wisdom, politics, fear, greed etc etc.

Err yes..and?

Truly..so what?

There is no benevolent force that defines what is right and what is wrong and laughs at us little humans when we try to muddle our way through life.

You know you are talking cobblers - but why can't you stop?

Societies end up doing the things that you or I might agree is morally supportable in most cases. There are exceptions which, with hindsight and the victor's right to write history, might be because either you, I or society are "wrong".

My appologies, i thought you were in the discusion because you had an opinion.

[Game_Over]

Do you have the right to come to my house this evening and chop off my head with an axe?

If you have no means of preventing him then he clearly has the 'right' to do this

'Rights' are a human construct designed to try and create order in what is essentially an entirely random and chaotic universe

IMHO

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Like many peopel I think you've got it all backwards.

"Rights" in the sense they were originally described where akin to abilities and those abilities could only be impeded.

maybe more just need to say no

link

Few, if any, have penetrated to the heart of the evil pretense of "representative government" more incisively than Chief Joseph during the U.S. Government's campaign to expropriate the heroic Nez Perce Indians.

Like many other Indian communities, the Nez Perce had no central governing authority. This complicated matters when Washington sought out an individual leader, or ruling oligarchy, whom it could seduce or intimidate into "consenting" to the theft of Nez Perce lands.

Washington solved that problem by creating a central government and appointing a Quisling "leader" -- named, quite suitably, Lawyer -- who promptly signed over the Wallowa Valley in the name of the entire tribe. (This would become a model for the dispossession of Indians across the continent, and it continues today wherever hapless people enjoy the blessings of U.S.-imposed "liberation"; think of the U.S.-created puppet "governments" in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

In 1877, General Oliver O. Howard summoned Joseph and other Nez Perce chiefs to a meeting at which it was announced that they would be evicted from lands they had not sold. Neither Joseph nor his compatriots had consented to the 1863 treaty signed by Lawyer. Howard had repeatedly acknowledged that there was no legal or moral justification for the seizure of the Wallowa Valley and the confinement of the Nez Perce to a reservation. Yet when required to do so Howard was willing to carry out his orders to "occupy the Wallowa Valley in the interest of peace."

Displaying a patience transcending that of most Christian saints, Joseph made one final appeal to Howard's conscience in the form of a property rights parable every bit as lucid and cogent as anything given birth by Frederic Bastiat's capable pen.

"Suppose a white man should come to me and say, `Joseph, I like your horses. I want to buy them,'" Joseph stated. "I say to him, `No, my horses suit me; I will not sell them.' Then he goes to my neighbor and says, `Pay me money, and I will sell you Joseph’s horses.' The white man returns to me and says, `Joseph, I have bought your horses and you must let me have them.'"

"If we sold our lands to the government," Joseph concluded, "this is the way they bought them."

This mattered not at all to Howard, who -- despite his oft-repeated claim to be a Christian believer -- was content to act as an instrument of official corruption.

[Game_Over]

You do realise that any response to my post that isn't actually beating me to death proves me right, right?

Unless we have a fight to the death we are both equally right or equally wrong depending on our respective viewpoints.

Which brings us back to EInsteins theory of relativity, which is where our last discussion ended.

[Injin]

Unless we have a fight to the death we are both equally right or equally wrong depending on our respective viewpoints.

Which brings us back to EInsteins theory of relativity, which is where our last discussion ended.

No, your posting a rational response to me (or any case at all, in fact) proves that we can solve a dispute without force.

Which is all I said.

[Injin]

Do you have the right to come to my house this evening and chop off my head with an axe?

Nope.

Can you guess why?

[Stars]

Unless we have a fight to the death we are both equally right or equally wrong depending on our respective viewpoints.

Not neccesarly true. One view could be correct and the other incorrect

Don't let the modern fashion for relativism turn your mind to mush

[LuckyOne]

Like many peopel I think you've got it all backwards.

"Rights" in the sense they were originally described where akin to abilities and those abilities could only be impeded.

So to take a simple example - you have the right to free speech - that is you always and forever have the right to say whwtever you want, you just do and nothing can remove that ability you have. To have a right (in the political sense) extends from that truth to mean that when you do exercise your abilities that you are not attacked for doing so. Again, this cannot be granted by anyone it's a default state of things, it's an absence of coercion.

To get more on topic, everyone, always and everywhere has the ability to wander around the earth - and that ability (right) can only be prevented. Where that is prevented is where you have a political right to do it but the things you are able to do are never, ever granted to you, they can only be taken away and they can pnly be taken away by force or threats in order to persuade you to not do them.

The fog has lifted a little bit ......

I do agree that we have replaced some abilities with rights that require force to uphold.

I do not agree that all of the abilities that we have had in the past that we have lost today because of the imposition of rights were worth keeping.

In the specific instance of the right to roam, I think that the creation of property rights is of more value to society than the loss of access to land that people have suffered. On a proportional basis, I do not think that the loss of access is that material.

In the end, this is just a personal opinion and I doubt that we will be able to change each other's mind.

[LuckyOne]

Nope.

Can you guess why?

I can't .....

[Game_Over]

No, your posting a rational response to me (or any case at all, in fact) proves that we can solve a dispute without force.

Which is all I said.

No, we cannot resolve a dispute - we can only agree to disagree

And this approach can only work if the dispute involves abstract concepts.

If we both had a child and one had to be shot how would we decide which of our children got the bullet in the head?

This is the problem - most human disputes involve competition for resources which ultimately is a matter of life or death for those concerned and as a result these disputes can only be resolved by the threat or use of violence.

[Injin]

I can't .....

Because to be "right" it has to be a property that we all inherently possess.

You can't have a right to chop someone elses head off due to the fact that to be a right, you would also need to chop off your own.

Not to say you can't swing that axe, but you can't claim it as a right without suicide.

[Injin]

No, we cannot resolve a dispute - we can only agree to disagree

And this approach can only work if the dispute involves abstract concepts.

If we both had a child and one had to be shot how would we decide which of our children got the bullet in the head?

This is the problem - most human disputes involve competition for resources which ultimately is a matter of life or death for those concerned and as a result these disputes can only be resolved by the threat or use of violence.

Again, you are atempting to resolve our disupte using words while saying it's impossible to do so.

Do you bump into furniture a lot, by any chance?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Injin

[Game_Over]

Nope.

Can you guess why?

Because you don't know where he lives - obviously

[Injin]

The fog has lifted a little bit ......

I do agree that we have replaced some abilities with rights that require force to uphold.

I do not agree that all of the abilities that we have had in the past that we have lost today because of the imposition of rights were worth keeping.

In the specific instance of the right to roam, I think that the creation of property rights is of more value to society than the loss of access to land that people have suffered. On a proportional basis, I do not think that the loss of access is that material.

In the end, this is just a personal opinion and I doubt that we will be able to change each other's mind.

I'll just have one more go at clarification - a political rights system is one of constraints.

It's not like you are completely incapable of doing anything until you are allowed to, you are capable of much that you are no longer allowed.

btw, "society" Who is that, where do they live?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Injin

[Stars]

.

In the specific instance of the right to roam, I think that the creation of property rights is of more value to society than the loss of access to land that people have suffered. On a proportional basis, I do not think that the loss of access is that material.

Actually, it is easily shown that you are wrong - the loss of access is material, we can measure how important it is by looking at the price tyhat must be paid to get parts of it back

Injin -

The man thinks he is defending property, but is cornered into using stalinistic 'the individual is sacrified for the greater good' type argumentation.

[Injin]

Actually, it is easily shown that you are wrong - the loss of access is material, we can measure how important it is by looking at the price tyhat must be paid to get parts of it back

Injin -

The man thinks he is defending property, but is cornered into using stalinistic 'the individual is sacrified for the greater good' type argumentation.

He's defending his childhood and the concepts he still retains from it.