Any sane non-Libertarians out there?
Dennis White
individual takes up much more space, and far more division at SRQ than many
of us desire. However, I think it's fair enough to debate the rights of the
individual in the context of Quakerism. The problem, I see, however is that
those rights most often get argued at SRQ on an economic or politically
partisan level.
Is it possible to discuss the subject in a Quaker context? I believe
so. Is it possible to discuss the subject respectfully? I'm not sure.
However, I *do* believe that not all of us who are suspicious of
Libertarianism, or reject it outright are kooks or ignoramuses or communist
heathens. Some, like myself, were at one time very attracted to Libertarian
ideals, and may still be to some of them. The truth is many of us have
thought through Libertarianism and disagreement with a very well-meaning
philosophy.
In an earlier post I mentioned an essay I had come across that somewhat
reflected my own genesis of belief in Libertarianism. I don't believe I
provided a link, so I wish to reprint it now. This is not meant to be
Libertarian-bashing. I hope it proves enlightening to those on either side
of the issue.
Why I am NOT a Libertarian
by Rev. Jimi Freidenker
I admit to a rather warped perspective in general, and I attribute much
of it to my exposure at a very early age (pre-puberty) to the works of
Robert A. Heinlein. His fantastic worlds of extremely rugged individualists
appealed emphatically to my burgeoning male ego. It took me many years to
realize that his characters were cut from whole cloth and that he was
basically telling the same story over and over. It took me even longer to
realize that his implicit political philosophy (TANSTAAFL!) was far too
simplistic to be achievable. By high school, I had been seduced by Ayn Rand,
and I entered college as a militant libertarian/objectivist. I fought hard
to promote my philosophy amidst the swarming "statists" on campus, writing
editorials for the student newspaper and hosting the LP presidential
candidate. But eventually I saw that "they" were right about some things,
and that the libertarians were mostly all wet.
I have come to believe that the middle path is generally the wiser.
Rigid attachment to beliefs leads to unnecessary conflict. I have found that
in associating with libertarians and reading their literature (Reason,
Liberty, The Freeman, etc.) that there is almost no appreciation for
moderation in the libertarian movement. I find extremists frightening,
especially when they staunchly support the "right to bear arms" without
compromise.
The ideal of laissez-faire is very seductive, especially to ambitious
entepreneurs, but it ignores the plain fact that private institutions like
corporations can be just as tyrannical as governments. Moreover, our
government in the U.S. is, at least in principle, constrained by the
constitution and the voters. Corporations in the absence of government
regulation would be unbounded authoritarian structures. They are already, in
my humble opinion, far more oppressive to our citizens than any government
entity. The rank and file of our citizenry are constrained to participate in
an economy that is essentially shaped by corporate interests that are
consolidating their power in fewer and fewer hands. Without the hand of
government to limit private power, we end up with effective slavery:
sweat-shops, company towns, no collective bargaining, and a life with few
choices for most.
The libertarians like to say that taxation is theft, but they gloss
over the simple truth that property is theft. All private property is
necessarily grounded in the "initiation of force," the great libertarian
anathema. If you own land, you have received stolen property. I prefer to
think of myself as a steward of land, not its owner, and as such there are
reasonable restrictions on how I may use it. In a more enlightened world, we
would all understand that the earth belongs to no one, and that its
abundance is available for all. Until that happens, we need government to
keep the bastards from hoarding it all.
I will repeat the most striking phrase of this essay. It is an idea I have
never been able to reconcile:
"The libertarians like to say that taxation is theft, but they gloss
over the simple truth that property is theft. All private property is
necessarily grounded in the "initiation of force," the great libertarian
anathema. If you own land, you have received stolen property".
Something to ponder. No nastiness allowed!
Dennis
Jay Vogelsong
> I will repeat the most striking phrase of this essay. It is an idea I have
> never been able to reconcile:
> "The libertarians like to say that taxation is theft, but they gloss
> over the simple truth that property is theft. All private property is
> necessarily grounded in the "initiation of force," the great libertarian
> anathema. If you own land, you have received stolen property".
Am I, then, responsible for crimes committed by people I never knew,
and never had direct dealings with? At what point does property, which
may once have been stolen, become property which is no longer stolen (I
am asking for a legal point of view, if anyone knows)?
It is my opinion that the property I now own has not been stolen property
for generations, and was perhaps never stolen, since I live in Delaware
County, Pennsylvania, which I understood was purchased from the resident
Indians.
Plus, the statement does not take into account that property can be
improved, that wealth is largely enhansed or created. A swamp is by no
means of the same value as a farm with a house and barn or a sub-
development. If the greater value of what I own was created after the
"theft," then it follows that the whole property can't be considered
stolen either.
Duncan
<jXcl9.474642$_91.6...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, excerpted below, on
Sat, 28 Sep 2002 07:33:35 +0000:
> I know that the subject of Libertarianism and the rights of the
> individual takes up much more space, and far more division at SRQ than
> many of us desire. However, I think it's fair enough to debate the
> rights of the individual in the context of Quakerism. []
> Is it possible to discuss the subject in a Quaker context? I
> believe
> so. Is it possible to discuss the subject respectfully? I'm not sure.[]
>
> Why I am NOT a Libertarian
> by Rev. Jimi Freidenker
>
> I admit to a rather warped perspective in general, and I attribute much
> of it to my exposure at a very early age (pre-puberty) to the works of
> Robert A. Heinlein. []
> I have come to believe that the middle path is generally the wiser.
> Rigid attachment to beliefs leads to unnecessary conflict. I have found
> that in associating with libertarians and reading their literature
> (Reason, Liberty, The Freeman, etc.) that there is almost no appreciation
> for moderation in the libertarian movement. I find extremists frightening
> []
> The ideal of laissez-faire is very seductive, especially to
> ambitious
> entepreneurs, but it ignores the plain fact that private institutions
> like corporations can be just as tyrannical as governments. Moreover, our
> government in the U.S. is, at least in principle, constrained by the
> constitution and the voters. []
> The libertarians like to say that taxation is theft, but they gloss
> over the simple truth that property is theft. All private property is
> necessarily grounded in the "initiation of force," the great libertarian
> anathema.[]
>
>
> I will repeat the most striking phrase of this essay. It is an idea I
> have never been able to reconcile:
> "The libertarians like to say that taxation is theft, but they gloss
> over the simple truth that property is theft. All private property is
> necessarily grounded in the "initiation of force," the great libertarian
> anathema. If you own land, you have received stolen property".
>
> Something to ponder. No nastiness allowed! Dennis
Interesting piece. I must admit I don't know as much about Libertarianism
as I'd like. Some of what I have read/heard I like, but not all of it. I
guess at this point, I consider myself as much Libertarian (as what I have
read and heard) as Republican or Democrat. I recently re-registered to
vote, after moving a couple years ago and never reregistering. When I did
so, I hesitated on the party line, and almost put Libertarian, but then
decided I couldn't do that as I really didn't know enough about it to be
willing to identify myself with it, even as tenuously as a party
affiliation is, when one votes widely across the ballot, not a party line
vote.
I've some questions, naturally, but don't know that bringing them up here
would be necessarily appropriate, given this is .quaker, not .libertarian.
However, the extremism comment rings true for me, in the general
theoretical realm, anyway (as does the government/corporate
comparison/balance). I simply don't know enough to make a fair judgement
as to whether it applies to the Libertarians, in theory or in practice,
however. Anyway, there was mention of a some literature. I suppose I
could go googlizing, but if someone has a few links on the topic (both
Libertarian in viewpoint, and opposed, as this), I'd certainly be
interested. For that matter, although I'll eventually pick it up here, a
few links to Quakerism related pages (again, both sides would be fair)
would be useful as well.
--
Duncan - If posted to usenet, usenet replies get priority.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin
Dennis White
"Jay Vogelsong" <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.17ff5e3b8...@cnews.newsguy.com...
I think you miss the basic point here that real property is a human
construct.
Dennis
Dennis White
"Duncan" <unli...@cox.replytogroup.net.please> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.09.28....@cox.replytogroup.net.please...
> Interesting piece. I must admit I don't know as much about Libertarianism
> as I'd like. Some of what I have read/heard I like, but not all of it. I
> guess at this point, I consider myself as much Libertarian (as what I have
> read and heard) as Republican or Democrat. I recently re-registered to
> vote, after moving a couple years ago and never reregistering. When I did
> so, I hesitated on the party line, and almost put Libertarian, but then
> decided I couldn't do that as I really didn't know enough about it to be
> willing to identify myself with it, even as tenuously as a party
> affiliation is, when one votes widely across the ballot, not a party line
> vote.
may be asked to ID party affiliation? I refuse to give that information.
>
> I've some questions, naturally, but don't know that bringing them up here
> would be necessarily appropriate, given this is .quaker, not .libertarian.
> However, the extremism comment rings true for me, in the general
> theoretical realm, anyway (as does the government/corporate
> comparison/balance). I simply don't know enough to make a fair judgement
> as to whether it applies to the Libertarians, in theory or in practice,
> however. Anyway, there was mention of a some literature. I suppose I
> could go googlizing, but if someone has a few links on the topic (both
> Libertarian in viewpoint, and opposed, as this), I'd certainly be
> interested. For that matter, although I'll eventually pick it up here, a
> few links to Quakerism related pages (again, both sides would be fair)
> would be useful as well.
Well, the Libertarian viewpoint is believed to be the best one by some
Quakers, so I believe it does in fact bear some discussion at SRQ. However,
most of that discussion tends to be politiacl rather than spiritual in
nature. I myself would prefer to broaden that political stance and look at
how we should structure our lives and our society in a way that holds true
to very basic Quaker ethics.
I think the best place to start looking into RSOF is at www.quaker.org .
I'm not sure where to direct you for arguments on why Quakerism is bad. ;-)
Dennis
Duncan
<pan.2002.09.28....@cox.replytogroup.net.please>, excerpted
below, on Sat, 28 Sep 2002 07:44:11 +0000:
> Anyway, there was mention of a some literature. I suppose I
> could go googlizing, but if someone has a few links on the topic (both
> Libertarian in viewpoint, and opposed, as this), I'd certainly be
> interested. For that matter, although I'll eventually pick it up here, a
> few links to Quakerism related pages (again, both sides would be fair)
> would be useful as well.
Now that I read the rest of the messages in the group since I visited last,
I see several references to both subjects above, listing URLs (although I
don't think I saw an ANTI-Quaker one listed <g>). Still, might be nice to
have them in one place rather than scattered, so I could mark all those
other messages as read, and keep just this one, until I have time to
investigate. But, either way will do. I see them posted, now, at least.
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
"Jay Vogelsong" <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> Am I, then, responsible for crimes committed by people I never knew,
> and never had direct dealings with?
If a thief trips and breaks his or her leg while trying to rob you, you are
subject to civil lawsuit by them and might just lose. By modern tort law,
you might just be responsible for safety - and it is only a small step to
being held accountable for their activities.
Certainly many people under the "progressive" label would lay abstract blame
on an abstract concept for it ('We blame _society_ for the _criminal
element_').
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
vIjl9.434557$kp.12...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net, "Dennis White"
<denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
> I think you miss the basic point here that real property is a human
> construct.
Not just human -- animals stake out territory and defend it as well. I
think the drive to own property is a deep instinctual one, not easily
defeated. Modern property law tends to codify it to prevent violence in my
opinion.
Scott Haney
news:B9BB1B7B.1131C%N...@SPAM.AT.ALL:
> If a thief trips and breaks his or her leg while trying to rob you, you
> are subject to civil lawsuit by them and might just lose.
Will probably lose, actually. This is why every theatre with an orchestra
pit has a "ghost light" so that burglars will not fall in and harm
themselves.
Seriously.
--
Te precor dulcissime supplex!
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
news:B9BB1CB0.1131D%N...@SPAM.AT.ALL...
Animals do not buy, sell and deed property to others.
Dennis
Dennis White
<vpol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gbkbpuk7c0lp8s454...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:31:58 GMT, "Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Well, the Libertarian viewpoint is believed to be the best one by
some
> >Quakers, so I believe it does in fact bear some discussion at SRQ.
>
> "rules", dogma, and hierarchy are in many ways a natural fit for
> spiritually oriented libertarians.
I agree with your statement. Do you see the irony in Friends rejecting the
dogma of heirarchy to embrace the dogma that is Libertarianism?
>
> >However,
> >most of that discussion tends to be politiacl rather than spiritual in
> >nature. I myself would prefer to broaden that political stance and look
at
> >how we should structure our lives and our society in a way that holds
true
> >to very basic Quaker ethics.
>
> Let it rip. I'd love to see it.
>
>
> _______
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
> we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
> unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
> public."
> -President Teddy Roosevelt
Dennis White
<vpol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v5mbpuos23hfl8n80...@4ax.com...
> But human nature I gotta agree with you is mostly highly territorial.
> It was a successful evolutionary adaptation to get those genes passed
> on. Find a good food source/location and defend it from others.
It's probably not worth the time arguing, but I largely disagree with this
statement. The concept of *real property* is a very modern one. Until the
arrival of Europeans, North America, Australia, Africa and most of South
America the concept of property ownership that we recognize was unknown.
The critical and longest period of human and social evolution was marked by
hunter/gathering. It was agricultural viability and availability of meat
that ruled where 'man chose to gather, but land was held *in common* and
groups were mostly nomadic. I think it can be argued that Real property
derives from the supposed divine rights of kings to confer ownership on
others of land. It has evolved from there. Many basic Realtor liscencing
program start with an outline of the concept of property which all hinges on
one very odd and hard to reconcile precept. That someone, somewhere at some
time looked out at what he/she saw, and said "this land will now belong to
me, and I can do with it whatever I wish".
Dennis
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
_Fkl9.480183$_91.7...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net, "Dennis White"
<denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> <vpol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gbkbpuk7c0lp8s454...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:31:58 GMT, "Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, the Libertarian viewpoint is believed to be the best one by
> some
>>> Quakers, so I believe it does in fact bear some discussion at SRQ.
>>
>> On one level it makes sense. Quakerism's general opposition to
>> "rules", dogma, and hierarchy are in many ways a natural fit for
>> spiritually oriented libertarians.
>
> I agree with your statement. Do you see the irony in Friends rejecting the
> dogma of heirarchy to embrace the dogma that is Libertarianism?
Quakers have no official dogma, but many are quite dogmatic -- the "marks"
of Quakerism are well known. Do any non-pacifist conservatives become full
members of meetings very often?
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
Yes, but they defend territory, occasionally lose it to other animals and
are forced to move on. If there is nowhere else to go - I suppose they
could perish. I have been observing our neighborhood cats in this for
years.
They use violence and the threat of violence as their courts and deeds. The
toughest, meanest and wiliest tend to do better.
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
Xns929771D1E66E6...@204.127.202.16, "Scott Haney"
<heloderma@mc[].com[hsi_in_gap]> wrote:
Perhaps we can get OSHA in on burglars to make sure they follow proper labor
laws.
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
"vpol...@hotmail.com" <vpol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:40:22 GMT, Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
> <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote:
>
>> On 9/28/02 3:36 AM, in article MPG.17ff5e3b8...@cnews.newsguy.com,
>> "Jay Vogelsong" <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Am I, then, responsible for crimes committed by people I never knew,
>>> and never had direct dealings with?
>>
>> If a thief trips and breaks his or her leg while trying to rob you, you are
>> subject to civil lawsuit by them and might just lose. By modern tort law,
>> you might just be responsible for safety - and it is only a small step to
>> being held accountable for their activities.
>
> A more direct analogy might be one who has received stolen art work.
> we frequently read about stolen pieces being tracked down and their
> return to the victim (or his/her heirs) required. Law often insists
> on tracking the chain of theft and compensating the victim. (Skating
> dangerously close to opening the reparations debate.)
And there has been a statute of limitations on this - mostly because art
titles got rather confused because of the Nazis in WW2 confiscation of
artworks of Jewish folks and invaded countries.
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
"vpol...@hotmail.com" <vpol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:31:58 GMT, "Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Question: From what right does it derive and of what value is it that one
>> may be asked to ID party affiliation? I refuse to give that information.
>
> Depends on how the state party system is set up. In many states only
> party members get to vote in the primary. And you get a different
> ballot depending on what party you claim when you come in.
California is that way. I am Indapendent, so my ballot is slightly
different from the Democrat who I live amongst. I *think* there are a
couple of Republicans and moe than one Libertarian.
My big question is why Libertarian candidates have the charisma of an
accountant stereotype?
> Some states view primaries as open to everyone with the idea that the
> two most favorite candidates should run against each other. Others
> view parties as quasi-private associations that select their own
> candidates and launch them into to the fray.
It is a tough problem, that.
> Out west we've had a court decision some time back (9th Cir?) that
> banned open primaries, on the notion that parties select their own
> candidates.
In CA, there is a compromose there.
Gary Smith
"Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:jXcl9.474642$_91.6...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> I know that the subject of Libertarianism and the rights of the
> individual takes up much more space, and far more division at SRQ than
many
> of us desire. However, I think it's fair enough to debate the rights of
the
> individual in the context of Quakerism. The problem, I see, however is
that
> those rights most often get argued at SRQ on an economic or politically
> partisan level.
There is much about libertarianism that I find attractive. I feel that many
people have developed a psychological dependence on government to solve
problems that they can solve for themselves.
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
No. I must protest. This is an analogy, and it hardly suits it's intention.
I may as well say 'dogs use butt-sniffing as their courts and deeds".
Dennis
>
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
news:B9BB31AA.113F8%N...@SPAM.AT.ALL...
Statutes of limitations are also human constructs that side-step the issue
that real property is a fiction.
Dennis
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> On 9/28/02 8:21 AM, in article
> _Fkl9.480183$_91.7...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net, "Dennis White"
> <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > <vpol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:gbkbpuk7c0lp8s454...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:31:58 GMT, "Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, the Libertarian viewpoint is believed to be the best one by
> > some
> >>> Quakers, so I believe it does in fact bear some discussion at SRQ.
> >>
> >> On one level it makes sense. Quakerism's general opposition to
> >> "rules", dogma, and hierarchy are in many ways a natural fit for
> >> spiritually oriented libertarians.
> >
> > I agree with your statement. Do you see the irony in Friends rejecting
the
> > dogma of heirarchy to embrace the dogma that is Libertarianism?
>
> Quakers have no official dogma, but many are quite dogmatic -- the "marks"
> of Quakerism are well known. Do any non-pacifist conservatives become
full
> members of meetings very often?
They certainly do becaome members! It may be a matter of which branch of
the three umbrella RSOF groups they are attracted to.
Dennis White
"Gary Smith" <smit...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:cJll9.72723$jG2.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Of course *those people* are always someone besides ourselves! ;-)
Dennis
>
>
>
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
Wow -- which ones? I am aware of the Beanites (local group), FGC, FUM and
EFI? Would the EFI tend to get the ones leaning towards Republicans?
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
Unfortunately when we abolish private property, we can expect people to
become more materialist - so we are in a human contradiction, eh?
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>> Animals do not buy, sell and deed property to others.
>>
>> Yes, but they defend territory, occasionally lose it to other animals and
>> are forced to move on. If there is nowhere else to go - I suppose they
>> could perish. I have been observing our neighborhood cats in this for
>> years.
>>
>> They use violence and the threat of violence as their courts and deeds.
> The
>> toughest, meanest and wiliest tend to do better.
> \
>
> No. I must protest. This is an analogy, and it hardly suits it's intention.
> I may as well say 'dogs use butt-sniffing as their courts and deeds".
> Dennis
The whole thing is silly then -- comparing animals to people. If your
intention was to say that animals do not have private property. And you
have previously stated that property as a concept is based upon violence,
then you have left me thinking that we do see animals with territory and a
rather anarchistic way of dividing it up - violence and threat of violence.
Meaning since animals do not seem to have the capacity to have a complex
legal system like we have - so they rely upon a "natural" system - violence.
They do not become communal much above where people become communal -- the
family. But even these families have territory.
I guess I didn't understand what you were trying to point out, then?
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> On 9/28/02 11:00 AM, in article e%ml9.40621$wH.4365@sccrnsc01, "Dennis
> The whole thing is silly then -- comparing animals to people. If your
> intention was to say that animals do not have private property.
I don't believe I said anything about animals other than humans.
And you
> have previously stated that property as a concept is based upon violence,
> then you have left me thinking that we do see animals with territory and a
> rather anarchistic way of dividing it up - violence and threat of
violence.
I think you may be mixing up my words with someone else's. I don't think
that I stated property was based on violence. I only remember writing that
'real property was a human construct'.
>
> Meaning since animals do not seem to have the capacity to have a complex
> legal system like we have - so they rely upon a "natural" system -
violence.
> They do not become communal much above where people become communal -- the
> family. But even these families have territory.
Again, I think you are putting words into my mouth. I have never spoken to
a "natural system" I will point our there that some *animals* have highly
evolved social orders...some less so. Many animals rely on no social order
whatsoever.
>
> I guess I didn't understand what you were trying to point out, then?
I guess not. I think it would be better at this point if you went back and
found where the crossed-wires gave you the impression I said so many things
I don't recall saying. If you do find that I said them, I will have to
accept that I was off my rocker when I wqrote them...but i think you may
havce conflated them with others. As I recall it, my main point in this
thread was that real property was a construct devised by 'man. Nothing more
or less.
Dennis
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> >
> > Statutes of limitations are also human constructs that side-step the
issue
> > that real property is a fiction.
>
> Unfortunately when we abolish private property, we can expect people to
> become more materialist - so we are in a human contradiction, eh?
I'm not sure how you can make this claim since the abolition of private
property has never effectively been applied universally. Never mind the bad
old Soviet system, where it was impossible communize everything down to
shared underwear, etc. I have no idea if your point is valid or not....it's
the lack of evidence on which to base this argument that bothers me, I
guess.
Dennis
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
snip...
> >> Quakers have no official dogma, but many are quite dogmatic -- the
"marks"
> >> of Quakerism are well known. Do any non-pacifist conservatives become
> > full
> >> members of meetings very often?
> >
> > They certainly do becaome members! It may be a matter of which branch
of
> > the three umbrella RSOF groups they are attracted to.
>
> Wow -- which ones? I am aware of the Beanites (local group), FGC, FUM and
> EFI? Would the EFI tend to get the ones leaning towards Republicans?
I don't think it would be fair to instill partisan politics into the
argument. I hope that Quakers choose membership in one of the the three
RSOF organizations based on spiritual ethics rather than party affiliation!
Dennis
>
Steven Botts
If you own land, you have received stolen property".
>
>
> Something to ponder. No nastiness allowed!
> Dennis
To follow this thought a bit further, I would have to ask who is the
original owner of this stolen land. the obvious answer is that in this
country it was stolen from the Native Americans. But then, they stole it
from other Native Americans who stole it from..... Well, you get the idea.
They, however, at least took it for the benefit of the whole tribe, not to
be exploited by individuals.
The absurdity of the Libertarian notion of land ownership is the belief
that something that existed since the beginning of the earth and will
continue to exist until the planet falls into the sun can be rightly held
and used or abused by any mortal individual just because that individual
feels empowered to exercise ownership.
We are all here just for a little while, but the Earth abides - for better
or worse.
Steve
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
<denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
I have heard more than one exhortation for some political protest or other
at the meeting I attend occasionally - uniformly left-leaning so far. And
reminiscent of the protest culture in the early 1970's. Unabashedly. While
I think it is fine to do so -- most churches advocate political stances in
their members, it *is* present.
And I also believe that the original activist culture was supported by early
Quakers and continued to the present. So, politics has always been *very*
important to Quakers, probably more so than many other denomenations.
Quakers try to discern what God want's first, but I am not convinced always
this is the case.
Also, while very tolerant, when a conservative person comes to meeting and
talks that way, I notice some folks wincing at they are listening. Not
rejection, but embarrassment.
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
<denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
I believe that the drive to property is a instinctual one -- a person I know
that is a child psychologist says that children instinctively know how to
acquire things and tend to try to own it. Sharing, and respecting others'
property is learned, and usually not well.
Steven Botts
--
to reply by e-mail, delete XSPAM
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
news:B9BB1CB0.1131D%N...@SPAM.AT.ALL...
Yes, they do that. But they don't pave it and they don't try to kill off all
other forms of life that exist there.
Steve
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
<denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> "Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> news:B9BB74CD.11536%N...@SPAM.AT.ALL...
>> On 9/28/02 11:00 AM, in article e%ml9.40621$wH.4365@sccrnsc01, "Dennis
>
>> The whole thing is silly then -- comparing animals to people. If your
>> intention was to say that animals do not have private property.
>
> I don't believe I said anything about animals other than humans.
Actually you *did*
>> I guess I didn't understand what you were trying to point out, then?
>
> I guess not. I think it would be better at this point if you went back and
> found where the crossed-wires gave you the impression I said so many things
> I don't recall saying. If you do find that I said them, I will have to
> accept that I was off my rocker when I wqrote them...but i think you may
> havce conflated them with others. As I recall it, my main point in this
> thread was that real property was a construct devised by 'man. Nothing more
> or less.
Ah. If that was the point you were trying to make -
then we agree that it is a "construct" but I believe it is instinctual and
not undesirable.
Steven Botts
--
to reply by e-mail, delete XSPAM
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
news:B9BB313D.113F6%N...@SPAM.AT.ALL...
Of course they do. But then they die and leve the land pretty much as it
was.
Steve
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
"Steven Botts" <Steven...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Actually animals *will* do that. Not the paving part - but beavers dam
rivers - fungus kills off trees - an overpopulation of a species of animals
has been known to ruin a local environment though their overpopulation. And
a number of animals will kill off other animals that live in their
territory.
Humans are not unique for their badness.
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
"Steven Botts" <Steven...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Well, after they have used it -- the beaver dams aren't gone, for instance.
And when we die - the land is reallocated as well. No big woop.
Jay Vogelsong
> > Am I, then, responsible for crimes committed by people I never knew,
> > and never had direct dealings with?
Bromo wrote:
> If a thief trips and breaks his or her leg while trying to rob you, you are
> subject to civil lawsuit by them and might just lose. By modern tort law,
> you might just be responsible for safety - and it is only a small step to
> being held accountable for their activities.
But I would not be held responsible for his crime, but for the fact he
hurt himself on my property. You are changing the subject.
> Certainly many people under the "progressive" label would lay abstract blame
> on an abstract concept for it ('We blame _society_ for the _criminal
> element_').
But "society" is again not me, an individual. Though I may be a member
of the society in question, I would be unlikely to be held individually
responsible in a court of law. Again, this would seem to be changing the
subject.
Jay Vogelsong
> Statutes of limitations are also human constructs that side-step the issue
> that real property is a fiction.
Many abstract concepts may be called "fictions" in the same sense. That
does not prevent people from agreeing on what such concepts mean and
using them successfully to their benefit.
A concept does not have to be "obvious," or logical to a non-expert, to
be useful.
Steven Botts
--
to reply by e-mail, delete XSPAM
"Guy" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:upddgsr...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Steven Botts <Steven...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >Bromo wrote...
>
> >> [Animals] Yes, but they defend territory, occasionally
> >> lose it to other animals and are forced to move on.
> >>
> >> They use violence and the threat of violence as their
> >> courts and deeds. The toughest, meanest and wiliest
> >> tend to do better.
> >
> >Of course they do. But then they die and leave the land
> >pretty much as it was.
>
> Not true. Many pack animals and some herd animals hold
> a territory for hundreds of generations. And some of them
> make major chnages to the land.
>
For example...?
Steve
Steven Botts
--
to reply by e-mail, delete XSPAM
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
news:B9BBCF38.11887%N...@SPAM.AT.ALL...
They do that sometimes, but generally they overpopulate because humans have
killed off prerdators that keep their numbers in check. Or else they
overpopulate because they have been introduced by humans into an area where
they have no natural enermies. Such animals often do kill off native
species.
Steve
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
<x@x.x> wrote:
>
> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> This is not meant to be Libertarian-bashing. I hope it proves
>> enlightening to those on either side of the issue.
>
> I found it to be refreshing in that it addresses the issues
> rather than the namecalling and self-righteousness that
> often substitutes for reasoned discourse.
>
> |Jimi Freidenker (quoted by Dennis White) wrote:
>
> |>Rigid attachment to beliefs leads to unnecessary conflict. I have found
> |>that in associating with libertarians and reading their literature
> |>(Reason, Liberty, The Freeman, etc.) that there is almost no appreciation
> |>for moderation in the libertarian movement. I find extremists frightening,
>
> The problem with this is that extremism is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> If this was 1777 and someone proposed the system we have now, that person
> would rightly be considered an extremist. Libertarians essentially want
> the form of government we had at the founding of this country and which
> we enjoyed for over a hundred years. I don't consider that to be an
> extreme position. As Joseph Sobran wrote; "If you want government to
> intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to
> intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to
> intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government
> to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist."
>
> |>The ideal of laissez-faire is very seductive, especially to ambitious
> |>entepreneurs, but it ignores the plain fact that private institutions like
> |>corporations can be just as tyrannical as governments. Moreover, our
> |>government in the U.S. is, at least in principle, constrained by the
> |>constitution and the voters. Corporations in the absence of government
> |>regulation would be unbounded authoritarian structures.
>
> This glosses over the documented fact that our government is largely
> controlled by these same corporations, which increases the power of
> the corporations by allowing them to seize the assets or even imprison
> those who don't do as they order. It is no coincidence that our drug
> laws were drafted with help from the Partnership For A Drug Free America
> and that the Partnership For A Drug Free America is funded and controlled
> by the Tobacco and Alcohol industries. These legal sellers of drugs use
> the government to do something that they cannot do on their own: use
> deadly force to suppress competition from other drugs.
>
> I find the idea that a wise and benevolent government will somehow
> stop accepting campaign contributions in exchange for giving corporations
> power over us to be far more disconnected from reality than anything
> that libertarians claim. As the great philosopher P.J. O'Rourke wrote;
> "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things
> to be bought and sold are legislators." Libertarians want to reduce the
> power of corporation as well as governments; neither should be allowed
> to initiate force in order to deprive you of your liberty.
>
> |>The libertarians like to say that taxation is theft,
> |>but they gloss over the simple truth that property is theft.
>
> This is an example of the Tu quoque ("You Do It Too") fallacy.
> It occurs if you argue that a position or action is acceptable
> because your opponent believes or does it. This excludes the
> possibility that taxation and property are both theft. Even if
> the author is correct and property is indeed theft, that doesn't
> mean that taxation isn't also theft.
>
> |>If you own land, you have received stolen property. I prefer to
> |>think of myself as a steward of land, not its owner, and as such
> |>there are reasonable restrictions on how I may use it.
>
> Need I point out that if property is theft, then so is stewardism
> of property? If the author believes it is stolen, he should give
> it back to the owner, not continue to possess and enjoy it.
> The only way this makes sense is if he really believes that the
> government owns all land and allows him to use it. This is an
> old idea, going back to Marx and Lenin, and should not be confused
> with the idea that there are ancient claims on (some) proerty.
>
> This also makes a rather basic assumption about libertarianism
> that is not true - that libertarians don't believe that one can
> possess stolen property, or that one who possess stolen property
> should be allowed to keep it. This is clearly not the case, and
> any libertarian will tell you that if someone stole your property
> and calls it his own, you should be allowed to take him to court
> and, if you prove your case, take it back.
>
> Back here in the real world, some property is stolen and some
> is not. Some land has been taken by gunpoint again and again
> until it is hard to say who had it first. Other land was unused
> without so much as a human-passable trail on it until someone
> came in, built roads, dug wells, and planted crops. In some
> places, ocean bottom has been converted into land. Much of
> Tokyo was built by using a big pile of dirt to fill in the sea
> and make new land. Holland has been reclaiming ocean bottom
> for a long time. It is an extreme position to say that all
> land is stolen land. Clearly some of it is not.
Actually if "all real property is theft" then even those first in possession
of it are thieves.
I am having some difficulty with the whole concept, and have come to the
following argument -- can someone tell me where I have gone wrong?:
If owning the land is theft, and we aren't to be thieves, then the only
viable alternative suggested so far is to be its "steward."
Being a "steward" of the land implies that someone or something else owns it
on our behalf that has the power to take it away if we do wrong to that
possession.
How are we to trace who decides who is a steward and who is not, and what
capacity can one be a steward [meaning are you allowed to be steward of an
apartment, or a 1000 acre ranch?], since we have removed simple commerce and
modern real estate transactions as our guide?
If one were to take a secular approach, you have several options:
1. The government (either republican, communal, authoritarian or whatever
government structure we have dreamed up) owns all the land and selects
stewards based on some pre-determined criteria.
If the government owns all the land, and allows select "stewards" to occupy
it - it seems remarkably similar to Marxism-Leninism and subject to abuse of
that nature. A large bureaucracy will spring up, land will be given as
political favors, and those not in favor will be homeless or have whatever
minimum guidelines. Land would be seizable at a moment's notice, so the
only projects started would be government driven, and government funded
[with no regulations] since anyone laying their own money out would
invariably have the land and things like it assigned to someone in political
favor. This would be essentially Marxism-Leninism in all but name.
2. Land is held by a select group of people and is loaned to a certain
group of folks
This would be feudalism. They would go further to legitmize this oligharchy
by saying that God wan't them to own it and farm it out. Funny thing, is
that this would be by the previous definition "kleptocracy" since a human
would then own it.
If one were to further saying that human institutions (government, feudal,
communal) are flawed in this way, and that the only worthy being for land
distribution was "God" - we have choices just as bad as above.
We are subjecting property rights to a Theocracy - for unless God himself
institutes His Kingdom on the land Himself, we are likely subjecting
ourselves to a Theocratic land distribution agency that would give land to
whoever had the best relationship to "God" - i.e. The Church. Again we
would be subject to the whim.
Since the decision on who can occupy and dispose of land is the *essence* of
property law, and if we define actual private ownership itself as "theft" -
I cannot find a system of distribution that would be better than how we do
it without that definition. In fact all seem far, far worse.
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
"Jay Vogelsong" <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> Jay wrote:
>>> Am I, then, responsible for crimes committed by people I never knew,
>>> and never had direct dealings with?
>
> Bromo wrote:
>> If a thief trips and breaks his or her leg while trying to rob you, you are
>> subject to civil lawsuit by them and might just lose. By modern tort law,
>> you might just be responsible for safety - and it is only a small step to
>> being held accountable for their activities.
>
> But I would not be held responsible for his crime, but for the fact he
> hurt himself on my property. You are changing the subject.
No, I am not - you are responsible for the thief's safety - someone who you
don't know, and do not have direct dealings with. Or voluntary ones,
anyway.
Since you are responsible for everyone that crosses your land's safety, the
answer it *yes* you are responsible.
>
>> Certainly many people under the "progressive" label would lay abstract blame
>> on an abstract concept for it ('We blame _society_ for the _criminal
>> element_').
>
> But "society" is again not me, an individual. Though I may be a member
> of the society in question, I would be unlikely to be held individually
> responsible in a court of law. Again, this would seem to be changing the
> subject.
No it is NOT -- legal responsibility is real responsibility.
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
<x@x.x> wrote:
>
> Jay Vogelsong <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dennis wrote:
>>> Statutes of limitations are also human constructs that side-step the issue
>>> that real property is a fiction.
>>
>> Many abstract concepts may be called "fictions" in the same sense. That
>> does not prevent people from agreeing on what such concepts mean and
>> using them successfully to their benefit.
>
> By this standard, the RSOF is a fiction, as is Usenet.
WHEW! I was wondering about that! Thanks! :)
Dennis White
"Guy" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:upck5ak...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't believe I said anything about animals other than humans.
>
>
> | From: "Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com>
> | Message-ID: <ZCkl9.237176$Jo.95015@rwcrnsc53>
> | Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:18:01 GMT
> |
> | (snip)
> |
> | Animals do not buy, sell and deed property to others.
It was meant to concern my original post. I was replying to another poster
who said that animals have their own way of establishing "ownership" of
property....a sentiment I disagree with, BTW. I should have worded my
response in a way that was clearer.
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> On 9/28/02 2:58 PM, in article 6uql9.43092$wH.5389@sccrnsc01, "Dennis
White"
> <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> > news:B9BB74CD.11536%N...@SPAM.AT.ALL...
> >> On 9/28/02 11:00 AM, in article e%ml9.40621$wH.4365@sccrnsc01, "Dennis
> >
> >> The whole thing is silly then -- comparing animals to people. If your
> >> intention was to say that animals do not have private property.
> >
> > I don't believe I said anything about animals other than humans.
>
> Actually you *did*
For the record, the above words ("The whole thing is silly....") are not
mine. In my initial statement I said "property is a human construct" I
believe it was *you* who interjected something about animals. I responded
asnimals do not havbe deeds, contracts, etc.
>
> >> I guess I didn't understand what you were trying to point out, then?
> >
> > I guess not. I think it would be better at this point if you went back
and
> > found where the crossed-wires gave you the impression I said so many
things
> > I don't recall saying. If you do find that I said them, I will have to
> > accept that I was off my rocker when I wqrote them...but i think you may
> > havce conflated them with others. As I recall it, my main point in this
> > thread was that real property was a construct devised by 'man. Nothing
more
> > or less.
>
> Ah. If that was the point you were trying to make -
> then we agree that it is a "construct" but I believe it is instinctual and
> not undesirable.
I believe that construct has come to be seen as being desirable. I don't
believe "property" is instinctual. I believe "territorialism" may be
instinctual in *some* creatures to varying degrees. It is only 'man who
creates binding agreements and records them on scraps of paper to produce in
courts of law in which force *may* be used. this is part of the "human
construct" I spoke of. It is relatively modern. It also is based in a
presumption that someone, somewhere at some time first took it upon
him/herself to proclaim "this land is now mine". It is a proclamation on
which all real property must now be based. Whether we agree with the
concept of real property or not we must agree that throughout most of
natural history the earth belonged to no one an no thing...until 'man
decided to *invent* ownership of the land.
Dennis
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
snip...
> >> Yes, but they defend territory, occasionally lose it to other animals
and
> >> are forced to move on. If there is nowhere else to go - I suppose they
> >> could perish. I have been observing our neighborhood cats in this for
> >> years.
> >>
> >> They use violence and the threat of violence as their courts and deeds.
> > The
> >> toughest, meanest and wiliest tend to do better.
> >
> > Of course they do. But then they die and leve the land pretty much as
it
> > was.
>
> Well, after they have used it -- the beaver dams aren't gone, for
instance.
>
> And when we die - the land is reallocated as well. No big woop.
Yes, big woop. Beavers might leave dams behind, but they don't sell them or
leave them to their children. They move on because the dams they build are
no longer useful to them. Those structures may then primarily be used by
another species, like the fish who use the abandoned dams as shelter from
sun and as a place to mate and lay eggs. The decaying wood is washed away
down the river to provide nutrients for plants and animals that have
notheing to do with the initial damming of the river. this does not happen
at the will of the beavers...especially not at the will of a single beaver,
or the local beaver association, or the CEO of United Beaver. No beaver (or
any other speices) will wave a piece of paper to exert claims, or in any
other way rightfully claim ownership of the abandoned beaver dam. Even if
the same beavers returned to reclaim *ownership* they could not recover it
without taking it as they did initially. The beavers would not own the land
it was on, the water below it, the mineral rights, the air rights, or any
easements. The beavers and other species live within an order that does not
recognize *ownership*. They will use and defend territory as long as it is
beneficial to them, then they will move on.
Dennis
>
Dennis White
"Guy" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:upddgsr...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Steven Botts <Steven...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >Bromo wrote...
>
> >> lose it to other animals and are forced to move on.
> >>
> >> courts and deeds. The toughest, meanest and wiliest
> >> tend to do better.
> >
> >pretty much as it was.
>
> a territory for hundreds of generations. And some of them
> make major chnages to the land.
Apropos my above post, this is also true. BTW. the toughest, meanest and
wiliest species do not always have the upper hand.
Dennis
Dennis White
"Guy" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:upchpp7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Animals do not buy, sell and deed property to others.
>
> long periods of time, turning over the property to new females
> as they are born and the older females die off (the males are
> run off as the mature and have to get territory bu conquest).
> That seems to match the definition of "deeding."
No it doesn't, and you should know better. The mothers remain in the
territory because it is beneficial for themselves and their offspring. If
drought, or some other disaster would occur, they would not remain, risking
their lives and those of their offspring in in the hopes of "re-building a
better life" as a human might!
>
> As for buying and selling, no non-human animal except the weasels
> in congress uses money, but some animals do barter. For example:
>
> CAMBRIDGE, England -- Researcher Dr. Fiona Hunter has studied
> penguins' mating habits for more than five years. She claims
> some females may allow male strangers to mate with them in exchange
> for nest-building stones, thus providing what she concluded to be
> the first observed animal prostitution. Dr. Hunter said all
> activity was performed in the absence of the female's regular
> mate, and occasionally, after the sex act, gratified males
> gave the females additional stones as sort of a tip.
>
>
>
>
> --
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain
> a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty
> nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
>
>
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> >> Unfortunately when we abolish private property, we can expect people to
> >> become more materialist - so we are in a human contradiction, eh?
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure how you can make this claim since the abolition of
private
> > property has never effectively been applied universally. Never mind the
bad
> > old Soviet system, where it was impossible communize everything down to
> > shared underwear, etc. I have no idea if your point is valid or
not....it's
> > the lack of evidence on which to base this argument that bothers me, I
> > guess.
>
> I believe that the drive to property is a instinctual one -- a person I
know
> that is a child psychologist says that children instinctively know how to
> acquire things and tend to try to own it. Sharing, and respecting others'
> property is learned, and usually not well.
I know a child psychologist who says that a child instinctively
believes his/her poop is his/her own and is traumatized by having it taken
away with a diaper change. Anyway, I'm not sure that learning to share is
all that much of a failure. It seems to work for most people, most of the
time.
Still, I have no idea how this props up the materialism theory. I
definitely agree that children are interested in acquiring as much as
possible, but I have also observed that once they lose their enamor of a
particular object they will easily let go of it. Any adult who has had to
help a kid clean out his/her toy box can tell you that.
Dennis
Dennis White
"Jay Vogelsong" <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1800b0774...@cnews.newsguy.com...
This is quite true. I should point out that I do not mean to confer
negative judgment on things called "fiction".
Dennis
Dennis White
"Guy" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:upe0khk...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Jay Vogelsong <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> >
> >Dennis wrote:
> >> Statutes of limitations are also human constructs that side-step the
issue
> >> that real property is a fiction.
> >
> >Many abstract concepts may be called "fictions" in the same sense. That
> >does not prevent people from agreeing on what such concepts mean and
> >using them successfully to their benefit.
>
Yes they are. As I said, I do not mean to make negative judgements on those
things that are fictions. I only ask that we accept them as such in order
to keep things clear...despite the much more simple habit of overlooking and
accepting so many things as de riguer.
Dennis
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
Now this *really is* getting off-topic, but I'd like to add something
here. I vaguely remember this story form newspaper accounts a few years
back... I may very well have the facts wrong, but it bears thinking about,
no matter the facts.
A small urban merchant was so sick of being regularly burgled that he
installed bare electrical wires in the roof access of an unused chimney
(accept for burgling) leading into his store. A burglar sought to enter the
store by way of the chimney and was electrocuted. The merchant was
convicted of second-degree murder (IIRC).
Dennis
Dennis White
"Guy" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:upckdth...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't think it would be fair to instill partisan politics into the
> >argument. I hope that Quakers choose membership in one of the the three
> >RSOF organizations based on spiritual ethics rather than party
affiliation!
>
> lesser degree intolerant of political conservatives - much more so
> than libertarians, socialists, anarchists, etc.
I recently stopped meeting with group of members of all three RSOF
camps, and some that are unaffiliated...totally personal reasons, no rift.
This is an informal group of Friends that wish to discuss ways to bring all
of us back into greater unity. Because of the *ecumenical* nature of the
discussions I suppose I see more political conservatives than those who just
attend my unprogrammed meeting. What's more (and I believe you know this
already, Guy) there are Quakers in other parts of the world that are known
to be much more politically conservative than those in the US, Canada,
Australia and Britain.
Dennis
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> And I also believe that the original activist culture was supported by
early
> Quakers and continued to the present. So, politics has always been *very*
> important to Quakers, probably more so than many other denomenations.
> Quakers try to discern what God want's first, but I am not convinced
always
> this is the case.
I think that it is easy for us to mistake social action and political
partisanship as being joined at the hip. I believe that social action
should stem from our understanding of what God wants, what we hear when we
listen to the Lord and a very patient and tolerant attempt on our behalf to
convince others. For instance, I have made a commitment never to attend or
remain at a protest where anger, yelling, cat-calling etc. are used to
denigrate even those I vehemently disagree with.
On the other hand, I think that it is true that many Quakers come from
a liberal/progressive stance that makes them more at ease with certain
politics of certain political parties. I personally find this an
unfortunate flaw. I hold many very *liberal* views and just as many
conservative ones. I must say it makes for some very challenging
situations! When I open my mouth about one thing, I often find others
thinking I follow a *party line*!!!! Sometimes the mix of conservative and
liberal thought are rolled into the same issue....start asking me about
drugs and you'll see that my views follow a decidedly *third path*!
I am sorry that so many Americans have come to a place in their
political lives that partisanship and party affiliation are so much more
monolithic than they need to be. I think that Quakers have a history of
being more free-thinking than that, and I hope we as RSOF can come to
understand that our partisanship can sometimes blind us to the message of
Christ.
Dennis
Dennis White
"Steven Botts" <Steven...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:ysql9.306$Ri5...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>
> If you own land, you have received stolen property".
> >
> >
> > Dennis
>
>
> To follow this thought a bit further, I would have to ask who is the
> original owner of this stolen land. the obvious answer is that in this
> country it was stolen from the Native Americans. But then, they stole it
> from other Native Americans who stole it from..... Well, you get the idea.
> They, however, at least took it for the benefit of the whole tribe, not
to
> be exploited by individuals.
I think the above is a common misconception. Except for a few Northeasten
tribes, and only quite late in their lhistories, Native Americans did not
concieve of *ownership of the land*.
>
> The absurdity of the Libertarian notion of land ownership is the belief
> that something that existed since the beginning of the earth and will
> continue to exist until the planet falls into the sun can be rightly held
> and used or abused by any mortal individual just because that individual
> feels empowered to exercise ownership.
>
> We are all here just for a little while, but the Earth abides - for
better
> or worse.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> On 9/28/02 11:55 PM, in article updcggr...@corp.supernews.com, "Guy"
> <x@x.x> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is not meant to be Libertarian-bashing. I hope it proves
> >> enlightening to those on either side of the issue.
> >
> > I found it to be refreshing in that it addresses the issues
> > rather than the namecalling and self-righteousness that
> > often substitutes for reasoned discourse.
> >
> > |Jimi Freidenker (quoted by Dennis White) wrote:
snip...
I want to once again remaind all that I reprinted this essay as one man's
thoughts on the subject. It was meant as food for thought, not an
intractable argument. I appreciate the response and quality of opinions
this thread has generated...please keep it Quakerly, OK!!!!
Dennis
Dennis White
"Guy" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:upek2un...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Beavers might leave dams behind, but they don't sell them or
> >leave them to their children.
>
> beavers do. One particular beaver pond on the Kabetogama Peninsula
> Voyageurs National Park has been passed from generation to
> generation of beavers since at least 1927, and possibly much
> earlier.
]
I think we're quibbling here. I don't deny that generations and
generations of beavers (and other species) continue to utilize structures
and territories established by their predecessors. On other occassions
animals leave those structures and territories because they are no longer
sustainable. They make no further claims on those teritories, etc. If they
return it is not with the belief that they "own" it.
I think it is semantically (and possibly scientifically) wrong to call
this "leaving (it) to their children" in the same sense that humans leave
property to their heirs. However, I agree that the phenomenon you describe
takes place, and is very common in the natural world. I just disagree that
there is any contrived *legal* precedent for it.
Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "The usual road to slavery is that first they take
> away your guns, then they take away your property,
> then last of all they tell you to shut up and say
> you are enjoying it."
> - James A. Donald
>
Timothy Travis
wrote:
>Anyway, I'm not sure that learning to share is
>all that much of a failure. It seems to work for most people, most of the
>time.
not so sure I agree with this. we teach children to share in a
culture that doesn't put much premium on that in adult life. I once
heard of a woman who brought her children up on the idea that what
belonged to each child belonged to each child and that they didn't
have to share. That's how adults view their property and how they
expect others to view their own. I imagine, sometimes wistfully, that
she had more peace in her home, at times, that I have had in mine. Of
course, every female in my house (from age eight right on up to Mrs.
Travis) borrows my clothing whenever it strikes her fashion sense or
convenience. I have yet to find few occasions upon which I can do
likewise with their's...
I have heard children (five-ish) state in loud, aggressive tones "you
have to share" when what they are really saying is "gimme." So much
for teaching the value of "sharing."
Trout Fishing in America has a wonderful song called "It's Mine" (it's
a tango) that sums up the child's perspective on sharing.
> Still, I have no idea how this props up the materialism theory. I
>definitely agree that children are interested in acquiring as much as
>possible, but I have also observed that once they lose their enamor of a
>particular object they will easily let go of it. Any adult who has had to
>help a kid clean out his/her toy box can tell you that.
sorry, this adult cannot verify your observation from his experience.
There is a Quaker organization called "Right Sharing of World
Resources." You can get an electronic version of their newsletter by
e mailing ns...@eathlink.net or salmi...@mac.com. It comes to me
each month in my clerk's mail. It's not a Libertarian publication.
peace
Timothy M. Travis
Bridge City Preparative Meeting
Portlnd, Oregon
"Why should I ask God to make me good when
I want to be naughty?" asked the little girl.
--A.W. Macneile Dixon
Dennis White
<vpol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6rkepus0onpfve4qk...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:10:56 GMT, "Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > A small urban merchant was so sick of being regularly burgled that
he
> >installed bare electrical wires in the roof access of an unused chimney
> >(accept for burgling) leading into his store. A burglar sought to enter
the
> >store by way of the chimney and was electrocuted. The merchant was
> >convicted of second-degree murder (IIRC).
>
> almost all anglo-saxon countries prohibits man traps. (And I say ANglo
> saxon only because of its relation through law.- not any notions of
> race, nationality or such. And I'm unfamiliar with other legal
> systems.)
I don't think I should say what side of the argument I fall on. But I think
that the common-law concept of "disproportionate response" often works one
way for the government and another way for it's people.
Dennis
>
> _______
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
> we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
> unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
> public."
> -President Teddy Roosevelt
Dennis White
"Guy" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:upel6ut...@corp.supernews.com...
> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think that it is easy for us to mistake social action and
political
> >partisanship as being joined at the hip. I believe that social action
> >should stem from our understanding of what God wants, what we hear when
we
> >listen to the Lord and a very patient and tolerant attempt on our behalf
to
> >convince others.
>
> that slavery is wrong, and other Friends told you that you were
> engaging in political partisanship or that such issues don't belong
> in a meetinghouse?
I think that Woolman faced this very same predicament, though I don't know
that he was accused of *political* partisanship. He saw his job primarily
to bring his message to other Quakers.
>
> I am with you all the way on the "very patient and tolerant attempt
> on our behalf to convince others." The alternative leads to things
> like John Brown's social action at Harpers Ferry.
Absolutely.
Dennis
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> I recently stopped meeting with group of members of all three RSOF
> camps, and some that are unaffiliated...totally personal reasons, no rift.
> This is an informal group of Friends that wish to discuss ways to bring all
> of us back into greater unity. Because of the *ecumenical* nature of the
> discussions I suppose I see more political conservatives than those who just
> attend my unprogrammed meeting. What's more (and I believe you know this
> already, Guy) there are Quakers in other parts of the world that are known
> to be much more politically conservative than those in the US, Canada,
> Australia and Britain.
A friend (little F) of mine said, after hearing that I was chatting
with Quakers on s.r.q, "Quakers aren't good at ecumenism."
Two symptoms:
1) Discussion between two different sects of quakers counts as
"ecumenical", and
2) When people disagree with Quakers, they are usually either:
a) eldered, or
b) asked "are you trying to convert me? you won't. are you leaning
toward my witness?"--an assumption that the only point of
ecumenical discussion is to change the other guy's mind.
I find it interesting that what he said to me has now all been borne
out.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> They do that sometimes, but generally they overpopulate because humans have
> killed off prerdators that keep their numbers in check. Or else they
> overpopulate because they have been introduced by humans into an area where
> they have no natural enermies. Such animals often do kill off native
> species.
Sometimes it just happens on its own. Nature is not some peaceful
balance in the absence of humans. It changes, wildly, with each
species trying every trick at its disposal to get what it wants at the
expense of all the rest.
Far from looking to nature as an example of things going well, we are
well advised to look to humanity, which has (however imperfectly)
managed to sometimes place things above the quest for survival and
one-up-manship.
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
jVHl9.453333$kp.12...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net, "Dennis White"
<denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
I wasn't trying to be inflammatory - I was just trying to give you the
thoughts I had been wrestling with regarding this particular subject. It is
quite a conundrum, and one I am not sure I completely understand how one
could base any kind of practical program without erring and making things
worse than now?
Dennis White
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+u...@becket.net> wrote in message
news:87heg8i...@becket.becket.net...
Thomas,
LOL! Do you suppose that humans are not animals, or that we are not part of
nature? Please take into account the irony that may be derived from the
words: "(Nature) changes, wildly, with each species trying every trick at
its disposal to get what it wants at the expense of all the rest". ;-)
Dennis
>
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> "Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> news:B9BBBB87.1184F%N...@SPAM.AT.ALL...
>> On 9/28/02 2:58 PM, in article 6uql9.43092$wH.5389@sccrnsc01, "Dennis
> White"
>> <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
>>> news:B9BB74CD.11536%N...@SPAM.AT.ALL...
>>>> On 9/28/02 11:00 AM, in article e%ml9.40621$wH.4365@sccrnsc01, "Dennis
>>>
>>>> The whole thing is silly then -- comparing animals to people. If your
>>>> intention was to say that animals do not have private property.
>>>
>>> I don't believe I said anything about animals other than humans.
>>
>> Actually you *did*
>
>
> For the record, the above words ("The whole thing is silly....") are not
> mine.
The whole thing is silly part is mine. You said that animals don't deed
their land, etc. - to which I said they had a method of holding and
transferring property amongst each other which amounts to the same thing.
Animal territory - acquisition and distribution is a well understood and
observed phenomenon available to a non-expert explained in most nature
shows.
>In my initial statement I said "property is a human construct" I
> believe it was *you* who interjected something about animals. I responded
> asnimals do not havbe deeds, contracts, etc.
Fair enough - source of our disagreement is that I recognize that through
territory challenges, with winners and losers, animals transfer land amongst
each other - and it appears you do not agree that that happens - or you do
not think that that counts as deeds...?
>>> I don't recall saying. If you do find that I said them, I will have to
>>> accept that I was off my rocker when I wqrote them...but i think you may
>>> havce conflated them with others. As I recall it, my main point in this
>>> thread was that real property was a construct devised by 'man. Nothing
> more
>>> or less.
>>
>> Ah. If that was the point you were trying to make -
>> then we agree that it is a "construct" but I believe it is instinctual and
>> not undesirable.
>
>
> I believe that construct has come to be seen as being desirable. I don't
> believe "property" is instinctual. I believe "territorialism" may be
> instinctual in *some* creatures to varying degrees.
Here are some good sources on ownership/sharing among children:
http://www.preciouslittleone.com/usa/articles/sharing.asp
http://familyfun.go.com/raisingkids/child/skills/feature/njkd99share/njkd99s
hare.html
http://www.parentcenter.com/refcap/parenting/behavior/3409.html
http://www.capecodparent.com/sharing.htm
Seems like selfishness happens, and sharing is learned behavior.
>It is only 'man who
> creates binding agreements and records them on scraps of paper to produce in
> courts of law in which force *may* be used. this is part of the "human
> construct" I spoke of. It is relatively modern.
Geologically modern, yes, but constructed so that people who are weaker than
others can have a fair shake at survival. Otherwise we're subject to "the
law of the jungle" -- meaning the strong triumph over the weak, as happens
in nature and among (other) animals.
>It also is based in a
> presumption that someone, somewhere at some time first took it upon
> him/herself to proclaim "this land is now mine". It is a proclamation on
> which all real property must now be based.
I believe that proclamation happened before modern man - as tribes of man
and other animals fought over access to the better hunting grounds, and then
as man developed agriculture, the rules had to become more sophisticated.
I believe law happened to protect the weak from the strong - the strong need
little to no protection, the weak need it more often. I think property law
as it exists allows the physically weaker to own and hold property.
>Whether we agree with the
> concept of real property or not we must agree that throughout most of
> natural history the earth belonged to no one an no thing...until 'man
> decided to *invent* ownership of the land.
I don't agree - I think other animals owned large pieces of territory (like
wolf packs, bear ranges - especially their dwellings, deer herds, ants,
etc.) and would attack anyone who intruded. I think property law is a
natural extension of animal behavior. Formal property law came about with
agriculture, since you couldn't sneak into someone else's territory and
quietly plant crops while no one looked, and if you planted crops, you
needed protection to keep from others from suddenly declaring ownership (by
force) over your crops right before harvest.
Dennis White
"Timothy Travis" <qsp...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:8tnepuogo4pbkaj52...@4ax.com...
I must live in an Eisenhower-era world where kids respect authority, and mom
and dad sleep in separate beds. Despite the drugs our secret govrnment must
have me on, I really meant that most people (read: individual adults) don't
seem to steal everything I own from me every day of my life. Occasionally,
but not every day! ;-)
Dennis
Dennis White
> A friend (little F) of mine said, after hearing that I was chatting
> with Quakers on s.r.q, "Quakers aren't good at ecumenism."
>
> Two symptoms:
>
> 1) Discussion between two different sects of quakers counts as
> "ecumenical", and
>
> 2) When people disagree with Quakers, they are usually either:
> a) eldered, or
> b) asked "are you trying to convert me? you won't. are you leaning
> toward my witness?"--an assumption that the only point of
> ecumenical discussion is to change the other guy's mind.
>
>
> I find it interesting that what he said to me has now all been borne
> out.
>
LOL! I am almost sure this friend *must* be a Friend!!!!! :-)
Dennis
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
TnGl9.452336$kp.12...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net, "Dennis White"
<denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> "Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> news:B9BBCF78.11888%N...@SPAM.AT.ALL...
>
>
> snip...
>
>
>>>> Yes, but they defend territory, occasionally lose it to other animals
> and
>>>> are forced to move on. If there is nowhere else to go - I suppose they
>>>> could perish. I have been observing our neighborhood cats in this for
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> They use violence and the threat of violence as their courts and deeds.
>>> The
>>>> toughest, meanest and wiliest tend to do better.
>>>
>>> Of course they do. But then they die and leve the land pretty much as
> it
>>> was.
>>
>> Well, after they have used it -- the beaver dams aren't gone, for
> instance.
>>
>> And when we die - the land is reallocated as well. No big woop.
>
>
> Yes, big woop.
I was mistaken - they *do* pass the things on and are very territorial.
While we have written contracts, they pee on the borders, howl or have other
markings. We have court to decide who gets what - they howl and challenge
one another - the strongest winngng.
Check out:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/PPT/Ecology/observations_of_behavior_on_th
e_.htm
http://www.wolfhaven.org/newcommunication.htm
http://www.animalbehavior.org/ABS/Education/Labs/lab_territory.html
http://www.wildlifeafrica.co.za/whiterhinobehavior.html
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
ApGl9.452344$kp.12...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net, "Dennis White"
<denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
Fair enough - are there other characteristics that allow the holding of
territories?
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> LOL! Do you suppose that humans are not animals, or that we are not part of
> nature? Please take into account the irony that may be derived from the
> words: "(Nature) changes, wildly, with each species trying every trick at
> its disposal to get what it wants at the expense of all the rest". ;-)
Of course humans are animals. And we try all the tricks too. But so
far, we have also done amazing things that other animals have not.
It is the fictive view of nature as some sort of "peaceful balance"
which I was objecting to. "Nature red in tooth and claw..."
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> On 9/29/02 10:47 AM, in article
>
> thoughts I had been wrestling with regarding this particular subject. It
is
> quite a conundrum, and one I am not sure I completely understand how one
> could base any kind of practical program without erring and making things
> worse than now?
I'm sorry! I didn't mean to imply that you were being inflamatory. I meant
to convey my (slightly astonished) bemusment at our being so civil to one
another and discussing a weighty issue without each of us vigorously
defending a position that none of us were about to budge on. My words were
meant to encourage us all to keep it up. I thought I detected a couple of
less than worthy arguments put out there, (not yours, nessecarily) but I
think they quickly fell. Understandably, as I often find I am quick to make
a pronouncement that in the end I cannot, or do not wish to support.
Dennis
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
JKGl9.452504$kp.12...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net, "Dennis White"
<denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> "Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> news:B9BBBB0A.1184E%N...@SPAM.AT.ALL...
>
>
>>>> Unfortunately when we abolish private property, we can expect people to
>>>> become more materialist - so we are in a human contradiction, eh?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how you can make this claim since the abolition of
> private
>>> property has never effectively been applied universally. Never mind the
> bad
>>> old Soviet system, where it was impossible communize everything down to
>>> shared underwear, etc. I have no idea if your point is valid or
> not....it's
>>> the lack of evidence on which to base this argument that bothers me, I
>>> guess.
>>
>> I believe that the drive to property is a instinctual one -- a person I
> know
>> that is a child psychologist says that children instinctively know how to
>> acquire things and tend to try to own it. Sharing, and respecting others'
>> property is learned, and usually not well.
>
>
> I know a child psychologist who says that a child instinctively
> believes his/her poop is his/her own and is traumatized by having it taken
> away with a diaper change. Anyway, I'm not sure that learning to share is
> all that much of a failure. It seems to work for most people, most of the
> time.
I totally agree that sharing is very, VERY important for society to
function. However, I think our main difference is that I do not believe
there was a communal golden age before civilization, and I believe the
required skills in sharing and such are learned, while selfishness is
instinctual.
> Still, I have no idea how this props up the materialism theory. I
> definitely agree that children are interested in acquiring as much as
> possible, but I have also observed that once they lose their enamor of a
> particular object they will easily let go of it. Any adult who has had to
> help a kid clean out his/her toy box can tell you that.
:) Very true. Try taking that toy away from the child, though, and you
could get a very ugly, but required situation - the child doesn't care until
you try to take it away, and he/she will then pretend to play with it if
that is the price of hanging on. Which would be instinctive hoarding, as
well! :(
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
WKHl9.453190$kp.12...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net, "Dennis White"
<denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
Thanks for sharing such a well thought out view - very inspiring. Reminded
me of an article I read in National Review this issue - about "Crunchy
Conservatives" -- people who are mistrustful of big business and big
government, participate in food co-ops, wear Birkenstocks, and followed the
Grateful Dead in the 1980's while listening to Rush Limbaugh. And decidedly
moderate compared to the typical Republican Party. Currently derided by the
center of the party, but probably the future if certain demographic trends
are to be believed.
Anyway - I am glad to hear that the tent in sometimes big enough for all in
Quakers, anyway. I do notice what you do, too.
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
> I think the above is a common misconception. Except for a few Northeasten
> tribes, and only quite late in their lhistories, Native Americans did not
> concieve of *ownership of the land*.
>>
I think the hunter-gatherer tribes did not like other tribes moving into
their hunting grounds. I believe a Spanish attempt at a colony in Virginia
pre-1607 ended in disaster when they were attacked and killed by folks that
saw that the Spanish were poking around. A very territorial response, it
seems.
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
WhJl9.3722$ji3....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net, "Dennis White"
<denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> "Guy" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:upek2un...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Dennis White <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Beavers might leave dams behind, but they don't sell them or
>>> leave them to their children.
>>
>> You are wrong. Leaving the dams to their children is exactly what
>> beavers do. One particular beaver pond on the Kabetogama Peninsula
>> Voyageurs National Park has been passed from generation to
>> generation of beavers since at least 1927, and possibly much
>> earlier.
> ]
>
>
> I think we're quibbling here. I don't deny that generations and
> generations of beavers (and other species) continue to utilize structures
> and territories established by their predecessors. On other occassions
> animals leave those structures and territories because they are no longer
> sustainable. They make no further claims on those teritories, etc. If they
> return it is not with the belief that they "own" it.
> I think it is semantically (and possibly scientifically) wrong to call
> this "leaving (it) to their children" in the same sense that humans leave
> property to their heirs. However, I agree that the phenomenon you describe
> takes place, and is very common in the natural world. I just disagree that
> there is any contrived *legal* precedent for it.
> Dennis
Well, if the pups of the previous generation stay in the dam, and defend it
from other specias, etc, it is very analogous to a transfer of property.
As far a actual animal psychology, I don't think eitehr one of us are
sufficient experts to figure out exactly what is going through a beaver's
head except the concept of "home territory"
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
Bushnell, BSG" <tb+u...@becket.net> wrote:
2 Quakers -- 3 opinions! :)
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
Fair enough! Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page!
BTW, I do enjoy this particular discussion - if prompting us to think deeply
about our relative philosophical positions and understanding better where
the other is coming from is our only resolution - then in my mind we have
succeeded! :)
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
snip..
> >>>> The whole thing is silly then -- comparing animals to people. If
your
> >>>> intention was to say that animals do not have private property.
> >>>
> >>> I don't believe I said anything about animals other than humans.
> >>
> >> Actually you *did*
> >
> >
> > For the record, the above words ("The whole thing is silly....") are
not
> > mine.
>
> The whole thing is silly part is mine. You said that animals don't deed
> their land, etc. - to which I said they had a method of holding and
> transferring property amongst each other which amounts to the same thing.
> Animal territory - acquisition and distribution is a well understood and
> observed phenomenon available to a non-expert explained in most nature
> shows.
I only disagree that animals have intellectualized and codified a method
that transfers ownership. I still don't believe animals *think* they own
property. I think they defend it as territory that they find beneficial for
their own survival. Nothing more or less.
>
> >In my initial statement I said "property is a human construct" I
> > believe it was *you* who interjected something about animals. I
responded
> > asnimals do not havbe deeds, contracts, etc.
>
> Fair enough - source of our disagreement is that I recognize that through
> territory challenges, with winners and losers, animals transfer land
amongst
> each other - and it appears you do not agree that that happens - or you do
> not think that that counts as deeds...?
Well, mostly I just don't think that animals don't view it as transferring
*ownership of property* I beleive it is a strategy to maintian the
viability of their species. For instance, animals have no use for any other
territory than that which they inhabit. You won't find timeshares, and
investment property in the animal kingdom, if you'll forgive me for being
whimsical.
I don't dispute that children are selfish. It is part of their learning of
self. But I believe that in the adult world there are many examples of
sharing, and that a great many people, given the opportunity between
selfishness and sharing, will in fact share.
>
> >It is only 'man who
> > creates binding agreements and records them on scraps of paper to
produce in
> > courts of law in which force *may* be used. this is part of the "human
> > construct" I spoke of. It is relatively modern.
>
> Geologically modern, yes, but constructed so that people who are weaker
than
> others can have a fair shake at survival. Otherwise we're subject to "the
> law of the jungle" -- meaning the strong triumph over the weak, as happens
> in nature and among (other) animals.
Geologically? Uhh...wrong word, I think, but we're in agreement here, so
what the hey! I must say though, the phrase "law of the jungle" is a bit of
a stretch for me. If I wanted to talk about the *real* law of the jungle it
would have other components besides brute strength. For instance in the
natural world a virus that might be innocuous to a placid newt might bring
down an entire gang of gorillas.
>
> >It also is based in a
> > presumption that someone, somewhere at some time first took it upon
> > him/herself to proclaim "this land is now mine". It is a proclamation
on
> > which all real property must now be based.
>
> I believe that proclamation happened before modern man - as tribes of man
> and other animals fought over access to the better hunting grounds, and
then
> as man developed agriculture, the rules had to become more sophisticated.
I view the term *modern man* to encompass those you describe above.
>
> I believe law happened to protect the weak from the strong - the strong
need
> little to no protection, the weak need it more often. I think property
law
> as it exists allows the physically weaker to own and hold property.
It may do so now, but I think in an earlier time it was used to solidify
power and prestige.
>
> >Whether we agree with the
> > concept of real property or not we must agree that throughout most of
> > natural history the earth belonged to no one an no thing...until 'man
> > decided to *invent* ownership of the land.
>
> I don't agree - I think other animals owned large pieces of territory
(like
> wolf packs, bear ranges - especially their dwellings, deer herds, ants,
> etc.) and would attack anyone who intruded.
We will have to agree to disagree. I do not see territorialism and property
ownership as one and the same.
I think property law is a
> natural extension of animal behavior. Formal property law came about with
> agriculture, since you couldn't sneak into someone else's territory and
> quietly plant crops while no one looked, and if you planted crops, you
> needed protection to keep from others from suddenly declaring ownership
(by
> force) over your crops right before harvest.
The first agrarian societies were nomadic. Later *property*, in the West
at least, was owned by those who did not work the land....think of the
Feudal system. In the late middle ages and afterward a group we in English
call the "landed class" arose. Neither noble nor nescisarily farmers, but
land-owners who made a living and acquired power through their holdings.
Only with the advent of the bourgoisie has a sizable class of common folk
been able to buy, sell, trade and confer rights of land. Long after a time
in human history that the weak could not survive the strong.
Maybe a reading of the history and progression of land and property
rights in Europe will give you some new insights to add to the interesting
ones you have come to develop.
Respectfully,
Dennis
>
>
Dennis White
I agree some would *sanitize* nature. But, I also think that nature is not
something that is less fastidious than human behavior...it is simply nature.
We are a part of it. Certainly nature is not peacful...but it is after all,
a *balance*, all things being equal.
Dennis
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
>
> I totally agree that sharing is very, VERY important for society to
> function. However, I think our main difference is that I do not believe
> there was a communal golden age before civilization, and I believe the
> required skills in sharing and such are learned, while selfishness is
> instinctual.
I think this is how deep division and arguments start at SRQ. Please be
aware that I do not believe, and have never said that there was a communal
golden age before civilization. This *cannot* be our main difference
because it is not even a view I take, much less would defend. I believe
that even with world disarray and armaments we are probably individually
less brutal than ever before in human history.
>
> > Still, I have no idea how this props up the materialism theory. I
> > definitely agree that children are interested in acquiring as much as
> > possible, but I have also observed that once they lose their enamor of a
> > particular object they will easily let go of it. Any adult who has had
to
> > help a kid clean out his/her toy box can tell you that.
>
> :) Very true. Try taking that toy away from the child, though, and you
> could get a very ugly, but required situation - the child doesn't care
until
> you try to take it away, and he/she will then pretend to play with it if
> that is the price of hanging on. Which would be instinctive hoarding, as
> well! :(
I think there are differnces between "hoarding", "acquiring" and
"materialism". I also think that children use the first two as
self-learning tools to establish identity. I think children and adults use
these tools in differnt ways for different reasons. I believe it takes a
bit more mature (not much) intellectual capacity to practice "materialism".
Dennis
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> On 9/29/02 12:22 PM, in article
> WhJl9.3722$ji3....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net, "Dennis White"
> <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Guy" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:upek2un...@corp.supernews.com...
> As far a actual animal psychology, I don't think eitehr one of us are
> sufficient experts to figure out exactly what is going through a beaver's
> head except the concept of "home territory"
Don't say what you don't actually know!!! I have not been asked for
mycredentials! :-)
Dennis
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
Territorial response? Yes. I agree.
>
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> I agree some would *sanitize* nature. But, I also think that nature is not
> something that is less fastidious than human behavior...it is simply nature.
> We are a part of it. Certainly nature is not peacful...but it is after all,
> a *balance*, all things being equal.
Why is nature a balance "after all"? What is the evidence for this?
On a year-by-year scale, things change so slowly, that it looks
balanced. But on the longer scale, we see environmental collapse,
extinction, etc., etc., all without the presence of people. (Of
course, people are especially good at destruction because we're so
smart, which means that we can much speed up the scale.)
I don't think we see much evidence of balance of any kind. Someone
alluded to predator-prey relationships; claiming that disastrous
over-population only happens when people knock off the natural
predators. That's nonsense; natural predator-prey relationships can,
and do, result in the death of both predator and prey because both
(naturally!) behave as greedily as possible. Indeed, predator-prey
relationships are now a classic case of chaotic *instability*.
Some will criticize me, saying something like "are you saying it's ok
for people to wreak havoc just because nature does?" And the answer
is: Of course not! I'm saying we shouldn't try and take our cues for
beneficial behavior by trying to ape non-human nature.
Thomas
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
> I believe it takes a
> bit more mature (not much) intellectual capacity to practice "materialism".
> Dennis
Then how would you define "materialism" -- to me desire for acquisitiveness
and hoarding are part and parcel of it?
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
> I think this is how deep division and arguments start at SRQ. Please be
> aware that I do not believe, and have never said that there was a communal
> golden age before civilization. This *cannot* be our main difference
> because it is not even a view I take, much less would defend. I believe
> that even with world disarray and armaments we are probably individually
> less brutal than ever before in human history.
If I got it wrong - what do you believe, then?
You said that property was theft and was a fiction created by man alone.
We had much discussion about how animals distribute territory (I said they
did, I am not sure that you disagreed, though it sure seemed like it.)
...?
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
> I only disagree that animals have intellectualized and codified a method
> that transfers ownership. I still don't believe animals *think* they own
> property. I think they defend it as territory that they find beneficial for
> their own survival. Nothing more or less.
The only point I was making is that, lacking the capacity for it, animals
seem to have close analogies and for me, that is enough.
I think that animal defense of territory because it is beneficial, etc. etc.
is exactly the foundation of property rights and is the central philosophy
of ownership, so by my lower-than-your-bar animals understand *enough* about
ownership to be considered cognicent of it.
I agree that there is no book any animal consults to decide - that would be
ridiculous and very untrue (though would make an excellent SF story!).
Timothy Travis
wrote:
> Now this *really is* getting off-topic, but I'd like to add something
>here. I vaguely remember this story form newspaper accounts a few years
>back... I may very well have the facts wrong, but it bears thinking about,
>no matter the facts.
now what does that mean? even if something is not true we should
think about it? That sounds too much, to me, like utopian philosophy.
"Yeah, well, we know this isn't how people really act, but, let's
pretend they do and create this system..."
My favorite are the "Respirationarians." They postulate that people
don't really have to breathe air and that we should all live on the
bottom of the ocean...
> A small urban merchant was so sick of being regularly burgled that he
>installed bare electrical wires in the roof access of an unused chimney
>(accept for burgling) leading into his store. A burglar sought to enter the
>store by way of the chimney and was electrocuted. The merchant was
>convicted of second-degree murder (IIRC).
I believe this to be folklore, an urban legend. At least, all the
people from whom I have asked for authenticating details have been
unable to supply them. But it's too good a story not to use to make
an ideological point, even if it's not true. If someone can point me
to some source to verify this story I'll be glad to acknowledge it.
But I do think, however, that those who seek to make it a privately
administered death penalty offense to commit a burglary should be held
legally accountable. It is not up to victims (yet) in the United
States to punish those they deem to be criminals in any way they see
fit without any participation from the legal system.
if burglars are coming down one's chimney why not plug it up?
People who set booby traps for criminals (such as spring guns and the
like) should also consider the dangers they create for emergency types
(cops and fire fighters). It was such folks, and not criminals, who
were most often the victims of such contrivances before they were
pretty universally outlawed.
you have to think these things through...even if they aren't true.
peace
Timothy M. Travis
Bridge City Preparative Meeting
Portland, Oregon
>Dennis
>
>
"Why should I ask God to make me good when
I want to be naughty?" asked the little girl.
--A.W. Macneile Dixon
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> On 9/29/02 1:58 PM, in article MGKl9.644239$UU1.113198@sccrnsc03, "Dennis
> White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > I only disagree that animals have intellectualized and codified a method
> > that transfers ownership. I still don't believe animals *think* they
own
> > property. I think they defend it as territory that they find beneficial
for
> > their own survival. Nothing more or less.
>
> The only point I was making is that, lacking the capacity for it, animals
> seem to have close analogies and for me, that is enough.
>
> I think that animal defense of territory because it is beneficial, etc.
etc.
> is exactly the foundation of property rights and is the central philosophy
> of ownership, so by my lower-than-your-bar animals understand *enough*
about
> ownership to be considered cognicent of it.
I don't doubt that the rights of property are beneficial and are the central
philosophy of ownership.
>
> I agree that there is no book any animal consults to decide - that would
be
> ridiculous and very untrue (though would make an excellent SF story!).
Ah...but humans are animals!
>
Dennis White
"Guy" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:upf0mv6...@corp.supernews.com...
> Please be careful when you quote. You left in a "Guy wrote" in
> a post that contained none of my words. The text you refer to was
> written by someone else.
Guy,
Thanks for all of the links to, and how to attribute text to others. I
think you must know that it was an accident, and not due to my total lack of
netiquette. If it was my lack of netiquette, I'd probably take you're lead
(eventually) as I always have in the past.
Dennis
Dennis White
> "Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com> writes:
>
> > I agree some would *sanitize* nature. But, I also think that nature is
not
> > something that is less fastidious than human behavior...it is simply
nature.
> > We are a part of it. Certainly nature is not peacful...but it is after
all,
> > a *balance*, all things being equal.
>
> Why is nature a balance "after all"? What is the evidence for this?
You may have noticed I surrounded the word "balance" with astericks...then
added the qualifier "all things being equal".
>
> On a year-by-year scale, things change so slowly, that it looks
> balanced. But on the longer scale, we see environmental collapse,
> extinction, etc., etc., all without the presence of people. (Of
> course, people are especially good at destruction because we're so
> smart, which means that we can much speed up the scale.)
All of the above is also part of the *balance*.
>
> I don't think we see much evidence of balance of any kind. Someone
> alluded to predator-prey relationships; claiming that disastrous
> over-population only happens when people knock off the natural
> predators. That's nonsense; natural predator-prey relationships can,
> and do, result in the death of both predator and prey because both
> (naturally!) behave as greedily as possible. Indeed, predator-prey
> relationships are now a classic case of chaotic *instability*.
>
> Some will criticize me, saying something like "are you saying it's ok
> for people to wreak havoc just because nature does?" And the answer
> is: Of course not! I'm saying we shouldn't try and take our cues for
> beneficial behavior by trying to ape non-human nature.
If you know of any other force aside from nature that has and will manage to
continue as long as the cosmos exist, I invite you to try and explain it
here. the *balance* in nature is merely in that it exists. Even the harm
humans do will vanish in time. If eternity is endless, than even the Dodo
or the Passenger Pigeon, or a facsimile so close it is unimportant will
reappear. One mistake you make however is saying all species behave as
greedily as possible. They behave just as they are supposed to. There is
nothing unnatural in nature. Quote me on it.
Dennis
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> I agree that there is no book any animal consults to decide - that would
> be
>> ridiculous and very untrue (though would make an excellent SF story!).
>
> Ah...but humans are animals!
OK -- so other animals *besides* humans. :)
You animal, you! :)
Dennis White
"Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM" <N...@SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote in message
> On 9/29/02 2:10 PM, in article ETKl9.644397$UU1.113394@sccrnsc03, "Dennis
> White" <denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > I think this is how deep division and arguments start at SRQ. Please be
> > aware that I do not believe, and have never said that there was a
communal
> > golden age before civilization. This *cannot* be our main difference
> > because it is not even a view I take, much less would defend. I believe
> > that even with world disarray and armaments we are probably individually
> > less brutal than ever before in human history.
>
> If I got it wrong - what do you believe, then?
I'm not sure exactly. I think it is our differing views of territorialism
and ownership. One thing I am sure of, it is not that there was a golden
age before civilization. It is something I did not say, and would never
say.
>
> You said that property was theft and was a fiction created by man alone.
Someone else said property is theft. I may have quoted them or used their
words in a counter argument. I don't like to call property theft because it
is a hackneyed old phrase I used to hear in college. Uttered,of course, by
the sons and daughters of stock-brokers, industrialists and other highly
paid proffessionals that sent their kids to a very expensive, elitist
liberal arts college. I prefer to point out that property is a construct
created by 'man.
>
> We had much discussion about how animals distribute territory (I said they
> did, I am not sure that you disagreed, though it sure seemed like it.)
I don't believe that animals distribute territory. I believe they only
occupy it.
Dennis White
"Timothy Travis" <qsp...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:0g1fpucqdu38oacn8...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:10:56 GMT, "Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Now this *really is* getting off-topic, but I'd like to add something
> >here. I vaguely remember this story form newspaper accounts a few years
> >back... I may very well have the facts wrong, but it bears thinking
about,
> >no matter the facts.
>
> now what does that mean? even if something is not true we should
> think about it? That sounds too much, to me, like utopian philosophy.
> "Yeah, well, we know this isn't how people really act, but, let's
> pretend they do and create this system..."
No. It means that it bears pondering whether I have the facts right or not.
For instance it may be that the fellow was trapped in an air duct rather
than a chimney. That the merchant was charged with manslaughter rather than
second-degree murder.
>
> My favorite are the "Respirationarians." They postulate that people
> don't really have to breathe air and that we should all live on the
> bottom of the ocean...
>
> > A small urban merchant was so sick of being regularly burgled that
he
> >installed bare electrical wires in the roof access of an unused chimney
> >(accept for burgling) leading into his store. A burglar sought to enter
the
> >store by way of the chimney and was electrocuted. The merchant was
> >convicted of second-degree murder (IIRC).
>
> I believe this to be folklore, an urban legend. At least, all the
> people from whom I have asked for authenticating details have been
> unable to supply them. But it's too good a story not to use to make
> an ideological point, even if it's not true. If someone can point me
> to some source to verify this story I'll be glad to acknowledge it.
No. it is not urban legend. I'll also try to find the source of the story.
It may have taken place in Philadelphia. I remember it happening in the
late 1980's or early 1990's. I read it in the LA Times, not the Weekly
World News.
>
> But I do think, however, that those who seek to make it a privately
> administered death penalty offense to commit a burglary should be held
> legally accountable. It is not up to victims (yet) in the United
> States to punish those they deem to be criminals in any way they see
> fit without any participation from the legal system.
>
> if burglars are coming down one's chimney why not plug it up?
>
> People who set booby traps for criminals (such as spring guns and the
> like) should also consider the dangers they create for emergency types
> (cops and fire fighters). It was such folks, and not criminals, who
> were most often the victims of such contrivances before they were
> pretty universally outlawed.
I agree!
Dennis
Bromo AT IX DOT NETCOM DOT COM
<denn...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> We had much discussion about how animals distribute territory (I said they
>> did, I am not sure that you disagreed, though it sure seemed like it.)
>
> I don't believe that animals distribute territory. I believe they only
> occupy it.
OK - I think I understand, and also understand our differences:
My only difference with you is that I believe the animals' willingness to
defend their territory, and the fact that it is not uncommon for some
species of animals to occupy the same plot of territory passes my test for
ownership.
At the bottom it is a bit of a quibble.
Mike Salovesh
>
> The absurdity of the Libertarian notion of land ownership is the belief
> that something that existed since the beginning of the earth and will
> continue to exist until the planet falls into the sun can be rightly held
> and used or abused by any mortal individual just because that individual
> feels empowered to exercise ownership.
>
> We are all here just for a little while, but the Earth abides - for better
> or worse.
Steve appropriately raises a fundamental question about the source of
property rights.
Dennis White raises the question in another way by saying that
> I think it can be argued that Real property
> derives from the supposed divine rights of kings to confer ownership on
> others of land.
That, in fact, is the basic theory of the laws of real property in many
countries in Latin America. For a concrete example, I'll stick to
lectures on the underpinnings of law and property I have heard from
federal judges in Mexico and read in historically important decisions in
Mexican courts.
Condensed summary: The Mexican legal system, from the Spanish Conquest
to Independence, was in fact grounded on the common assumption of the
divine rights of the Crown. When the king's rule ended, that left a huge
theoretical gap regarding the source of the legitimacy of any laws at
all. The philosophical traditions about "social contract" did not have
many followers in Mexico; the works of writers like John Locke or Jean
Jacques Rousseau had been proscribed. What, then, was law's source?
The solution to the problem of legitimacy was to attribute the source of
power to the king's de facto successor: the nation-state.
Since the 1840s, Mexican Constitutions have uniformly declared that all
powers not granted *explicitly* to the people or to subsidiary units of
government are reserved to the State. "Natural rights", as such, are
recognized only to the extent that they are explicitly granted by laws
derived from the Constitution. [Note that this inverts the relationship
specified in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.]
This has interesting consequences for the laws of property, particularly
real property. Mexican law recognizes neither a limitless right to do
what you want with real property nor a perpetual right to hold such
property. Both are subject to the prior rights and needs of the nation.
The most striking effects of this proposition derive from basic
assumptions about what can and cannot be held as private property. Title
to land is never viewed as absolute, ranging from the center of the
earth to outer space. Instead, land ownership concerns usufruct: the
right to do things on and with the land's surface. That right is
revokable under the law. Title to vacant lands ("terrenos baldios"),
lands that are not used for a specified period, reverts to the nation
without compensation. Natural resources on or under the land, buried
treasure, or such things as archaeological sites are not conveyed by
land titles. [Example: mineral rights are regarded as inherent and
inalienable property of the nation. If I were to buy land for use as a
cattle ranch and oil deposits were discovered on "my" land, the oil and
access to it would belong to the nation, not to me.]
As an anthropologist, I have gotten used to living in places where laws
and customs are based on assumptions that are quite different from those
I was taught growing up in the U.S. In my attempts to survive those
experiences and to come to some understanding of why people there behave
and believe as they do, rather than as people back home usually do, I
have learned how important it is to be aware of how those strangers
think about what is and what is not "natural".
When the world's nations have so many different kinds of laws regarding
what can and what cannot be owned, underlain by strikingly different
assumptions about the meaning of "property", it's a good idea to
recognize that our attitudes and laws about property are NOT facts of
nature. [They are much less facts of "human nature".]
That's what it means to say that the notion of property is a social
construct.
--- mike salovesh <m-salo...@alumni.uchicago.edu> PEACE !!!
Steven Botts
--
to reply by e-mail, delete XSPAM
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+u...@becket.net> wrote in message
news:87elbch...@becket.becket.net...
> "Dennis White" <denn...@attbi.com> writes:
>
> > LOL! Do you suppose that humans are not animals, or that we are not
part of
> > nature? Please take into account the irony that may be derived from the
> > words: "(Nature) changes, wildly, with each species trying every trick
at
> > its disposal to get what it wants at the expense of all the rest". ;-)
>
> Of course humans are animals. And we try all the tricks too. But so
> far, we have also done amazing things that other animals have not.
>
> It is the fictive view of nature as some sort of "peaceful balance"
> which I was objecting to. "Nature red in tooth and claw..."
If somebody said nature was a state of peaceful balance, I guess I missed
it. It is, of course, a dynamic balance, which results in greater numbers of
different species at different times, in accordance with natural cycles.
Lots of changes take place, but they do not, so far as I can tell, impair
the ability of the earth to sustain life.
We, as a species have indeed done some amazing things. Some have made thing
on earth better, but others have made the planet poorer in the name of
personal gain, individual rights and the law of the marketplace.
Steve
>
Russell Nelson
> Yes, they do that. But they don't pave it and they don't try to kill off all
> other forms of life that exist there.
Tigers will kill lion cubs. Beavers will kill a forest without
blinking. Elephants uproot acacia trees.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com |
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | businesses persuade
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | governments coerce
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX |
Russell Nelson
> To follow this thought a bit further, I would have to ask who is the
> original owner of this stolen land. the obvious answer is that in this
> country it was stolen from the Native Americans. But then, they stole it
> from other Native Americans who stole it from..... Well, you get the idea.
Exactly. At some point you have to decide that land claims cannot be
settled.
> They, however, at least took it for the benefit of the whole tribe, not to
> be exploited by individuals.
This is certainly the mythology of the north american aboriginals.
> The absurdity of the Libertarian notion of land ownership is the belief
> that something that existed since the beginning of the earth and will
> continue to exist until the planet falls into the sun can be rightly held
> and used or abused by any mortal individual just because that individual
> feels empowered to exercise ownership.
What alternative do you propose?
In what way would it be better?
In what way would it be worse?
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> > On a year-by-year scale, things change so slowly, that it looks
> > balanced. But on the longer scale, we see environmental collapse,
> > extinction, etc., etc., all without the presence of people. (Of
> > course, people are especially good at destruction because we're so
> > smart, which means that we can much speed up the scale.)
>
> All of the above is also part of the *balance*.
What does the word "balance" mean?
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> If somebody said nature was a state of peaceful balance, I guess I missed
> it. It is, of course, a dynamic balance, which results in greater numbers of
> different species at different times, in accordance with natural cycles.
> Lots of changes take place, but they do not, so far as I can tell, impair
> the ability of the earth to sustain life.
They have certainly rendered parts of it nearly sterile for periods.
Regardless, what does "dynamic balance" mean? What would it look like
for things not to be in a dynamic balance?