On Sun, 6 Jul 1997 19:51:43 -0400 DDeBar <[log in to unmask]> writes:

<clip>

>The very concept of property involves a taking.

Absolutely, but lets refine it a bit and get to the nomad versus agrarian
issue later.  Answer for me:  Is my body, my property?  Is the Swiss Army
knife which I purchased, my property? If I built a floating island which
could sustain me in the middle of the ocean, would it be my property?  Is
there anything which can be _totally_ my property, or do you assert that
the community has some prior claim to some or all things, physical,
intellectual and perhaps even spiritual?  If so, who is to  draw the line
and decide just where my prerogatives end and the community’s begins ...
pure authority (established by might), authority moderated by law or a
form of  democracy?  If the latter, how do I defend myself from a
majority who would vote to see me dead and divide up my property?

>Since the land predates the
>very concept of property, use real property as an example (although it
>is
>not the same as personal property in some respects, I think, if
>Einstein is
>correct, NO property was made from nothingness). The current title is
>derivative; it is only as good as the original one, i.e., the title
>that
>was created at the point that the holder thereof acquired it from
>common,
>or non-, ownership. How legitimate was this transfer? What
>consideration
>was exchanged for the "conveyance"? Did the party(ies) making the
>conveyance have the authority to do so? etc. In American, and English
>and
>earlier law, there are remedies to those failures of title that are
>the
>consequence of prior flaws; this, however, "cures" problems of
>marketability, and not necessarily legitimacy, if a distinction can be
>made
>between the two (I do recognize the linguistic source of the word
>legitimacy). In other words, consensus and economic expedience, and
>not
>logic, rule here.
>
>If you take the position that the original source of ownership of the
>Americas is theft and genocide, then consequent conveyances are,
>obviously,
>flawed. This principle is, in fact, generally recognized under present
>law,
>e.g., I cannot rob a bank and give you the money clear of the claim of
>the
>original owner(s).

Well stated, even if hurried.  We will probably always be wrestling with
the nomad versus agrarian issue.  Most of the deeply imbedded
mythologies, cultures and religions were developed millennia ago in order
to cope with the nomadic life.  Relatively recently, as agrarian
technologies proved more efficient at survival, we have created dogmas to
support the ethics of ownership, but the romance of the wanderer lives
on.  Hypothetically, the first time a nomad returned to his customary
fall habitat and found a fence around some trees laden with fruit, he did
not understand why the "owner" fought him away.  He believed that
everyone, as either "God" or "The Community" shared all trees.  He did
not stop to think that the trees and fruit would not be there at all
without the agrarian having taken responsibility for their care.  The
intelligent nomad adopted the new philosophy.  The blindly resentful
nomad attacked until he was either defeated or the farmer and probabaly
the trees were destroyed.

On a larger scale, we now have mega-owners of mega complexes with
ownership agreements lasting over many lifetimes through institutions and
inheritance agreements.  The person who insists on being a nomad is still
on the outs.  You can take all the nomads (a la disenfranchised workers)
and indoctrinate them, organize them, motivate them and hurl them against
the agrarian/industrial flame like so many ants and you will not change
the fact that ownership and individual responsibility is more efficient
at survival than wandering around hoping and praying you will find what
you need.

>Consequently, exactly where do those people who have had their
>property go
>to obtain redress?
>
>Taxation, WHEN DONE AS THE ACT OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION OF THE
>JURIDICTION, is nothing more than the act of democratically
>reallocating
>social resources. This concept derives from a social contract that
>says 1.)
>fundimental title to the wealth of the planet rests in the people; 2.)
>all
>subsequent titles are derivative of this; and 3.) that rights of use
>and
>possession are subject to the will of the people, i.e., that social
>rights
>in property are paramount. When control of the power to tax is not
>socially
>held, however, then the case can be made that the exercise of such
>power
>constitutes theft.

NO REDRESS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT FIRST STOPPING THE TAKING.  (Here
goes Don again!)  In everything you say, do and think,  take the position
that, for the individual and therefore groups,  the aggressive use of
force is wrong but that the use of force in self defense is right.
Similarly, the use of deceit in the acquisition of property is wrong but
the use of deceit to defend yourself is right (you do not have to tell
the mugger, if he asks for more, that you have a hundred dollar bill
tucked  in your shoe).

<clip>

>> Both wives and tyrants use satiation of hunger to keep men pacified
>and
>> motivated.  It is involuntary, visceral and way more effective than
>> whatever is in second place.
>
>Please spare us the sexist remarks. They cheapen your argument.

Perhaps your response is just a hasty thrust ad hominem,  but I’ll tell
you what.  In the spirit of democracy, let those in this forum who care
to comment give me advice.  Was this a sexist comment  or is there enough
truth and humor in it that it contributed to the sense of my remarks?  If
the majority chooses the former, I will be more politically correct in
the future.

More importantly, your response validates my point and uncovers a
difference between us.  I believe that all life deserves to live to its
potential as individuals. Are you averse to those with ability, like the
wife (or husband, or baby, or ...) who seek to control others in their
environment (give and withdraw food, for example)?  There is nothing
wrong with seeking to control your environment which in part, contains
other human beings.  The issue is how and within what limits: the use of
force and deceit versus persuasion,  agreement and exchange.  The common
man (person, to be properly PC) can be trusted.  For example, If there
were two equivalent restaurants, except one allowed carrying concealed
weapons and the other did not, I would choose the former because it would
likely be populated with armed commoners and anyone with criminal intent
would stay away.  I am not averse to able people.  I am averse to thugs
and liars and others who would use more covert forms of force.

<clip>

>
>You are obviously not a musician! I have played for (ahemm!) years,
>and
>haven't made enough money to pay for my instruments, let alone live
>on. Why
>do people teach? Why do people raise children? The point I'm trying to
>make
>is, there are many was to "profit"; people can be motivated to work by
>many
>things besides fear of starvation. I think we are in agreement here,
>yes?

Send me your address and I will send you a tape of my band.  We were
good, not great, but I made good use of the spare change. My subjective
motivation was camaraderie, the illusory status in doing something others
couldn't do and I loved the sound we made.

It is a matter of degrees, trade offs and moral considerations to
differentiate between this exchange and the activity of a gigolo.  I do
agree with you that humanitarian or philanthropic motives hold a morally
higher ground.  But expressions of lofty motives are so often found
emptied of content in the PR or political arenas, covering other, less
worthy motives, that I find them hard to trust without inspection.

>
<clip>

Don Brayton

Pacifism is not passive, freedom is not free
(still working on the second line)