----------
> From: Bill Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [CHOMSKY] Property
> Date: Sunday, July 13, 1997 1:41 AM
>
> Don Brayton wrote:
> >
> >Absolutely, but lets refine it a bit and get to the nomad versus
agrarian
> >issue later.  Answer for me:
> >Is my body, my property?

Keep in mind that if there is property in human beings, it can be alienated
(i.e., conveyed, pledged, etc.). Chattel slavery follows naturally.

>  No. because you cannot sell it (although you can sell your time you
cannot
> sell your body)
>
> >Is the Swiss Army knife which I purchased, my property?
>
> Yes.
The question is, did it belong to the person you bought it from...

> >If I built a floating island which
> >could sustain me in the middle of the ocean, would it be my property?
>
> Why would you want to do that?
>
> >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?
>
> No and no. But, to get the answer you wanted you had to phrase your
> question very broadly indeed. The community has some prior claim to
> SOCIALLY-PRODUCED property, just as you have some rights in the
community.
> Obviously the community cannot claim to have prior claim to ALL things,
> especially spiritual.
It would be rather frightening to see a definition of things spiritual
codified for any purpose. This would be necessary if there were to be
property in them.

> >If so, who is to  draw the line
> >and decide just where my prerogatives end and the communityís 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?

Good question. Is the present system better? At the moment, these things
are decided privately, in orivate interests (by "business"), "publicly" (by
the government, which is the tail of the business dog), or magically, by
"market" forces. Is this really the best we can do?

> The more you wish to claim as your own personal property the more
difficult
> will be the task of defending it. If you wish to claim only your
conscience
> as your own your task will be easier than if you wish to claim a
continent
> or two. From that we can deduce that the easiest way to defend your
> personal property is to be modest in your claims and generous in
> recognising others'.
>
> If you claim only what you need, and ensure others have what they need,
you
> are not only less conspicuous a target of envy, but there is no-one with
> any good reason to covet what you may have.
> >
> >
> <<SNIP>>  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.

If you consider our biological history, the concept of land ownership seems
like a flea claiming ownership of the dog. Perhaps the dog is available to
the flea colony for use, and perhaps that use is governed in some fashion
(hierarchical or whatever), but which flea really owns the dog?

> But few wish to return to a life that entails a daily struggle to
survive.
> And most of the popular religions came from feudal societies
(Catholicism,
> Confucianism, Hinduism, etc.) Protestant Christianity of course is the
> religion of capitalism.

If I'm not mistaken, Hinduism, Confucianism, Judaism and Christianity
predate feudalism. Christianity set the stage for European feudalism.

> >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.
>
> It wasn't quite that easy. The farmer had to destroy the way of life of
the
> nomad before he could farm the nomad's land. Fruit trees do not fruit
after
> just one growing season, and the farmer would not plant them on land he
did
> not have rights to. To destroy the nomad's way of life he had to destroy
> the nomad, either by absorbing him, or killing him. The same applies now,
> we cannot create socialism without destroying the capitalist. The debate
> between socialists is basically about how we do that.
> >
> >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.
>
> Indeed, but surely that is a straw man - who is it you believe is arguing
> for a return to a hunter gatherer economy? When DDebar points out that
> present property rights are based on theft he was not, in my view,
> suggesting that Yankees return the USA to its previous owners, but
showing
> that there is historical precedent for abolishing property rights which
are
> not in the best interests of society as a whole.

Be aware that there are numerous court cases pending that deal with the
issue of title claimed by Native people in the US and Canada. Check with
local title insurance companies for information about local cases.

> >>
> >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).
>
> As a socialist I see no need for agressive force to accomplish the
desired
> changes in social organisation. The working class already occupies the
> workplace and produces the wealth, we need only make the decision that
the
> means of production is therefor SOCIAL property and cease handing over
all
> we produce to the capitalist. We keep producing, but make our own
decisions
> about what we produce and what we do with what we produce.
>
> Of course there may be some trouble from the former owners of the means
of
> production, they may be expected to initiate some "agressive force" to
> re-assert control over us. But you seem to agree we would then have the
> right to defend ourselves ("the use of force in self defense is right")
> against such agression and since we are numerically far superior the
result
> is a foregone conclusion.
> >
>
> <<SNIP>> 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.
>
> Did you intend it to be a sexist remark, that is the question? It was
> certainly a poor analogy to compare a wife withholding food from her
> husband (who can cook his own food) with a ruling class withholding
> subsistence from their subject (working) class who cannot produce
anything
> without the capitalist, because the means of production is entirely owned
> by the capitalist class. The wife withholding food from her husband is
more
> analogous, in a patriarchal social context, with workers withholding
their
> labour from their employer (striking) to force a concession.
> >
> >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.
>
> Am I missing something? You consider it OK to control others by
threatening
> to take their life by starvation, yet not OK to control others by
> threatening to take their life with a bullet. The motive is the same, the
> result is the same, I see no practical difference. Explain it to me.
>
> >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.
>
> Personally I would prefer the restaurant where the weapons were NOT
> concealed. Again your remarks contain deep contradictions, you do not
seem
> to regard concealed weapons as "covert", yet apparantly an open display
of
> weapons ARE! I also wonder why anyone with criminal intent (I assume you
do
> not include those carrying concealed weapons, although they sound like a
> suspicious bunch to me) would be more likely to attack a group of overtly
> armed diners rather than those apparantly not armed.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tasmania