Science and Technology news... :: View topic - If You Don>t Like Wealth Spread Your Way, Just Send It To Me

Les Cargill · Guest

Mark M. wrote:
[quote]SORR Point wrote:

Publius, you are far from being "modern" ... neanderthal cave dweller
is more your go. Don>t let the modern technology that you see around
you delude you to the false reality of your beliefs that you live in.

Early human cave dwellers were obviously dependent on each other for
survival. Even before language, teamwork for the common good must have
been understood to be above individual choice of whether or not to
contribute. There was no other way to survive but through mandatory
contribution. There could be no specific contracts between individuals.
[/quote]
There was a general agreement not to abuse the system.

[quote]Non-interference was not enough. Positive action was required of every
able member of the community. Only after the inventions of mathematics,
record-keeping, and money could even the concept of voluntary
association arise.

[/quote]
Tribes, at least Amerind tribes, were not fixed societies at all -
people could leave a tribe ( and indeed, did). They lost any status,
but high status people tended to stay.

[quote]Which leads to the question: if the libertarian idea of mutual
non-interference is just, and mandatory service to community unjust, and
if less technologically advanced societies couldn>t possibly practice
the libertarian model simply because they lacked the technology, doesn>t
that mean that justice itself must wait on technology?
[/quote]
Fingerprints and DNA have greatly affected the application of justice.
That does not mean it "waits" on tech, just that it>s refined by it.

[quote]What kind of
justice needs technology? Murder and theft of movable goods are
punished in even the most primitive cultures. Taxes require technology
but obligation paid through service doesn>t. Aren>t they the same in
concept? What then of the libertarian idea that obligations to your
neighbor are limited to the terms of voluntary contracts? With the
invention of money comes the concept of credit which must precede
contracts in a market economy. Cave dwellers could trade
instantaneously but couldn>t keep track of long term credits. What they
did was practice teamwork; esprit de corp; solidarity. They contributed
without binding contract for repayment. That>s what solidarity means.
And solidarity was what humans needed for survival.

[/quote]
Emphasis on past tense - although nothing is so cooperative as market
based behavior. It>s merely more formal than barter.

[quote]Were early cave dwellers living in a philosophical dark age that could
have been ended at any time by a libertarian missionary showing the
savages how to organize their tribal village as a entirely voluntary,
contract based, market system without taxes, or what is essentially the
same thing, without mandatory positive action for the common good?

[/quote]
My understanding of the subject says that prior to agriculture, things
would have converged on a relatively Libertarian arrangement, albeit
barter. That>s one reason Icelandic data is heavily used - there>s a
record of it.

[quote]Or, is teamwork STILL the essential ingredient in society? Do we NEED
solidarity more than we need advanced technology? Can we EVER
technologize(even a word?) ourselves out of the need for SOLIDARITY?

[/quote]
I>m being gentle on the word "solidarity" because it rings of
20th Century collectivism, but "cooperation" is ever more vital
as technology advances. We cooperate with people we will
never meet.

[quote]
Mark M.
[/quote]
--
Les Cargill

Bret Cahill · Guest

[quote]Since I introduced the term, let me restate the definition given: A "free
lunch"
[/quote]
There is no free lunch on liberty. Freedom ain>t free. Taxes are
the price of freedom.

[quote]is a benefit conferred on a person by gummint, using funds extracted
from other persons at gunpoint.
[/quote]
I don>t see anyone holding a gun to anyone>s head forcing him to live
in the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U.
S. and pay taxes.

You can exit anytime.

Call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the next one way flight to Mogadishu.

Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill · Guest

[quote]There is no "community" which can be served;
[/quote]
The American community made itself very clear:

No more tax cuts on the rich.

[quote]there are only individuals.
"Community" is just a collective term for a number of individuals who
happen to occupy a common territory.
[/quote]
And if an individualist wants to occupy a common territory where he
doesn>t have to pay taxes he can call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the
next one way flight to Mogadishu in the low tax utopia of Somalia.

Bret Cahill

Les Cargill · Guest

Publius wrote:
[quote]"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:49208ef5$0$4904$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...

"...But the next generation, the pioneers, begin moving inland, into
territories over which the government has no control whatever."

Might this constitute a "gap in coverage"?

I thought you were speaking of gaps in titles. There can certainly be
gaps in government (we could use a few more of those). But gaps in
government do not imply gaps in titles, as the history shows.

[/quote]
Not so much titles, no. It does happen, but very infrequently. And
if, for some reason, the law under which the title was
assigned was not valid under the ... "host country" after
the catchup, there>d be at least a lawsuit.

Most property law translates well enough, though.

[quote]If you>re speaking of titles, there were no gaps. People arrive in a
territory and stake claims. When there are enough people to justify
creating a government they create one, which records the claims
they>ve already made and continues to record new claims as new
settlers arrive, pick their spots, and stake their own claims. Those
claims, and the title chains deriving from them, remain valid to this
day.

The erstatz government is not an official one - it>s a temporary
engine to hold the gap until the real government can acheive control.

"Ersatz"? "Real"? "Official"? Per what criteria? Was the gummint of the
Republic of Texas "real" or "ersatz"?

[/quote]
It was real for the 20-30 years it stood. I was more thinking Judge
Parker>s rulings over the Indian territories, where the administration
was less cut and tried. Arizona, Nevada had similar ar5rangements.

[quote]And I have no idea what any of this has to do with "creating
anarchy." Could you explain how that relates to this discussion?

I>m surprised you don>t understand your own words - rather,
the implication of ( people move to territories out of range ).

I thought the topic of discussion was the origins of titles, especially
land titles. When people move out of range of government they do indeed
move into anarchy, at least until they create another government. But
they continue to generate and recognize land titles, and generally
observe them, with or without government.

[/quote]
All I mean is that this is generally a temporary phenomenon, and
that US law eventually eclipsed Texas law ( in the example).

[quote]It is also pretty safe to say that had the US government not been
prepared to recognize the land claims already staked and recorded
locally, the settlers in Oregon, Texas, and elsewhere would never have
allowed, much less invited, that government onto their territories.

After settlement patterns support the Official(tm) government>s
presence there, things regress to the mean state - a normal
government.

The "official" government is whatever government the inhabitants of a
territory consider legitimate. If they do not consider it legitimate
then it is merely an occupation government.

[/quote]
I would call that quite accurate in terms of the U.S. West. Excellent
term - wish I>d thought of it - it might have prevented
some miscues.

[quote]Well, I suppose the importance of the distinction is a subjective
matter. But the cognitive difference is quite clear, and so are the
implications of the two concepts. If government is the *grantor* of
land claims, then it may be argued that those grants were only
permissions, revocable at any time ("What God giveth He can also
taketh away").

See Kelo vs. City of New London.

Yes indeed. Another usurpation --- among the latest in an ever-growing
list --- which has ushered in the post-Constitutional Era of US history.

[/quote]
TO me, it (and railroad law upon which it is based) tell us that
land ownership is not an absolute thing. Indeed, the history of
Britain shows quite an evolution of patterns of how land
ownership worked.

It *looks* like an usurpation, but it might be more normal
than we realize. I wish I was better versed in the history
of how property law evolved. Roy actually is.

[quote]government is not the grantor, on the other hand, but instead an
institution created to help people defend and secure rights they
already had --- a sort of "rent-a-cop" --- then any attempt on its
part to violate or void those rights would be a usurpation, a breach
of its contract, and render it ripe for overthrow.

History shows --- quite unambiguously, I submit --- the latter
scenario is the correct one.

History shows quite the opposite, I fear. People who want to establish
sovereignties on oil platforms might disagree, but Anarchies don>t
work.

It was US history of which I was speaking. It isn>t a question of
anarchy vs. government, but of constitutional vs. totalitarian government.
[/quote]
SFAIK, Kelo stands as law.

--
Les Cargill

SORR Point · Guest

"Mark M." <mark@ztech.com> wrote in message
news:S-ydnUt6zpDOnr_UnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@earthlink.com...
[quote]SORR Point wrote:

Publius, you are far from being "modern" ... neanderthal cave dweller is
more your go. Don>t let the modern technology that you see around you
delude you to the false reality of your beliefs that you live in.

Early human cave dwellers were obviously dependent on each other for
survival. Even before language, teamwork for the common good must have
been understood to be above individual choice of whether or not to
contribute. There was no other way to survive but through mandatory
contribution. There could be no specific contracts between individuals.
Non-interference was not enough. Positive action was required of every
able member of the community. Only after the inventions of mathematics,
record-keeping, and money could even the concept of voluntary association
arise.

Which leads to the question: if the libertarian idea of mutual
non-interference is just, and mandatory service to community unjust, and
if less technologically advanced societies couldn>t possibly practice the
libertarian model simply because they lacked the technology, doesn>t that
mean that justice itself must wait on technology? What kind of justice
needs technology? Murder and theft of movable goods are punished in even
the most primitive cultures. Taxes require technology but obligation paid
through service doesn>t. Aren>t they the same in concept? What then of
the libertarian idea that obligations to your neighbor are limited to the
terms of voluntary contracts? With the invention of money comes the
concept of credit which must precede contracts in a market economy. Cave
dwellers could trade instantaneously but couldn>t keep track of long term
credits. What they did was practice teamwork; esprit de corp; solidarity.
They contributed without binding contract for repayment. That>s what
solidarity means. And solidarity was what humans needed for survival.

[/quote]
Yes.

The analogy of neanderthals however is that they went the way fo the
dinosaurs ... Extinct, and that is exactly where Publius>s Philosophy of
Life is heading along with the USA style of Capitalism, Finance, Money is
God, and the USA>s International Hegemony.

The change is not coming, Obama is not a messiah that is bringing this
Change, it is already here, now and present.

[quote]Were early cave dwellers living in a philosophical dark age that could
have been ended at any time by a libertarian missionary showing the
savages how to organize their tribal village as a entirely voluntary,
contract based, market system without taxes, or what is essentially the
same thing, without mandatory positive action for the common good?

[/quote]
Publius and his ilk repeatedly ignore the truth that the USA, and damn well
every other soveirgn on earth for that matter is a joint pack between what
is correctly labelled as *Commonwealths*

ie Common Wealth .... these words actually mean something real, that cannot
be denied by simplistic rhetoric that it just ain>t so and that Government
is automatically the bane of individual success and creativity in the world.

[quote]Or, is teamwork STILL the essential ingredient in society?
[/quote]
Yes, absolutely, in ALL societies it is.

[quote]Do we NEED solidarity more than we need advanced technology?
[/quote]
Yes, absolutely.

[quote]Can we EVER technologize(even a word?) ourselves out of the need for
SOLIDARITY?

[/quote]
No.

Publius and his knarled friends are repleat with onerous attacks about *free
lunches* handed out by government, and whatever.

Yet, everyday of his life, as a citizen of the USA [ or any other nation for
that matter ] he eats his daily bread because of the FREE LUNCH he recieves
as a citizen, irrespective of his social status, place of residence, or
financial wealth.

These Free Lunches of being a US Citizen include the fact that every member
of that society by virtue of their place of birth, and even the poorest of
the poor in the USA are rich beyond belief relative to the rest of the
world>s people. Even the US poor enjoy the enviable status of being in the
TOP 10% - 16% of the most wealthy individuals on the planet.

Publius did not EARN this status, it was his Birth Right, a Free Gift from
the Universe that placed him where he is today, in this time.

But is there an ounce of gratitude for this, an ounce of personal
responsibility for this good fortune? No, not a drop. Any understanding of
the value of his Free Lunches that eats daily, and has enjoyed all his life
by sheer accident or by choice to emmigrate to the USA? Nope.

Is there an understanding that there is not, and has NEVER been an economic
system on this planet that has honestly included the TRUE VALUE of the
existing natural wealth, the CommonWealth of nature for all people on the
planet that has and continues to sustain Humanity with absolutely NO
assistance from Economies, Capitalism, Government, or free markets?

That the True value of Trees are totally excluded from all Business Plans
and economic interests and analysis? That economic and social system totally
ignore reality when they attempt to preseume that Mankind and Western
Civilisation in particular is different and separate to the Natural
Environment that sustains us since the beginning of time to this day.

That it is irrational, illogical, and foolhardy to continue to live the lie
that somehow Humans are some kind of alien addition on top of the natural
resources of this planet, different from the rest of Life here ... and not
connected in any way except that these things are their for our own
individual wealth , and use under any circumstances no matter what !!!

Well, it>s unfortunately not true no matter what Publuis believes or thinks
or how well he imagines his mental gymnastics and rhetoric and debating
skills maybe, fo rhe is sadly mistaken.

Human beings are in fact and truth an integral part of nature on earth ....
not separate from it in any way. Ideological beliefs about the brilliance of
capitalism and the creative geniuii of technology and science can never and
will never over-ride this fundametal truth.

But it>s is a long long series of self-deluding false beliefs that has
brought mankind to today ... and just like the neanderthals, these false
unsustainable beliefs have been permanently fractured, are withering, in
fact dying on the vine and about to enter extinction. ............ and the
sooner the better, imho.

cheers sean

[quote]
Mark M.[/quote]

Guest

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:23:35 GMT, Publius
<m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

[quote]"Mark M." <mark@ztech.com> wrote in
news:usWdnZvCjZIiYoDUnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@earthlink.com:

Your confusion seems to arise out of confounding liberty of action
with liberty to designate things as private property.

Methinks it is you who are confused. "Designating a thing to be private
property" is itself an action. If you have liberty of action, then that
action would be among those which you are at liberty to do. Or is liberty
of action restricted to only certain actions? If it is, then it is not
"liberty," is it?
[/quote]
No, that is just stupidity. Liberty of action is restricted to
actions that don>t violate others' liberties of action. Appropriating
natural resources to oneself violates others' liberty of action, no
less than threatening them with bodily harm.

[quote]You>re contradicting yourself.
[/quote]
Only if you imagine that the right to liberty is not constrained by
others' rights.

[quote]There is no act of ownership.

Oh, but there is.
[/quote]
No, there isn>t.

[quote]"Ownership" is a relation between a person and a thing.
[/quote]
No, in reality it is a relationship between a person, a thing and
society.

[quote]That relationship comes into existence upon performance of a specific,
concrete act by a person, namely, when the person takes possession of a
previously unowned thing (an "unowned thing" being any thing not previously
in anyone>s possession, or which a previous possessor has abandoned).
[/quote]
No, that is mere appropriation. Its consequence is not ownership but
mere forcible animal possession. Ownership requires societal
recognition and support.

[quote]He
takes possession of it when he places himself in a position to control it
and derive some benefits from it and announces his intention to continue
possession.
[/quote]
I.e., forcibly to deprive others of it should they wish to use it.

[quote]That act is both *necessary* and *sufficient* to establish the
relation of "ownership."
[/quote]
No, it is self-evidently neither.

[quote]It is his liberty of action which permits him to
take that action.
[/quote]
No, nothing can permit a liberty to extinguish others' liberty.

[quote]Unconditional ownership of land would mean that a person could own
great tracts of land and never use any of it while preventing any
others from using it.

No.
[/quote]
Yes. Stop lying.

[quote]He may claim ownership of only so much land (or anything else) as he
actually has control of and from which he is actually deriving some
benefits.
[/quote]
You don>t have to use land to control it, and the benefits he derives
from holding it out of use may consist of the usual landowner feeling
of gratification at seeing the landless robbed, impoverished,
enslaved, and starved to death through lack of liberty to use land.

[quote](In a previous post I mentioned that the US did not buy a land title to all
of Louisiana when it purchased the territory from France, because France
had no title to sell.
[/quote]
And I proved you wrong about that, too.

[quote]It had control over very little of that territory and
had realized benefits from even less. Its representatives had never even
seen most of it. So any claim by the French government to ownership of it
would have been hollow).
[/quote]
No, because other powers recognized its title (as proved by the USA>s
purchase of it) -- the defining quality of property.

[quote]There are many schemes for land tenure: tenancy conditional on
continued use, tenancy conditional on land taxes, tenancy conditional
on public service or national defense. But nowhere on earth is land
recognized as unconditional property. Are you proposing it should be?
If so, on what basis?

Do the above remarks answer that question?
[/quote]
They show that you cannot answer it.

[quote]The common law recognizes the
principle of "adverse possession."
[/quote]
I.e., your claimed "first possession principle" is a bald fabrication.

[quote]It provides that if someone enters upon
land claimed by another, uses it "openly and notoriously" for some period
of time (usually 10 years), and the presumed owner makes no effort to evict
the trespasser, then the land becomes the trespasser>s property.
[/quote]
Voiding your claimed "first possesion principle."

[quote]That is
because the presumed owner either is deriving no benefits and has no
control over the land, or has abandoned it.
[/quote]
Proving that first possession is in fact irrelevant to land titles,
which are asssigned solely on the basis of forcible appropriation, and
are therefore just as validly overturned by forcible appropriation.

-- Roy L

SORR Point · Guest

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4921e380.24886255@news.telus.net...
[quote]On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:23:35 GMT, Publius
m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

"Mark M." <mark@ztech.com> wrote in
news:usWdnZvCjZIiYoDUnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@earthlink.com:

Your confusion seems to arise out of confounding liberty of action
with liberty to designate things as private property.

Methinks it is you who are confused. "Designating a thing to be private
property" is itself an action. If you have liberty of action, then that
action would be among those which you are at liberty to do. Or is liberty
of action restricted to only certain actions? If it is, then it is not
"liberty," is it?

No, that is just stupidity. Liberty of action is restricted to
actions that don>t violate others' liberties of action. Appropriating
natural resources to oneself violates others' liberty of action, no
less than threatening them with bodily harm.

You>re contradicting yourself.

Only if you imagine that the right to liberty is not constrained by
others' rights.

There is no act of ownership.

Oh, but there is.

No, there isn>t.

"Ownership" is a relation between a person and a thing.

No, in reality it is a relationship between a person, a thing and
society.

That relationship comes into existence upon performance of a specific,
concrete act by a person, namely, when the person takes possession of a
previously unowned thing (an "unowned thing" being any thing not
previously
in anyone>s possession, or which a previous possessor has abandoned).

No, that is mere appropriation. Its consequence is not ownership but
mere forcible animal possession. Ownership requires societal
recognition and support.

He
takes possession of it when he places himself in a position to control it
and derive some benefits from it and announces his intention to continue
possession.

I.e., forcibly to deprive others of it should they wish to use it.

That act is both *necessary* and *sufficient* to establish the
relation of "ownership."

No, it is self-evidently neither.

It is his liberty of action which permits him to
take that action.

No, nothing can permit a liberty to extinguish others' liberty.

Unconditional ownership of land would mean that a person could own
great tracts of land and never use any of it while preventing any
others from using it.

No.

Yes. Stop lying.

He may claim ownership of only so much land (or anything else) as he
actually has control of and from which he is actually deriving some
benefits.

You don>t have to use land to control it, and the benefits he derives
from holding it out of use may consist of the usual landowner feeling
of gratification at seeing the landless robbed, impoverished,
enslaved, and starved to death through lack of liberty to use land.

(In a previous post I mentioned that the US did not buy a land title to
all
of Louisiana when it purchased the territory from France, because France
had no title to sell.

And I proved you wrong about that, too.

It had control over very little of that territory and
had realized benefits from even less. Its representatives had never even
seen most of it. So any claim by the French government to ownership of it
would have been hollow).

No, because other powers recognized its title (as proved by the USA>s
purchase of it) -- the defining quality of property.

There are many schemes for land tenure: tenancy conditional on
continued use, tenancy conditional on land taxes, tenancy conditional
on public service or national defense. But nowhere on earth is land
recognized as unconditional property. Are you proposing it should be?
If so, on what basis?

Do the above remarks answer that question?

They show that you cannot answer it.

The common law recognizes the
principle of "adverse possession."

I.e., your claimed "first possession principle" is a bald fabrication.

It provides that if someone enters upon
land claimed by another, uses it "openly and notoriously" for some period
of time (usually 10 years), and the presumed owner makes no effort to
evict
the trespasser, then the land becomes the trespasser>s property.

Voiding your claimed "first possesion principle."

That is
because the presumed owner either is deriving no benefits and has no
control over the land, or has abandoned it.

Proving that first possession is in fact irrelevant to land titles,
which are asssigned solely on the basis of forcible appropriation, and
are therefore just as validly overturned by forcible appropriation.

-- Roy L
[/quote]
Roy there>s a good I learnt from others to clearly define liberty and
freedom in a meaningful way. I would also think it would adequately cover
the issue about land ownership, use, methodolgies and their inherent values
of justice and morality and ethical stature.

"My freedom ends, where yours begins."
or

"Your freedoms end, where mine begins"

Or a more humorous way to say it

" Your freedom and individual liberty to throw a punch at me, ends at the
point of my nose! "

Obviously Publius has great difficulty in comprehending the limitations of
his Libertarian views, whilst projecting those very same limitations solely
upon the Governmental Instituions and Free Lunches he percieves other
receieve in endless bounty while he misses out except for paying the bills.

Of course, Publius enjoys his free lunches endlessly everyday without paying
any attention to them or being aware of them, for example everytime he fills
up his gas tank he is topping up with another of his free lunches where the
Price he pays at the Pump is not a true reflection of the Value and the true
cost of that Freedom of his to drive his car.

And yet this still does not cover the truth that every barrel of oil is in
itself a FREE GIFT from the Universe, from Life itself. How does one place
some arbitary dollar price on such a commodity when such matters are simply
ignored under every Economic System known to man in the first place?

Should the state of play change dramatically and he actually got his way of
NO FREE LUNCHES, he would undoubtedly being paying at least 10 fold the
current Price, if he was even lucky enough to find a gas Station with gas,
and still open.

For that is where the Publius & Fred version of Libertarian Individualist
Civilisation would lead in double quick time. And the illusory apparent
power and the wealth of the USA would never have existed in the first place.

Such is the travails of idiocracy today. cheers

Publius · Guest

"Mark M." <mark@ztech.com> wrote in
news:S-ydnUt6zpDOnr_UnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@earthlink.com:

[quote]Early human cave dwellers were obviously dependent on each other for
survival. Even before language, teamwork for the common good must
have been understood to be above individual choice of whether or not
to contribute. There was no other way to survive but through
mandatory contribution. There could be no specific contracts between
individuals. Non-interference was not enough. Positive action was
required of every able member of the community. Only after the
inventions of mathematics, record-keeping, and money could even the
concept of voluntary association arise.
[/quote]
Some good questions there. The concepts of "individual choice,"
"voluntary association," and also such notions as "contracts," "rights,"
"property," and many other related terms, simply do not apply to
pre-civilized societies.

From an earlier post of mine:

--------------------
Homo sapiens, if the anthropologists are right, has been on Earth for
about 200,000 years. Until the last 10,000 or so of those years, he
lived in small tribal villages, consisting of a few dozen to a few
hundred members --- small enough that all of its members knew all of the
others, indeed, had known each other all of their lives. They midwifed
one another>s births, tended one another>s illnesses, shared one
another>s possessions, and married one another>s cousins. They knew and
trusted one another, and had dense, intimate relationships among one
another. They needed no formal ethics nor any political structure to
govern their affairs, simply because each was and had always been a
part of every other’s life.

But with the rise of civilization --- the culture of cities ---
those bonds could not be maintained. People found themselves living in
large communities in which most of the people around them were
strangers, with whom they had no familial or other personal ties, and
often very little else in common. People began to notice the differences
among them --- differences in coloration and bone structure, in habits
of dress, in temperament and mannerisms, in interests and tastes, and
eventually even in religion and language. They acquired *individuality*.

In tribal societies there is no free will, and no individuality. All the
myriad choices we today are constantly obliged to make are prescribed by
the tribe; they>re part of the tribal consciousness, codified in tribal
tradition, the "folkways" of the tribe. How one dresses, what one eats,
where one lives, how one earns a living, the choosing of mates, the Gods
to be worshipped and the rituals for worshipping them, all the petty
rules governing the tasks of daily life and the "standard methods" for
performing them, are absorbed from the tribe, without question and
without the need for thought.

There is no individuality to speak of in these groups, because all
members have known and interacted only with each other since birth, and
they are locked into a resonance. There is no politics, no debate, no
alternate point of view on any matter --- and as a result, almost no
innovation. Tribal cultures can remain all but static for thousands of
years, with only a slight refinement in spear points to indicate any
time has passed at all. Australian Aborigines, for example, when
encountered by Europeans in the 18th century, were making
didgeridoos indistinguishable from those made 2000 years earlier. In
40,000 years they never added another instrument to their musical
technology.

That resonance, however, cannot be maintained in larger groups, because
the required intimacy is impossible. The group becomes too large for
everyone to know and interact constantly with everyone else; hence one
soon finds oneself in the company of *strangers* --- individuals with
whom they>ve had no prior contact and whose habits, preferences, and
beliefs cannot be predicted in advance. And because they>ve all been
subject to slightly different influences, they begin to differ in all
the ways indicated above.

The breakdown of that resonance represented a huge transformation, not
merely of the social structure, but of the human psyche. The traditional
tribal control mechanisms, based on age and personal stature, gave way
to formal systems of governance --- politics. The tribesman’s intuitive
sense of right and wrong, which derived primarily from his personal ties
to and regard for his fellows, gave way to formal systems of ethics.
Indeed, ethics, like law, is a code for regulating behavior among
*strangers* --- among people who have no personal interest in one
another’s welfare.

Every utopia conceived in the last 5000 years has been an attempt to
recapture the tribal consciousness. The Garden of Eden story embodies
this "fall from Grace" --- the loss of mankind>s oneness with God and
Nature, his "alienation," his exile into a world of strife and
temptation, where he seems to have free will and must constantly choose
between good and evil, between this course of action or that, relying
only on his own judgement, and must suffer the consequences when his
judgments go awry.

All these laments of lost innocence and utopian strivings are atavisms
-- they are psychic echoes of our tribal heritage, the social form honed
over the course of our 3 million year primate history. All of our fellow
primates still practice that form, and until the rise of civilization,
so did all humans.

It would be surprising were our brains not adapted to that social form.
They have evolved syncronously with that form, and thus may be expected
to function optimally in that environment, in many ways. So it is not
surprising that we miss that form, or that we long to regain it. We are
ducks out of water, trying to find our way back to the pond.

We remain "wired" for tribal life. We long for it, unattainable though
it may be. And often we try to recreate or or substitute for it, by
immersing ourselves in cults or joining in totalitarian movements. The
cult seeks to insulate itself from the "society of strangers;" the
totalitarian movement seeks to subdue it and impose a tribal-like
conformity, a synthetic common identity and purpose --- usually
resulting in much bloodshed.
-------------

Civilized humans are individuated; they are no longer interchangeable
instances or exemplars of a tribal identity. They differ wildly in their
interests, preferences, personal histories, experiences, beliefs, and
goals. That individuality is what drives the dynamism of civilized
societies; what enables it to change more in 100 years than tribal
societies might in 10,000. It is what has permitted humans to overcome the
famines, diseases, and natural disasters which beset them and all their
primate cousins for millions of years, and to transform the natural world
to better meet their needs and better satisfy their ever-evolving and
proliferating desires.

What worked for pre-civilized societies never worked very well, and cannot
work at all for the unrelated, individuated members of civilized societies,
whose only "common interest" is the interest of each of them in pursuing
the various goods defined in their own unique hierarchies and in attaining
their own idiosyncratic goals.

Modern societies are like public playing fields, where each player enters
in the hope of finding a pickup game, and where each team plays the game of
its choice, using their own gear and their own rules. The "global" rules
are few and general: "First-come, first-served," "Pick up your litter," and
"Don>t intrude on others' games."

[quote]Which leads to the question: if the libertarian idea of mutual
non-interference is just, and mandatory service to community unjust,
and if less technologically advanced societies couldn>t possibly
practice the libertarian model simply because they lacked the
technology, doesn>t that mean that justice itself must wait on
technology?
[/quote]
There is no "community" which can be served; there are only individuals.
"Community" is just a collective term for a number of individuals who
happen to occupy a common territory.

The concept of "justice" does not depend upon technology; it depends upon
individuality. It arises only when individuals appear whose interests,
goals, talents, and strengths differ. "Justice" means, "securing to each
what he or she is due;" the question does not arise until there are
individuals whose interests and strengths differ and who thus may be due
different things. Technology beyond the paleolithic does not arise until
there is individuality either.

Publius · Guest

"SORR Point" <Relaxing@theBeach.DownUnder.org> wrote in
news:492210a4$0$18427$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

[quote]Yet, everyday of his life, as a citizen of the USA [ or any other
nation for that matter ] he eats his daily bread because of the FREE
LUNCH he recieves as a citizen, irrespective of his social status,
place of residence, or financial wealth.
[/quote]
Hm. You>ve aroused my curiosity. What "free lunch" would that be?

[quote]These Free Lunches of being a US Citizen include the fact that every
member of that society by virtue of their place of birth, and even the
poorest of the poor in the USA are rich beyond belief relative to the
rest of the world>s people. Even the US poor enjoy the enviable status
of being in the TOP 10% - 16% of the most wealthy individuals on the
planet.
[/quote]
Ok, I get it. You>re taking a page from Roy and redefining "free lunch."

Since I introduced the term, let me restate the definition given: A "free
lunch" is a benefit conferred on a person by gummint, using funds extracted
from other persons at gunpoint. Gifts freely given are not "free lunches."
Nor is any other good or benefit a person may enjoy which was not taken
from someone else by force.

Perhaps you can redraft your rant in light of the germane definition.

SORR Point · Guest

"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B59B74511842mpubliusnospamcomcas@69.16.185.250...
[quote]"SORR Point" <Relaxing@theBeach.DownUnder.org> wrote in
news:492210a4$0$18427$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

Yet, everyday of his life, as a citizen of the USA [ or any other
nation for that matter ] he eats his daily bread because of the FREE
LUNCH he recieves as a citizen, irrespective of his social status,
place of residence, or financial wealth.

Hm. You>ve aroused my curiosity. What "free lunch" would that be?

These Free Lunches of being a US Citizen include the fact that every
member of that society by virtue of their place of birth, and even the
poorest of the poor in the USA are rich beyond belief relative to the
rest of the world>s people. Even the US poor enjoy the enviable status
of being in the TOP 10% - 16% of the most wealthy individuals on the
planet.

Ok, I get it. You>re taking a page from Roy and redefining "free lunch."

Since I introduced the term, let me restate the definition given: A "free
lunch" is a benefit conferred on a person by gummint, using funds
extracted
from other persons at gunpoint. Gifts freely given are not "free lunches."
Nor is any other good or benefit a person may enjoy which was not taken
from someone else by force.

Perhaps you can redraft your rant in light of the germane definition.

[/quote]
No need at all, the free lunches that you enjoy daily, merely as a citizen
of the USA, are in fact and reality benefits conferred upon YOU as an
individual by the actions of the USA Government, present and past, through
the use of funds [ including in kind resources, the open sea, and lands ]
extracted at gunpoint [ including the threat of, and the use of arms, WMD,
and/or overwhelming force be it lethal or economic or similar ].

That you are so determined to not acknowledge the obvious free lunch
benefits you are quite willing to take for granted at no personal payment by
yourself, and to not even see it, simply displays your own ignorance of
known facts and subsequent inability to mount a sustained rational point of
view or argument to support your position.

Unless I missed it, you have also failed to acknowledge the obvious taking
of Land, the possession of and the ownership of what is termed Crown Land
[ or similar ] by all Governments all over the world, and in the specific
Australian case I provided which mirrors the exact same behaviour of the USA
Government, on YOUR behalf, your ancestors behalf, and future generations
behalf ... and that as a direct result of these takings [ theft &
dispossession ] by Force at the point of a gun of this Land from others who
were originally in RIGHTFUL & Legally verifiable possession of and
responsible for the use of this land under their own joint volition
according to their Traditional Laws and Customs/Morals, without their
unrestrained freedom to act as "equal and free parties" to any agreement or
contract at a "fair market price or inherent True Value" of that land thus
taken, and their natural Rights of Ownership obliterated for the benefit of
others, including yourself.

This is where you jump in and say, oh no, not so, the Indians of Manhattan
were paid in full for their land with a bunch of coloured beads, axes, and
blankets. Of course, you do know a Criminal Conspiracy when you see it, and
you do know that Theft under false pretences, via Fraud, and via plain
cheating, is likewise immoral, unethical, corrupt, and criminal in nature.

And you do in fact know that because of these criminal fraudulent actions
supported by and institutionalised by all subsequent Governments over the
land of the present USA that you do in fact enjoy free unearned benefits as
a result of the theft of both funds and assets of others at the point of a
gun.

But of course, you do indeed say that a "free lunch" is a benefit conferred
on a person/s by gummint, using funds [assets] extracted from other persons
at gunpoint.

And of course, I know you are not only a person who cannot speak the truth,
can>t seem to help lying about, withholding, and twisting the facts to suit
your own faulty and seriously flawed arguments, and that if push came to
shove you are also unlikely to be able to lie straight in bed.

And yes, of course, you will now deny it all, and just present some
additional ad hominen towards myself because you are utterly incapable of
acknowledging when your argument is incorrect, your facts about history and
the present are in fact wrong and inaccurate, and that therefore your
beliefs and your philosophy that you consistently present here is serious,
in fact terminally flawed.

But that>s OK by me .... I totally respect your freedom to make a fool of
yourself in public, to delude yourself about what you think you know and
what you really know, and of course to hold unviable, illogical, and
irrational beliefs to your hearts content. <smile>

I have no problem with that at all. None! :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

PS this still stands, snipping makes no difference, and proves nothing
except that you are fearful of the truth and open honest discussion,
alternative points of view, different cultures, ethical standards,
knowledge, facts, and of course wisdom.

Publius and his knarled friends are repleat with onerous attacks about *free
lunches* handed out by government, and whatever.

Yet, everyday of his life, as a citizen of the USA [ or any other nation for
that matter ] he eats his daily bread because of the FREE LUNCH he recieves
as a citizen, irrespective of his social status, place of residence, or
financial wealth.

These Free Lunches of being a US Citizen include the fact that every member
of that society by virtue of their place of birth, and even the poorest of
the poor in the USA are rich beyond belief relative to the rest of the
world>s people. Even the US poor enjoy the enviable status of being in the
TOP 10% - 16% of the most wealthy individuals on the planet.

Publius did not EARN this status, it was his Birth Right, a Free Gift from
the Universe that placed him where he is today, in this time.

But is there an ounce of gratitude for this, an ounce of personal
responsibility for this good fortune? No, not a drop. Any understanding of
the value of his Free Lunches that eats daily, and has enjoyed all his life
by sheer accident or by choice to emmigrate to the USA? Nope.

Is there an understanding that there is not, and has NEVER been an economic
system on this planet that has honestly included the TRUE VALUE of the
existing natural wealth, the CommonWealth of nature for all people on the
planet that has and continues to sustain Humanity with absolutely NO
assistance from Economies, Capitalism, Government, or free markets?

That the True value of Trees are totally excluded from all Business Plans
and economic interests and analysis? That economic and social system totally
ignore reality when they attempt to preseume that Mankind and Western
Civilisation in particular is different and separate to the Natural
Environment that sustains us since the beginning of time to this day.

That it is irrational, illogical, and foolhardy to continue to live the lie
that somehow Humans are some kind of alien addition on top of the natural
resources of this planet, different from the rest of Life here ... and not
connected in any way except that these things are their for our own
individual wealth , and use under any circumstances no matter what !!!

Well, it>s unfortunately not true no matter what Publuis believes or thinks
or how well he imagines his mental gymnastics and rhetoric and debating
skills maybe, fo rhe is sadly mistaken.

Human beings are in fact and truth an integral part of nature on earth ....
not separate from it in any way. Ideological beliefs about the brilliance of
capitalism and the creative geniuii of technology and science can never and
will never over-ride this fundametal truth.

But it>s is a long long series of self-deluding false beliefs that has
brought mankind to today ... and just like the neanderthals, these false
unsustainable beliefs have been permanently fractured, are withering, in
fact dying on the vine and about to enter extinction. ............ and the
sooner the better, imho.

cheers sean

Publius · Guest

"SORR Point" <Relaxing@theBeach.DownUnder.org> wrote in
news:49223659$0$4453$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

[quote]Since I introduced the term, let me restate the definition given: A
"free lunch" is a benefit conferred on a person by gummint, using
funds extracted
from other persons at gunpoint. Gifts freely given are not "free
lunches." Nor is any other good or benefit a person may enjoy which
was not taken from someone else by force.

Perhaps you can redraft your rant in light of the germane definition.

No need at all, the free lunches that you enjoy daily, merely as a
citizen of the USA, are in fact and reality benefits conferred upon
YOU as an individual by the actions of the USA Government, present and
past, through the use of funds [ including in kind resources, the open
sea, and lands ] extracted at gunpoint [ including the threat of, and
the use of arms, WMD, and/or overwhelming force be it lethal or
economic or similar ].
[/quote]
You aren>t speaking of public goods, such as police and defense, for which
one pays taxes, are you?

[quote]This is where you jump in and say, oh no, not so, the Indians of
Manhattan were paid in full for their land with a bunch of coloured
beads, axes, and blankets. Of course, you do know a Criminal
Conspiracy when you see it, and you do know that Theft under false
pretences, via Fraud, and via plain cheating, is likewise immoral,
unethical, corrupt, and criminal in nature.
[/quote]
Where Indians have a valid claim to compensation for stolen lands --- and
they do in many cases --- I>m quite willing to contribute to that
compensation, especially if I have inadvertently been a beneficiary (which
I>m not).

But I>m not sure I follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that past
thefts justify future thefts? I.e., if the gummint stole land from Indians
200 years ago, it is now justified in stealing money from Tom to buy health
insurance for Dick and Harry? Or to subsidize Dick and Harry>s housing
costs?

If you are objecting to thefts from Indians, shouldn>t you also be
objecting to thefts from Tom?

SORR Point · Guest

"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B59CACBDB3B8mpubliusnospamcomcas@69.16.185.247...
[quote]"SORR Point" <Relaxing@theBeach.DownUnder.org> wrote in
news:49223659$0$4453$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

Since I introduced the term, let me restate the definition given: A
"free lunch" is a benefit conferred on a person by gummint, using
funds extracted
from other persons at gunpoint. Gifts freely given are not "free
lunches." Nor is any other good or benefit a person may enjoy which
was not taken from someone else by force.

Perhaps you can redraft your rant in light of the germane definition.

No need at all, the free lunches that you enjoy daily, merely as a
citizen of the USA, are in fact and reality benefits conferred upon
YOU as an individual by the actions of the USA Government, present and
past, through the use of funds [ including in kind resources, the open
sea, and lands ] extracted at gunpoint [ including the threat of, and
the use of arms, WMD, and/or overwhelming force be it lethal or
economic or similar ].

You aren>t speaking of public goods, such as police and defense, for which
one pays taxes, are you?

[/quote]
Nope! Only stuff you get for free, non-taxable unpaid benefits of simply
being a US Citizen.

It>s a ssimple as the end price you end up paying for the gas in your tank
..... is lower because of how the government has set up the system that
allows you to put gas in your tank ... you didn>t achieve this, you didn>t
pay for it, the so-called free marketeers are not responsible for it, and
nor do they pay for it either .... but every day you benefit in hard cash,
and in non-cash benefits as a result of simply being an American , it;s as
simpke as the roads you drive on and I don;t mean toll ways or public funded
roads, but all roads you ues are there because you benefit for FREE ... they
are free lunches that you personal have never been required to pay a penny
for, ever! But others pay, the government pays for you, they get the $
elsewhere, other governemnts probable pay too, other people in other nations
pay, the poor in your country pay for the rich as well because it isn;t an
equal sharing the get rich the wealthy they get much more of a free ride and
free lunch than the homeless do, or the single moms .... they>re tangible
and they>re intangible, they are overt and covert benefits you get.

and without them the current economy would be anywhere ner what it is today,
the USA power wouldn>t be what it is today without such things, events,
actions, behaviours, and so on and on. ...

[quote]This is where you jump in and say, oh no, not so, the Indians of
Manhattan were paid in full for their land with a bunch of coloured
beads, axes, and blankets. Of course, you do know a Criminal
Conspiracy when you see it, and you do know that Theft under false
pretences, via Fraud, and via plain cheating, is likewise immoral,
unethical, corrupt, and criminal in nature.

Where Indians have a valid claim to compensation for stolen lands --- and
they do in many cases --- I>m quite willing to contribute to that
compensation, especially if I have inadvertently been a beneficiary (which
I>m not).

[/quote]
Oooh, not *inadvertant* about it, publius you are a direct, personal, and
imminent beneficary of the theft from Indians, the deaths of indians, and
more. All of you are ....

[quote]But I>m not sure I follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that past
thefts justify future thefts? I.e., if the gummint stole land from Indians
200 years ago, it is now justified in stealing money from Tom to buy
health
insurance for Dick and Harry? Or to subsidize Dick and Harry>s housing
costs?

[/quote]

No, I mean that your ancestors benefitted by the losses imposed on Indians,
but you benefit much more now than they did, and your children/decendents,
all future americans benefit as well.

Nothing to do with taxes, or social welfare, or public education, these all
stand on their own ... however, ALL people in the USA do in fact benefit
from public education whether they went to school there or not, whether they
run a business or are an employee, ALL are getting a FREE LUNCH from Public
education, along with lots of other things too. You pay more taxes because
of public education .... but if you were really switched on you>d realise
that to maintain the current level of free lucnhes you have received since
you were born and still today, that you and many others would have had to
pay much higher taxes or real costs overall in % terms to fill the gap that
would have been there if all there was was private education, and no Public
Funding or managment of public education ... that overall, depsite the high
costs or the opinions about poor standards, overall since the beginning of
the USA without Public education YOU personally and colectively would not be
as powerful, as rich, as wealthy, as secure, as independent, or paying as
little as you do in taxes as you might otherwise be required to get the same
level of free lunches benefits as a citizen.

[quote]If you are objecting to thefts from Indians, shouldn>t you also be
objecting to thefts from Tom?

[/quote]
Publius .... you miss the point, but sometimes that>s becasue i>m flippant,
not always though.

I am NOT objecting to the theft of land from the Indians ... what>s the
point? It happened in another time and place. BUT you do in a very
meaningful and $ value terms STILL benefit from that theft right here and
right now. But it happened, I do not judge those who lived in different
world, with different values, and less awareness of the implications and the
injustices of such behaviour than I do today.

And not complaining about a Government collecting taxes either. But your
point of view throught this thread and others similar is simply far too
narrow and discounts everything you choose not to see or take into
consideration.

The very fact that you have a functioning government capable of extracting
taxes at the point of a gun, means that YOU personally gain free benefits as
a result of that, that go way beyond any $ return in cash or kind that you
might receive.

The fact the USA is the most powerful military force on earth, is not
mutually exclusive from the fact that your Governments over time are
responsible for that more so than any economic system, or any taxes levied,
or any banker, or any free enterprise scheme, or that you have the biggest
economy on earth for most of the 20th century to today. It is not an
accident, it was all caused.

And by the very fact that you live in a democracy with the rule of law, with
governments, and Laws, and Taxes, and a military machine means that you
personally benefit from that far and beyond any taxes extracted .... and it
is NOT mutually exclusive that along the way your government has from time
to time given welfare handouts to people -- mostly warranted but even when
they have NOT been warranted or totally fair to everyone ... but overall YOU
have benefited from that whether you run a business, are an employee, or a
stock mareket investor, or were lucky enough to have land and other assets
left to you by your parents or others.

It simply is not as easy as suggesting that the givernment extracts taxes
from you at the point of the gun, and then suggesting that that $ goes for
things you don>t need, or want, or to people who you think do not deserve
such welfare or tax credit entitlements .... there is much much more to the
picture than just this narrow point of view.

You are there right now because a previous government stole land from a Free
and Freedom loving & Responsible People. That>s a fact, whether they
deserved it or not does not change that fact.

You are able to live where you live and how you live, because of Governments
point of a gun philosophy and action. Now you are there you damn the same
thing happening to you where your money or assets are liable to the same
level of force, to extract from you a Free and freedom loving individual no
less than an native American, but here you are whinging about pennies when
those Indians lost their Lives as well as their Land, their dignity, their
spirit, their self-esteem, their families, their culture, their way of life,
and their Freedom when before YOUR ancestors came they were not hurting nor
inflicting their cultural judgements by brute force onto anyone in Europe.

Yet in a touch of a few keyboard buttons you discount all of this away, and
state that no one owned it, or all of the land of Nth America because they
had no ownership, nor could enforce their possession of it ... and that
besides being a blatant lie is an incredibly cruel, inhumane, and harsh way
to wash away the severe harm caused, the cost of the loss, and the deaths in
the millions of *innocent* and a noble civilised people that ensued from the
time of the Spanish right thru to post Civil war times.

And you just don;t seem to get this, nor the ongoing benefits to you, your
family, and everyone else in the USA today. The wealth that was taken and
used to build up todays nation has been paid for in blood. Without that
sacrifice, and millions more since and service to the nation in all sorts of
forms still today, you>d not even be in a position or maybe even alive to be
complaining about anything on the margins.... like Taxes.

Look, Power with Love creates the brute. And Love without Power creates the
weakling.

It is not an either or propostion .... both extremes are dangerous and
inhumane. But there is a balance that works and is sustainable longterm ...
things do ebb and flow as well.

NO single person has all the answers, including me .... but I get this
picture, this whole story I think much better than you do. I am not a
proponent for the planned economies of the Soviet Socialists kind, nor the
nationists like hitlers germany, nor the free wheeling dreams of the Wild
West and the romanticised freedoms and individualist strengths embodied in
those movies .... but they are just movies, stories that don;t really tell
the WHOLE of what happened, and what has come since, nor why.

eg Regulation is not good or bad .... there is good balanced regulation, and
there is bad regulation. There too much regulation, and there is too little
regulation .... regulation is NOT a dirty word, but things do change,
circumstances adjust, things ebb and flow, and people either adapt and go
with the flow or they will be broken.

The Indians basically could not adjust be it from small pox, or the cultural
differences .... no one is to blame, no one singularly is at fault ... but
some people benefited from their loss, and some just loss.

That>s LIFE ..... and it is no different today , life is still the same, the
same challenges persist, they always will, and we can either learn the
lessons and the long term cost of brutal force no matter what, or we can
adjust and seek the middle path, the balancing point, the razors edge so to
speak.

And the more people can get their heads around this whole bigger picture,
see the outcomes of one part of society haveing all the power and others
none due to their station or wealth in life as opposed to their fundamental
human value, and see the wisdom of not destroying the environment that
asupports all people on the planet at no cost to anyone but Nature itself
..... then all that can come of that is more grief, and more death, and more
callousness, and cruelty, and even more Hitlers for that matter.

Because people do get injustice, and they know it when they feel it everyday
of their life. The native amercians have felt the sting of that injustice,
the blacks in the USA have too, and so do the poor and the dispossed
throughout the world, not just in the USA. It>s not a child fault they were
born into a family where the local school is underfunded and crappy
teachers, or whatever is wrong here and there. But still it;s better than
what most kids get to experience as far as schooling and food is concerned.

So when a Government and repeated ones elected by the community so choose to
try to improve such conditions and outcomes for children in an F grade
school, is it the kids fault or is it their parents fault who probably
attended the same type of school, or grew up in severe poverty or racial
discrimination all of their lives in some part of the country.

And this is just one tiny aspect of Life that you complain about and declare
you are not responsible and you should not have a gun pointed at your head
to pay the accepted norm of society of what your fair share might be .... so
overtime millions more kids will have a better future than their parents,
and their parents parents, and so that the nation as a whole remains whole,
and sound, and even more enlighened than years gone by.

No siree, you want that cash in your pocket, because you know best what to
do with it. So you believe, but all you are doing is arguing about the
arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic and not facing up to the whole
truth.

And that>s a shame imho. And it>s you personally who is losing out in more
ways than one, and definitely much more than $ in your pocket.

Publius · Guest

royls@telus.net wrote in news:4921e380.24886255@news.telus.net:

[quote]Methinks it is you who are confused. "Designating a thing to be
private property" is itself an action. If you have liberty of action,
then that action would be among those which you are at liberty to do.
Or is liberty of action restricted to only certain actions? If it is,
then it is not "liberty," is it?

No, that is just stupidity. Liberty of action is restricted to
actions that don>t violate others' liberties of action. Appropriating
natural resources to oneself violates others' liberty of action, no
less than threatening them with bodily harm.
[/quote]
Then I may not take an apple from an unowned tree? If my taking the apple
would violate others' liberty to take it (and it will certainly preclude
their taking it, since it will no longer be available for anyone else to
take), then so would anyone else>s taking it. Wouldn>t it? Doesn>t it then
follow that no one can take the apple? And wouldn>t the same reasoning
apply to all other unowned goods (per another post of yours, what goes for
natural goods goes also for abandoned manmade goods)?

You have said previously that my taking of the apple will be OK provided I
move the apple; I can>t merely stick a post-it note on it reading,
"Publius>s apple." You>ve also said that I can take the entire tree
provided I move it even 1 ft. If I fell the tree, but leave it where it
falls (which we may assume will have moved it at least 1 ft.), stick my
post-it note on it, may I then consider it to be my property?

Yes or no?

You>ve also said that an unowned good may not become anyone>s private
property if anyone else is "deprived" of it, or of any use of it, and that
a person is "deprived" if he is so situated as to make some use of the good
and expresses a desire to make some use.** If any such person exists then
I>ll be obliged to compensate that person before claiming the tree as my
private property, even though I>ve moved it 1 ft. Is all that correct?

If it is, wouldn>t it apply to the apple as well as the tree? I.e., if
anyone nearby learns that I have taken an apple from an unowned tree
somewhere (which is within his possible reach), and he declares that he
desires to make some use of that apple (perhaps taking a bite of it), which
he now can see in my hand, must I pay him compensation before eating all of
it?

Keep in mind that you can>t argue that other apples remain on the tree and
that since he is free to take those, he is not deprived and his liberty is
not infringed. That argument won>t work because at some point only one
apple will remain on the tree, and no one will be able to take it (because
the next person to come along would be deprived). That means no one may
take the next-to-last apple, either (because the next person would be
deprived, being unable to take that last apple).

**What you actually said was the he is "willing to pay for the chance" to
take the apple. I>m afraid I can make no sense of that. Why would anyone be
willing to pay for a chance to take an apple, when everyone already has
that chance, before it is taken? The chance only disappears once the apple
is taken. If anyone is willing to pay for anything, it will be for the
apple, not the chance to take it. Correct? But if someone is willing to pay
for the apple, then how do I deprive him by selling it to him? Do you mean
that, though he is willing to pay, I may not accept his payment? Or if I
accept it, I must immediately refund it, because he is owed compensation
for the lost chance to take it himself?

That would put us back to the situation above --- he could not have taken
the apple either. It turns out, then, that no one ever had a real chance to
take the apple, because eventually someone is deprived and thus no one is
permitted to take it.

But perhaps one may take an apple provided everyone thus deprived of the
chance to take it is compensated. How do I compensate them? By dividing up
the apple among everyone who desires a bite? By handing over the fish I
caught earlier, and letting them all divide it up? Everyone who asks gets a
bite of any apple anyone picks or fish anyone catches?

Please clarify all this.

Fred Weiss · Guest

On Nov 17, 5:54 pm, "SORR Point" <Relax...@theBeach.DownUnder.org>
wrote:
[quote]"Fred Weiss" <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message

shaking my head...

Careful with that SORRy lest even more of your brains fall out.

Sean: Ah another insightful intelligent idea from Fred. Thanks for that.
[/quote]
Glad to help.

Fred Weiss


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com