Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8]   Go Down

Author Topic: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?  (Read 15982 times)

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #105 on: April 04, 2011, 12:11:17 pm »

Quote
A group can certainly own land, together, but the group members would need to be enumerated, not some vague, often-racist notion.

A collective can hold title to, but cannot hold ownership of, property.

The distinction is fundamentally significant and stems from the nature of property and of ownership.

Why not?
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #106 on: April 04, 2011, 12:27:05 pm »

"The Abenaki" is not an entity that can own anything.
Says who? What's your basis? Are you familiar with Abenaki notions of property?

Yes, but they are irrelevant to this discussion.  "The Abenaki" has no more right to own property than a corporation; both are fictions, not people.  The reason you can't steal from a corporation is not because the corporation has rights, but because the owners/shareholders have rights.  The owners/shareholders are specific individuals, who have rights, not some vague notion.

"
 So, show me a specific Abenaki (or whomever) that can demonstrate a claim that the land I occupy was stolen from one of his direct ancestors, and we'll talk.  Until then, no victim, no crime.
Ah.  The more complete you make the oppression, the more you can ignore its presence, eh?

No, the more thoroughly something is destroyed, the harder it is for a claim to exist.

Let's say I have a bag of gold dust, and you steal it from me.  Let's say that you then dump it in with your stash of other stolen gold dust.  Can I demand mine back?  How will I sort out which is mine?

Let's say you then take your stash and sell it to a jeweler, who melts it down and makes coins, which he uses to pay the grocer for some food I grew.  Can I demand the coins back?

Let's say that the grocer take the coins to a different jeweler who melts them down and makes a wedding ring, which my neighbor uses when he marries his wife.  Half a century later, I find out what happened.  Can I demand that he hand over his wedding ring?

At some point, any rational person will agree that the original claim no longer exists.  The thief abandoned the stolen property, and some innocent person homesteaded it.  My claim against you for the original theft would still be valid, but a claim against innocent third parties would not.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

eh?

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • Just living is not enough.
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #107 on: April 04, 2011, 12:47:37 pm »

Something along the lines of "innocent holder in due course" makes sense to me.  There'd be no derivative criminal or civil liability, but the property might well still have to be returned.  Or paid for, which would mean the innocent holder would wind up paying for it twice.  That's why things like caveat emptor and title insurance are so important.  Lawyers get rich off stuff like this.
Logged
To advocate compulsory taxation (there is no other kind) is to advocate aggressive violence.
Rare indeed seem those who would rather the lash were banished utterly from human interaction save in defense of self and property
than the haft thereof find on convenient occasion its lawful place nestled comfortably in their own grasp.

eh?

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • Just living is not enough.
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #108 on: April 04, 2011, 12:50:43 pm »

Quote
A group can certainly own land, together, but the group members would need to be enumerated, not some vague, often-racist notion.

A collective can hold title to, but cannot hold ownership of, property.

The distinction is fundamentally significant and stems from the nature of property and of ownership.

Why not?

Collectives are not entities.
Logged
To advocate compulsory taxation (there is no other kind) is to advocate aggressive violence.
Rare indeed seem those who would rather the lash were banished utterly from human interaction save in defense of self and property
than the haft thereof find on convenient occasion its lawful place nestled comfortably in their own grasp.

creaganlios

  • Guest
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #109 on: April 04, 2011, 01:36:18 pm »

"The Abenaki" has no more right to own property than a corporation; both are fictions, not people. 

You are imputing Anglo-American notions of property ownership and rights onto non Anglos...the Abenaki nation were not a fiction.


No, the more thoroughly something is destroyed, the harder it is for a claim to exist.  Let's say I have a bag of gold dust, and you steal it from me.  Let's say that you then dump it in with your stash of other stolen gold dust.  Can I demand mine back?  How will I sort out which is mine?

Confirming what I wrote earlier: you are holding to the scary notion that the more efficient you are in your theft or destruction the more willing you are to allow the perpetrator to get away with it.  How charming.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #110 on: April 04, 2011, 01:46:15 pm »

"The Abenaki" has no more right to own property than a corporation; both are fictions, not people.
You are imputing Anglo-American notions of property ownership and rights onto non Anglos...the Abenaki nation were not a fiction.

All human rights are the same, for all humans.  Doesn't matter where they're from, or what they look like.  All "nations" are fictions, just like corporations.

No, the more thoroughly something is destroyed, the harder it is for a claim to exist.  Let's say I have a bag of gold dust, and you steal it from me.  Let's say that you then dump it in with your stash of other stolen gold dust.  Can I demand mine back?  How will I sort out which is mine?
Confirming what I wrote earlier: you are holding to the scary notion that the more efficient you are in your theft or destruction the more willing you are to allow the perpetrator to get away with it.  How charming.

It's not a matter of willingness.  It's simply a matter of recognizing objective reality.  The more efficient someone is at destroying a property claim, the less likely that the victim can regain his property.  That's just reality.  I realize that, speaking from your ivory tower, you can't see objective reality, but the rest of us can.  If you burn someone's house down, he can't get it back.  Neither can he then attack his neighbors because "his" ash fell on their houses, and he wants it returned...

Sometimes horrible crimes are committed, and it's no longer possible to set things right.  Such is life, in the real world.  Your idea that, if a horrible crime occurs, it somehow magically becomes okay to attack innocent people in some revenge fantasy, is truly frightening.  There's a difference between accepting that bad things happen, and cheering on violence.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

creaganlios

  • Guest
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #111 on: April 04, 2011, 02:19:29 pm »

All human rights are the same, for all humans.  Doesn't matter where they're from, or what they look like.  All "nations" are fictions, just like corporations.

Your insistence that rights are individual is theological and theoretical at best, and has no basis in ontological reality. 

Your refusal to accept the notion of a Clan as a non-fiction group is racist as its core.

Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #112 on: April 04, 2011, 02:32:05 pm »

All human rights are the same, for all humans.  Doesn't matter where they're from, or what they look like.  All "nations" are fictions, just like corporations.
Your insistence that rights are individual is theological and theoretical at best, and has no basis in ontological reality.

The origin of individual rights has been covered in depth, on this forum and elsewhere.  I'm not doing Liberty 101, here.  No one has ever come up with a theory for rights being anything other than individual, which does not rely on absolutely-blind faith.

Your refusal to accept the notion of a Clan as a non-fiction group is racist as its core.

Um, no.  Only a racist could believe that racially-based grouping is valid.

Race is a sociological fiction, created to justify racism.

Someone who is actually non-racist, like myself, will deny that all such fictional groupings exist.  There is no such thing as race, other than as a construct.  It is no more real than unicorns or honest cops.  Half my genetic background is Russian-Jewish.  A quarter is German.  And a quarter is British mutt, mostly Irish and Welsh.  What "race" am I?  If race were some real, biological thing, the only way it could be expressed would be as I just did - percentages of inheritance.  But race is just a social construct, so to an anti-Semite, I'm a Jew.  To an anti-Caucasian, I'm White.  To someone who hates the Irish, the red in my beard is most all that matters.

Should I head to Europe and demand "my" land back?

Race is only a construct, and it serves only racists.  I've had to pretty much hold my nose to even post here, recently, there's so much stink of racism dripping off your posts.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

eh?

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • Just living is not enough.
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #113 on: April 04, 2011, 02:55:25 pm »

... the notion of a Clan as a non-fiction group...

A "clan", as well as many other derivative arrangements of human individuals, is a "non-fiction group."  It is an existent, but not an entity.
Logged
To advocate compulsory taxation (there is no other kind) is to advocate aggressive violence.
Rare indeed seem those who would rather the lash were banished utterly from human interaction save in defense of self and property
than the haft thereof find on convenient occasion its lawful place nestled comfortably in their own grasp.

creaganlios

  • Guest
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #114 on: April 04, 2011, 03:56:48 pm »

... the notion of a Clan as a non-fiction group...

A "clan", as well as many other derivative arrangements of human individuals, is a "non-fiction group."  It is an existent, but not an entity.

Says who?
Logged

eh?

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • Just living is not enough.
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #115 on: April 04, 2011, 06:52:23 pm »

Says who?

Unless I misread what you wrote, you do.  So, in this case, do I.  Who says it, however, is not relevant.
Logged
To advocate compulsory taxation (there is no other kind) is to advocate aggressive violence.
Rare indeed seem those who would rather the lash were banished utterly from human interaction save in defense of self and property
than the haft thereof find on convenient occasion its lawful place nestled comfortably in their own grasp.

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #116 on: April 04, 2011, 07:13:22 pm »

"The Abenaki" has no more right to own property than a corporation; both are fictions, not people.
You are imputing Anglo-American notions of property ownership and rights onto non Anglos...the Abenaki nation were not a fiction.

All human rights are the same, for all humans.  Doesn't matter where they're from, or what they look like.  All "nations" are fictions, just like corporations.

No, the more thoroughly something is destroyed, the harder it is for a claim to exist.  Let's say I have a bag of gold dust, and you steal it from me.  Let's say that you then dump it in with your stash of other stolen gold dust.  Can I demand mine back?  How will I sort out which is mine?
Confirming what I wrote earlier: you are holding to the scary notion that the more efficient you are in your theft or destruction the more willing you are to allow the perpetrator to get away with it.  How charming.

It's not a matter of willingness.  It's simply a matter of recognizing objective reality.  The more efficient someone is at destroying a property claim, the less likely that the victim can regain his property.  That's just reality.  I realize that, speaking from your ivory tower, you can't see objective reality, but the rest of us can.  If you burn someone's house down, he can't get it back.  Neither can he then attack his neighbors because "his" ash fell on their houses, and he wants it returned...

Sometimes horrible crimes are committed, and it's no longer possible to set things right.  Such is life, in the real world.  Your idea that, if a horrible crime occurs, it somehow magically becomes okay to attack innocent people in some revenge fantasy, is truly frightening.  There's a difference between accepting that bad things happen, and cheering on violence.

Joe
But neither can one support that ans expect better. One can not acknowledge the history of those without societal protections, and not realize that the same could occur again.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #117 on: April 04, 2011, 07:41:27 pm »

But neither can one support that ans expect better. One can not acknowledge the history of those without societal protections, and not realize that the same could occur again.

No man is an island.

That doesn't mean we need to repeatedly re-create a failed model.  Statism is one way to attempt to provide protection.  And it's a way that has repeatedly proven itself an utter failure.  Just ask the quarter billion men, women, and defenseless children who were murdered in the last century by Statist governments.  Except you can't, because they're dead.  YOu could ask the billions more who were maimed, tortured, raped, enslaved, imprisoned, abused, and oppressed.

So, since it's not a dichotomy of "Statism or absolutely nothing," and Statism has failed so miserably, let's try one of the 83 million other methods, and see if that works better?  Could hardly be worse...

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8]   Go Up