Re: Thou Shall Not Cheat Thy Neighbors

Shazam! No reason, it's just magic. So graceoffers@xxxxxxxxx said:

>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>> Shazam! No reason, it's just magic. So Grace <graceoffers@xxxxxxxxx>
>> said:
>>
>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-$Zero... PropertyIsMuchCloserToTheft... ButIt'sStillNotTheft...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It'sMoreLikeBorrowingFrom"Gawd"... SoOneBestNotCheatThyNeighbors...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>InTheProcess... Capiche?...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Property is without question theft.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>theft from who? (whom?)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Everyone else who does not have the property in question.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>You need to begin from the question, what right do I have to property?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>being as you don't believe in God, per se, this might turn out to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>be a pretty interesting argument.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>God has nothing to do with it.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>If you look at it from the point of view that it's all God's, and that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>He gave it to all of us to share freely, you still come up with the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>question "what right do I have to property?"
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>Yes. You would have to argue that God endowed authorities such as
>> >>>>>>>>>>kings with it as his vicars.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>No, you wouldn't.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>Do you want to elaborate
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Not really, or I would have. But what the heck.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Well, you can't expect it to pass without challenge. It's a fucking
>> >>>>>>stupid thing to say.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>or are you going to allow that profoundly
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>stupid and incorrect statement to stand as is?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Story #1: In the beginning there was a garden and man was given the
>> >>>>>>>responsibility of tending it. To enjoy the fruits of it. One imagines
>> >>>>>>>"we" were free to roam it and take what we needed to live. No property
>> >>>>>>>lines. A sharing, caring free-for-all. God's highest good for mankind.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Maybe.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Story #2: Much, much later a specific group of people is declared to
>> >>>>>>>have a special relationship to God. He draws property lines for them and
>> >>>>>>>lets them choose where they want to live within these boundaries. He
>> >>>>>>>expects them to share with one another so that all benefit. He sets up
>> >>>>>>>laws so that ownership remains equitable among them. Years where debts
>> >>>>>>>are forgiven, slaves are set free, land returns to original owners. Of
>> >>>>>>>those who do own land, they are expected to leave part of their harvest
>> >>>>>>>for anyone to glean who has need. The principles put in place were
>> >>>>>>>expected of individuals. No kings were involved.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Hmm.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>God didn't start having a hand in the affairs of kings until the people
>> >>>>>>>He was in relationship with decided they needed a king. God wasn't
>> >>>>>>>enough for them. He tried to dissuade them, but they would have none of
>> >>>>>>>it. The best He could come up with later was to tell us to pray for our
>> >>>>>>>kings, the people in authority over us, because otherwise we're screwed.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Yes, we'll be getting to the point soon.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>God doesn't care about kings.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>That's not what kings say.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>He wants individuals to practice a way of
>> >>>>>>>life that will provide for the needs of the whole society. We can argue
>> >>>>>>>just how that's done best. Kings are just a manmade creation of
>> >>>>>>>administering what He gave us, so one does not have to "argue that God
>> >>>>>>>endowed authorities such as kings with it as his vicars." He clearly did
>> >>>>>>>not, at least, not until mankind insisted that He do so.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>That's not what kings say.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Many kings -- most, I would say -- claim to have been chosen by God as
>> >>>>>>stewards of *His* lands.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Just because they claim so, doesn't make it so.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>It makes it so if they are upheld by consensus.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>They derive their right to the land from his
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>choosing them, and their subjects derive their rights to their land
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>from the king's giving them it.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Just because they claim so, doesn't make it so. That's why people revolt.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>No, it isn't.
>> >>>
>> >>>People don't revolt because they get fed up with how kings choose to
>> >>>wield their power?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No. When have they ever?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I guess they lied to us in American history class. Typical.
>> >
>>
>> If that's what they said to you, they were lying.
>
>LOL!
>
>>>From our Declaration of Independence:
>But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
>the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
>Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
>Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
>-Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is
>now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems
>of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George
>III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in
>direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these
>States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
>

Yeah. It's all bollocks though. Learn the truth.

>He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for
>the public good.
>
>He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
>importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should
>be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend
>to them.
>
>He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large
>districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
>Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and
>formidable to tyrants only.
>
>He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
>uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records,
>for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his
>measures.
>
>He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with
>manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
>
>He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause
>others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of
>Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;
>the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of
>invasion from without, and convulsions within.
>
>He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that
>purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing
>to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
>conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
>
>He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent
>to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
>
>He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their
>offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
>
>He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of
>Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
>
>He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the
>consent of our legislatures.
>
>He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to
>the Civil power.
>
>He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
>our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to
>their Acts of pretended Legislation:
>
>For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
>
>For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders
>which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
>
>For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
>
>For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
>
>For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
>
>For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
>
>For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
>Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging
>its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument
>for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
>
>For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and
>altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
>
>For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested
>with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
>
>He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection
>and waging War against us.
>
>He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and
>destroyed the lives of our people.
>
>He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to
>compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with
>circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
>barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
>
>He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas
>to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their
>friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
>
>He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured
>to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian
>Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction
>of all ages, sexes and conditions.
>
>In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in
>the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only
>by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every
>act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free
>people.
>---------------
>
>Tell me again that people don't revolt because they get fed up with how
>kings choose to wield their power.

Learn the truth about why they revolted and get back to me. You will
need to inform yourself about how a constitutional monarchy works
while you're at it.

>Since I'm quite sure you knew to what I referred, I can only assume
>that I'm missing some point that you intended.

Yes, you are. The first big lie of the United States was that they
were revolting against the king. As is so often the case with history,
it's much more involved than that.


>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>Without arguing that or similar, you cannot argue from God's endowing
>> >>>>>>mankind to property, because, simply, property clearly exists and is
>> >>>>>>not shared equitably, and most importantly, never has been.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>The question was "what right do we have to property?"
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Yes. Have a go at answering it, why not?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>along with "God
>> >>>>>has nothing to do with it."
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Yes.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>I'm not quite sure what point Zero was
>> >>>>>making by bringing God into it, but my point was that nothing about the
>> >>>>>question truly changes even when you do bring God into it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Bull***. If God endows someone or other with property, then he's very
>> >>>>important to our understanding of the right to property.
>> >>>
>> >>>And I say that God does not endow someone or other with property. It's
>> >>>all His and all ours.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Well, that's a critique of the notion of property, but hardly a
>> >> discussion of the notion in question.
>> >>
>> >> I say, if God does so endow people, it's important; you say, well, he
>> >> doesn't. But he's important if people say he does, not just if he
>> >> actually does.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Without God,
>> >>>>>the world belongs to all of us.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Does it?
>> >>>
>> >>>It doesn't?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I asked first.
>> >
>> >
>> >Well, it either belongs to all of us together or none of us at all.
>>
>> Why? Why can't it belong to some of us?
>
>
>Who decides? What criteria do we use?

I'm asking you. I know what I think.

>
>
>>
>> > I
>> >guess you could say that none of us have an inherent right to anything.
>> >Naked we come into the world, naked we leave.
>>
>> That implies a much leveller playing field than is the actuality.
>
>Well, yes. It was your insistence that pulling God into the discussion
>meant having to argue about the divine right of kings that drew me to
>protest.

So what? Presumably God made us some richer, some poorer.

> I have a totally different perspective on God's hand in this
>than is the perceived God reality of practicing believers, so of course
>I'm talking about how I think it *really* is when all of our present
>actualities are stripped away.

Well, we *really* aren't born equal, with equal endowments, and if you
think we are, you're living in cloud cuckoo land.


>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>>It behooves us as a species to find a
>> >>>>>way to share it freely.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Does it?
>> >>>
>> >>>Doesn't it?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Maybe and maybe not.
>> >>
>> >> Had you said we ought to, I would have agreed. It's my belief that we
>> >> should. It's one of the key divides in politics. You either think we
>> >> should share or you don't.
>> >>
>> >> But you said it behooves us to. That's different.
>> >
>> >I see your point. It would be good to find such a way, but not a
>> >necessity. The species still carries on, regardless.
>>
>> Quite, and we've been doing quite well. Six billion plus now. Nearly
>> as many humans as cockroaches, and we're bigger.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>With God, the world belongs to all of us...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Or to whomever he has endowed with it.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>His creation. All of His creation. Those of us who can think have the
>> >>>greater responsibility for caring for it, though.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Is that so? How can all of creation have a right to all of creation?
>> >> That sounds a bit odd.
>> >>
>> >> You realise that Zero thinks that squirrels don't have any rights to
>> >> property? What do you say to that?
>> >
>> >
>> >They have as much right as we do. This is their home, too.
>>
>> You don't think humans have more right? Didn't your god give us
>> dominion over squirrels?
>>
>> Do you eat meat, Arleen?
>
>Yes, I do.

Then you do not believe they have the same rights we do. You believe
they have the same right to property, but not to life. That's
interesting. You seem to think property is more important to share
than life is.

> So do lions. That's a different sort of argument for another
>day.

No, I don't agree. It's very illuminating that you are willing to
allow a squirrel's right to sticks but not a cow's right to life.

> If you mean to point out that we keep animals as property for
>sustenance, that only gives an example of our present system.

No, I meant to point out that you clearly do not feel cows have the
same property rights as we do. You said "They have as much right as we
do. It's their home too." But you clearly don't believe cows share
your property rights, because item, you don't believe they have the
same right to cows as property.

> Just like
>I own a car.
>

The car minds it a lot less, I should think.

And it's not "just like" it. You said that animals share the same
rights to property. But owning a cow is not the same as owning a car,
if both the cow and you have the same rights. Because not only would
the cow have the same rights to the car but it would have the same
rights to itself. At least.

>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Is a squirrel stealing if it takes sticks from your driveway?
>> >
>> >No. But I freely admit that I am now completely confused.
>>
>> Just canvassing your view on the squirrel question.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Is a person stealing if they take your car?
>> >
>> >
>> >Only because of the system we have agreed to live under, but ultimately?
>> >No, I don't think so.
>>
>> Well, I know whose house to break into if I'm ever in Fla.
>
>
>LOL!
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> If so, why? You've said
>> >> that you have no special right to property. Consequently, we can ask
>> >> what right you have to your car.
>> >
>> >
>> >I believe I said the only rights we have are the ones we give ourselves.
>> >Without an agreement among those living here, there is no ownership.
>>
>> Yes, okay. We broadly agree that there is no such thing as a "natural"
>> right then. But I am asking you what right you have to your car.
>> Saying "it's just a right because we agree it is" doesn't answer that
>> particular question.
>
>Why not?

Because the question is what is the right to the car, not how did we
arrive at it.

Are you really saying that the right to the car is essentially
arbitrary and without meaning?


>
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Either way, with God or without, we must answer that question. What
>> >>>>>right do we have? None but what we give ourselves.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Is that right?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I say none at all. Property is theft.
>> >>>
>> >>>Perhaps. So then, we give ourselves none.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Well, what did you mean by "give ourselves"? "agree among ourselves"?
>> >> "whatever the outcome of fighting it out is"? "whatever we can get
>> >> away with"?
>> >
>> >Agree among ourselves. Which may well be an impossibility.
>>
>> Let's assume it is. What then?
>
>
>We have the world in which we live.

Yes, well done. That's completely answered the question then.

Oh no! Silly me. It completely didn't answer it at all, did it?

Let's assume that we cannot agree and assume that we have the world in
which we live.

Now my question: what then?

>> >> The only cogent analysis of property I have ever read is that it is
>> >> theft, plain and simple. Or that it is an endowment from God to his
>> >> vicars, and cascades from them to others.
>> >
>> >Well, if it's theft, what ought we do? How do you propose we live
>> >without this notion of property?
>> >
>>
>> That is a good question. I believe ideally we should share all things
>> in common, and allow each to take what they need and give what they
>> can.
>>
>> The word "ideally" though is the stumbling block.
>>
>> So I believe we should approximate that as far as is in our power.
>
>How?

I think parecon (google it) would be a good start. I doubt we could
transition to anarchy simply.

There are many measures that would help: forbid inheritance, stop
using indebtedness as the measure of worth -- use labour instead (and
stop using fiat currencies that do not represent labour), redistribute
wealth from the rich to the poor, both within nations and across their
boundaries, increase the scope of education, make businesses' goal the
provision of work and the production of needed or desired products and
not the production of profit, enforce rigid and inflexible caps on
consumption, abolish property.

It would hurt, but the outcome would be good.

>
>
>> I
>> believe that our right to an equal share extends to our descendants
>> also, so I think that having an eye on the future of our planet is
>> also fair.
>>
>> Now the rightists have two avenues of attack when you say something
>> like that. First, they can whine at you that you're a communist and
>> that communists killed lots of people in China, blah de blah. For the
>> obvious reasons, that's an argument without any power. Second, they
>> can point at your own wealth and say, well, you don't share what you
>> have.
>>
>> And that's true. But I'm prescribing a solution for the world, not for
>> my own life, which I have to live within *their* system, not mine.
>>
>> And it also involves an assumption about my life that isn't
>> necessarily founded.
>>
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Some have given
>> >>>>>themselves more right than others, and as you point out they use God as
>> >>>>>an excuse. But as I point out, that wasn't what I believe to be in the
>> >>>>>mind of God from the beginning.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I wasn't aware that you had a special line to God's mind. I thought
>> >>>>only Billo received regular whispers from the Holy Whatsit.
>> >>>
>> >>><g> We can all speculate. I'm basing this belief on what I interpret
>> >>
>> >>>from the stories. Doesn't mean I'm right. It just gives me some frame of
>> >>
>> >>>reference.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don't recall his expressing his mind that way. I recall his handing
>> >> out property fairly liberally. He gives a chunk to the Jews, if I
>> >> remember correctly.
>> >
>> >Yes. I mentioned this. But even within that chunk he allowed the
>> >original tribes to choose the land they wished and though they could buy
>> >and sell and accumulate wealth, during the year of Jubilee land would
>> >return to the original owners, slaves would be set free, and debts would
>> >be forgiven. I've often wondered what that would mean to our present
>> >economy if we observed such a tradition.
>>
>> I feel that regular debt forgiveness would have the outcome of making
>> debt less attractive to creditors, which would severely undermine our
>> economy. Hooray! Our economy does not serve us very well at all, and
>> it certainly doesn't serve the world as a unity.
>>
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>You cannot truly argue that God endowed
>> >>>>>kings with the right to property
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Why can't I? The principle of using vicars to stand in for him is very
>> >>>>well established.
>> >>>
>> >>>So?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So I can argue it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>In earlier times, the notion that he endowed the Pope with authority,
>> >>>>as his vicar, to endorse kings was very widely supported.
>> >>>
>> >>>So?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So it's an argument with enough force to have convinced our forebears,
>> >> not to mention that it underpins our current system of property.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>I see the problem here. When God enters the picture I have a whole
>> >>>different concept than what's traditionally accepted. Because of that, I
>> >>>take exception to certain givens. Such as God endows kings with property
>> >>>rights.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The problem is you will not distinguish your beliefs from those of
>> >> others.
>> >
>> >It's difficult.
>>
>> When you are considering others' beliefs, it's essential.
>
>
>Yes. Perhaps I'm attempting to force common ground where there may be
>none.

You have to first work out what ground the other side actually
occupies.

>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> It's the others' beliefs that we're actually discussing here.
>> >
>> >Yes, I see that.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>though you could possibly argue that
>> >>>>>He works with the material He's given, namely human kings, not because
>> >>>>>it's His idea of what's best but because He did give us freewill and we
>> >>>>>can be pretty stupid.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>No. The argument is that you don't become a king unless God chooses
>> >>>>it.
>> >>>
>> >>>And a president?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I suppose Bush would believe he had been ordained in that same sense,
>> >> yes. If you believe in "God's will", I suppose you could believe it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>LOL. Never mind. I'm done. Just another instance when Grace probably
>> >>>should have kept her mouth shut.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You have just as much right to blather mindlessly as anyone else here
>> >> does. Feel free to exercise that right.
>> >
>> >Well certainly I feel free to. The point is it would make a much better
>> >discussion if I could actually bring something of substance to it.
>>
>> Sigh. That doesn't prevent most posters here, more's the pity.
>>
>>
>> Dr Zen
>> Loving His Neighbours, the Alien and Anyone Who Stands Still Long Enough.
>> http://gollyg.blogspot.com
>> King of the Three-Minute Jiffy.
>
>
>The 3-minute jiffy? Dare I ask?
>

Ask Robbie.


Dr Zen
Loving His Neighbours, the Alien and Anyone Who Stands Still Long Enough.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
King of the Three-Minute Jiffy.
.