Re: Thou Shall Not Cheat Thy Neighbors

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

>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>
>>>
>
><snip American history lesson. Yet another topic to put on my reading list.>
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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.
>
>
>Well, I'm not sure I truly know what I think. I feel too ignorant of too
>many things to know where to start.

Don't let that stop you.

> So with that foundation of total
>ignorance, I'm going to have to feel my way through this. Why can't it
>belong to some of us? Well, obviously it can because it does. But my
>contention is that it shouldn't.

Why not?

> That it should be shared equitably.

What if the choice is between all live poorly and some live well but
some don't live at all? Are you comfortable with enforcing equity on
the ones who live well? Clearly, they're not going to accept it, or
not all of them. Do you believe they should be coerced?

> On
>the other hand, some people are more capable than others at taking good
>care of the world while also making the most of what it has to offer. In
>other words, they know how to bring about an abundance while giving back
>to continue the cycle of abundance in a way that many/most people are
>ignorant of. (yes, i know that was stated awkwardly. i can't seem to fix
>it.) So it would be practical to allow those with such skills to, if not
>own, at least have some kind of control over how to tend and use the earth.
>

Yes, I agree. I don't have any problem with people doing what they are
able to. "From each according to their abilities."

I do not believe that we should just share it all out and say, go
manage it yourself. Clearly, I don't. I've expressed many, many times
beliefs in the value of a state.

So long as it withers away, naturellement.

>I have to think about this some more. A world in which everyone's
>talents were valued and shared as integral to the growth and enrichment
>of the community is the kind of thing I envision.

Me too.

> Farmers would do their
>thing while artists did theirs.

But a criticism many make is that everyone would want to be an artist
and no one would want to cart away the garbage. How would you fix
that?

> Food for the body, food for the soul,
>both equally important.
>

Yes, but one involves a lot more hard work than the other.

In parecon, dangerous or dirty work is rewarded. If you're willing to
do it, you get more.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>
>Not in the beginning. We had a garden to tend and roam freely. We could
>eat of anything that grew. We were vegetarians. <g>
>

Were we? I thought he made us masters of the beasts. I'd always taken
it as read that Adam enjoyed meat.

>>
>>
>>>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.
>
>You are deliberately ignoring my point. Of course I don't think that.

If you have a point that's different, I'm not getting it.

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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.
>
>Nope. I grew up eating meat and haven't yet been able to kick the habit.

Shame on you. If you believe an animal has the same right to life you
do, you are an accomplice to murder.

It would be better simply to deny that animals have rights.

>>
>>
>>>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.
>
>Depends upon how one views the "circle of life."

You what?

> I think we all have the
>right to a home, an environment in which to thrive, animal and human
>alike.

It's very hard to thrive if someone knocks you over the head and has
you for dinner.

> However, certain dynamics exist that cause some of us to need to
>feed on others of us.

Do they? Do you need to feed on cows? I think you don't. I think you
could get by without it. I manage. I live in a very vegetarian-averse
culture and yet I manage not to be tempted at all.

> I have, on many occasions, considered the idea
>that humans aren't meant to feed on other creatures, and I recently read
>an article on the meat industry that has me seriously considering the
>idea once again, but as I said before, I don't think this particular
>question is relevant to our present discussion.

I think it is. I think you are happy to say animals have the right to
thrive because you think that their lack of right to life is a given,
but you just don't want to express that.

I'm not a proselytiser though. I don't care a less who eats what. But
I find your "beliefs" hollow. You cannot believe that animals should
thrive if you eat them.

The meat industry is repulsive, by the way. If you were well-informed,
you would stop eating meat purely out of concern for your own
wellbeing. Not to mention that far from thriving, domestic feed
animals are treated very, very poorly. Inhumanly, I'd say.

But who cares, hey? They don't have souls.

>At least, not if I were
>living a hunter's life and only killing what I needed when I needed it
>and using every part of the animal that I could.

Is that what hunters do? Do you know that or do you assume that?

> Our present way of
>handling our need/desire for meat could, perhaps, impact the argument,
>but one thing at a time.
>

No, it's important. You are claiming to respect the rights of animals
but you do not respect the *fundamental* right, which if it's not
allowed, the others are moot.

A pig can have as much right to thrive as you like, but if you make
him into bacon, that right is going to be hard to enjoy.

>>
>>
>>>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.
>
>I get that. What I meant was that just as our present system allows me
>to own a car, it allows me to own a cow.

We are not discussing our present system. We are discussing your
beliefs about property. They don't coincide from what you've said.

> That doesn't mean I subscribe
>to it as what I believe God originally intended, only that I live within it.

Okay. At least you're honest. You deny animals the right to life that
you believe they should enjoy because of inertia. You're too morally
lazy to bother yourself with stopping doing something that's easy and
convenient just because you fundamentally believe it to be wrong.

But hang on! Can you believe something is wrong if you do it yourself?
How often can you reproach yourself for a sin before you must accept
that you cannot actually think it sinful?

>> Because not only would
>> the cow have the same rights to the car but it would have the same
>> rights to itself. At least.
>
>Yes, I see that.
>
>Meanwhile, I'm thinking, this sounds all well and good but where is your
>head, Arleen? How could such a way of living possibly work?

How convenient. It's difficult to put into practice so we ought not to
bother even thinking about it.

>How could it? How could we manage to build a way of life that seriously
>looked at such an ideal and found ways to achieve it without total chaos
>and silliness?

First, accept the ideal.

Isn't that what you godbotherers say? First, accept Jesus into your
heart. The details work themselves out.

>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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?
>
>Arbitrary? Yes, I think so.

Then you believe property is theft. Worse. You believe property is
absurd.

> The meaning, though, is what we've given it.

No. If the right to the car is arbitrary, it cannot have meaning.

>We have this notion of property rights and a commandment that says "Thou
>shalt not steal." Do you suppose the commandment could be interpreted to
>embrace your idea of theft when it comes to property? I wonder...
>

If you accept that property is theft, you must accept that it is wrong
to have it.

I do. But, as you know, I accept that I'm imperfect and do wrong
things. Most moralisers make the mistake of assuming that *everything
they do* must be right (or at least if it's wrong, they must be
uncomfortable with it) and define wrong from that basis. I don't make
that mistake. I gleefully do the wrong thing.

>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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?
>
>We try to change the world.

Yes. You're making this discussion awesomely painful. Clearly the
question demands an action or actions for its answer.


>>
>>>>>>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'd never heard the word (surprise, surprise), but the concept sounds
>appealing. Star Trek like. <g>

You mean the concept I have expressed or did you google it?

Parecon is a special case of what I'm discussing. It does use labour
as the measure of worth though. And it is perfectly feasible for us to
transition to it. A parecon nation is as conceivable as a communist
one.

And as likely to succeed, given the globalised economy.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>Oh, that'll help. He's the fluffy guy, right? I don't think I've
>understood anything I've read of his yet.

Well, you're in good company. I don't think he understands it either.
It's the effluvia of an overactive mind stimulated by prescription
drugs and coffee.


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

Loading