Re: Thou Shall Not Cheat Thy Neighbors


Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> 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?

Because the earth is free. There is no one that really has the right to
say "This is mine." But the way things are, we're born into a
system that has evolved without our agreement and the only choices we
have are to find a way to live within the system, spend our lives
trying to change it, or a little of both.


>
> > 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?

Depends on the means of enforcement. There's still a matter of free
will to deal with. But then, we enforce laws against murder and that
affects the free will of the murderer. This gets a bit murky. My
American shaped ideas about individualism are feeling the pinch.


> Clearly, they're not going to accept it, or
> not all of them. Do you believe they should be coerced?

Sigh. No, I don't. That seems wrong. So I have to ask myself why. I
can't answer that yet.


>
> > 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.


What do you mean "so long as it withers away"?


>
> >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?

People cart away the garbage now. Do they really want to?

I suppose there would need to be incentives of some kind.


>
> > 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.

Genesis 1

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in
number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and
the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the
ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of
the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They
will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all
the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the
ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every
green plant for food." And it was so.
--
Rule, not eat. Seed-bearing plants were food, not the animals.
Bah. Who knows? I just always preferred to believe that in the perfect
world of initial creation killing was just not done.


>
> >>
> >>
> >>>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.


I've been trying to differentiate between the real that is, and the
real that is God's best. To strip away what is and find the real
of...perfection, for want of a better word or concept.


>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>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.


Doing quite well. How is that measured? Just in numbers?



> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>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?


Prey and preyed upon. Little fish devoured by big fish devoured by bear
devoured by man. Is man part of that or not? That is something apart
from concepts of property.


>
> > 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.


Is the lion a murderer?


>
> > 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.


Well, you're right. I could.


> 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.


They have a right to life up to the point that the lion becomes hungry.


>
> 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.


Yes, I just discovered that. Last week I spied a free magazine put out
by PETA in one of the college newsstands titled Vegetarian Starter Kit
which I thought might help move me in that direction and picked it up
to read. It had some very graphic examples of abuse.


>
> 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?


That would be the ideal hunter, if hunting were necessary to survival.


>
> > 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?


Yes.


> How often can you reproach yourself for a sin before you must accept
> that you cannot actually think it sinful?


I don't think that doing it necessarily means you think it's okay.



>
> >> 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.


No. That's not what I said. I was just voicing the way I question
myself. The way I work through things.


>
> >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.


Yes.


>
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>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.


You want me to tell you how I think we should change the world? In 500
words or less? <g> Perhaps I'll blog about it in the coming days.


>
>
> >>
> >>>>>>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?


I googled it. There are some things I'm not quite clear on. It would
help to have an example, like what a day in the life of a community
living under such a system would look like.


Grace

.

Loading