Open discussion about stealing

[soveREIGN]

NonEntity Wrote:I'm pondering here. See what you think.

I want to point out the vast difference between "claim" and "request." They are, it seems to me, opposites. And therein lies the issue with "property" issues. As I've reasoned, property is a social concept that is given by others, not a thing we assert ourselves. To assert "ownership" is no different than to simply have possession with the intent to defend at all costs. A common thief can do this - this does not make his possession proper ownership of an item.

If I propose to the world that I have put my efforts and affections into a given item, a garden for instance, and others look upon my statement and concede that I deserve to be left alone with my item to do as I wish, then I've been conceded ownership by those others. I don't have to stand there day and night with a pitch fork defending my peppers and apples.

The understanding that I think I'm developing in my mind on this issue is that ownership is a function of the animal's ability to have empathy for another. Possession against depredation is not ownership, it is simply possession and very precarious at best. When others have respect for you and grant you ownership, then you are secure in that possession. That can only happen when there is empathy. "If that were me, I'd want to be treated in this manner. Therefore I will treat him as I would want to be treated myself." That is the nature of ownership and empathy is a prerequisite.

Dem's my thoughts at present.

- NonE

Good thoughts NonE, I agree with this.

Ownership of property, even your body, presupposes empathy. I would "feel bad" if I walked in your house, threw you out, and started living there. Therefore I would not do it to you. You would also feel bad for me, so you refrain from acting like an animal. It is obvious humans resort to empathy, and reason more often than force. The proof is all around you. Somehow humans have come to an agreement with themselves that as long as a 3rd party is employed to act without empathy and reason it is ok. This is what we need to change. We(humans) have already taken that first step, we have allowed eachother to own property. This second step appears to be a real bitch.


Governments have systemized no empathy, and no reason.
So would this imply there is no reason for government? ;D

We all know where the next stop for this logic is right? :eekeek:

[Jonathanr]

Social constructs are the result of all our base needs being met. When you're cold, wet and hungry, civilsation gets thrown to the wind. See R v Dudley and Stephens.

[zonsb]

Jonathanr Wrote:Social constructs are the result of all our base needs being met. When you're cold, wet and hungry, civilsation gets thrown to the wind. See R v Dudley and Stephens.

"Our" denotes two or more people, I'll assume you meant all people. In the next sentence you say when "you're"... One individual delusional or dying of thirst is not the all of civilization thrown to the wind. As for the men at sea, their civilization had dramatically changed to no fault of their own to be a civilization of four people.

"Our", could be the collective group of people known as society or civilization. "You're", is singular and not a collective.

If a person was dying of dehydration and the only water in sight was inside the only house within survival distance and no one was in the house it would be initiatory force to break in and steal water to survive. The honest person would secure the break in, leave a note and set about quickly locating the home owner to explain why he did what he did and to reimburse the owner for damage he caused on breaking into the house. And, to thank the owner for being so wise to put the house at that location, for it was a real lifesaver, so to speak.

If the house owner made a claim I think an impartial jury in an honest/objective court would empathize and say that the defendant had to pay for the damage to the house he caused but had no intent to injure, but rather, it was out of a true need to survive.

It validates the supremacy of reason and honest/objective courts with impartial jurors over the collectivist State injustice system.

Lastly, R v Dudley and Stephens is certainly a one-off situation and proves that nature isn't fair. It is survival of the fittest and considering their circumstances, they, in their four-man civilization probably did the best that reason under those circumstance could muster. I wouldn't want to be a juror on that trial.

Was it your intent to inject that one-off situation to be some sort of statement on society or civilization as a whole? In the year 1884, their "society" and their "civilization" consisted of four people, a small wooden boat and the clothes they were wearing plus a few navigational instruments floating 700 miles from land.

[Jonathanr]

zonsb Wrote:"Our" denotes two or more people, I'll assume you meant all people. In the next sentence you say when "you're"... One individual delusional or dying of thirst is not the all of civilization thrown to the wind. As for the men at sea, their civilization had dramatically changed to no fault of their own to be a civilization of four people.

“Our”, in this case, denotes all human beings. This example is a microcosm of how the human species behave in such situations. “You’re” denotes you, me or any other individual who is blessed with the privilege of being a member of the human species.

Your example of a single, dehydrated person approaching another persons’ house is not a relevant argument, since, in that example, you have two individuals with disparate extents of wealth. One, who has nothing and is on the verge of death; the other, seemingly a millionaire by comparison.

I was pointing out that social constructs can be created only when the community as a whole is wealthy enough to do so. Wealth, in this context, is simply a surplus of supplies for the base needs (food, shelter & clothing).

Compare the wealth of the human species with that of species in the animal kingdom, which might go some way to explaining why human behaviour operates on a different level. Having said that, there are also animal species which behave in surprisingly ordered fashion – but again, when resources for their basic needs are plentiful.

I suspect that there is also somewhat of an inertia in degenerating situations (such as on the lifeboat), in which certain subsets of the community adhere to their orderly ideals longer than others.

[zonsb]

Jonathanr Wrote:Your example of a single, dehydrated person approaching another persons’ house is not a relevant argument,

The use of initiatory force is the issue and when it is used is a personal choice that always has a liability attached to it. Use of initiatory force for survival.

Jonathanr Wrote:since, in that example, you have two individuals with disparate extents of wealth. One, who has nothing and is on the verge of death; the other, seemingly a millionaire by comparison.

You've identified a secondary difference. In your example of the survivors at sea and my example of survivor on land they both had to make a choice of whether to initiate force and except the liability for their use of initiatory force. Social constructs take a back seat to the necessity of survival under extreme circumstances.

Jonathanr Wrote:I was pointing out that social constructs can be created only when the community as a whole is wealthy enough to do so. Wealth, in this context, is simply a surplus of supplies for the base needs (food, shelter & clothing).

Man easily has the ability to produce more than he consumes. He has been doing it for several thousand years. Neocheaters have been enslaving people for thousands of years. Thereby usurping unearned/unjust wealth for themselves while depriving others of the full fruits of their lives and labor.

Jonathanr Wrote:Compare the wealth of the human species with that of species in the animal kingdom, which might go some way to explaining why human behaviour operates on a different level. Having said that, there are also animal species which behave in surprisingly ordered fashion – but again, when resources for their basic needs are plentiful.

Human consciousness has the ability to reason. Animals don't. That's by far the biggest difference between man and animal. As orderly as some animal species appear to be none of them create tools let alone create tool-making tools. Nor have any of them outpaced nature's evolutionary process to increase longevity.

The survival at sea was a one-off scenario. It's a closer resemblance to man before he had the tool-creating ability to produce more than he consumes.

[Jonathanr]

zonsb Wrote:The use of initiatory force is the issue and when it is used is a personal choice that always has a liability attached to it. Use of initiatory force for survival.

So you'll agree that the context is important, when discussing the use of initiatory force?

[zonsb]

Jonathanr Wrote:

zonsb Wrote:The use of initiatory force is the issue and when it is used is a personal choice that always has a liability attached to it. Use of initiatory force for survival.

So you'll agree that the context is important, when discussing the use of initiatory force?

When. if ever, do you think context isn't important?

[Jonathanr]

zonsb Wrote:When. if ever, do you think context isn't important?

I don’t, ever.

My original point was about actions, social constructs and circumstances (context). You isolated the action (initiatory force) and put it in an alternative context in an apparent attempt to counter-argue my point.

zonsb Wrote:The use of initiatory force is the issue

The issue is one of initiatory force and the prevailing context and contemporary social constructs.

The ability, or absence of ability to reason doesn’t enter into it. There are studies to show that animals have the ability to reason.

[zonsb]

Jonathanr Wrote:My original point was about actions, social constructs and circumstances (context). You isolated the action (initiatory force) and put it in an alternative context in an apparent attempt to counter-argue my point.

It appeared to you as a counter argument because that's how you chose to perceive things. It was an example of initiatory force in the context of contemporary social constructs, not a counter argument.

Quote:The issue is one of initiatory force and the prevailing context and contemporary social constructs.

The survival at sea example you gave was a one off circumstance that is much closer in resembling a time prior to when man created social constructs. Certainly not contemporary social constructs.

The only lasting social construct that will allow man to create a civilization of massive abundance and equal opportunity to interact with it is one of voluntary exchange. That rules out socialism and collectivism -- not to mention communism and fascism.

Quote:The ability, or absence of ability to reason doesn’t enter into it.

If you fail to see how reason applies any further "discussion" would be pointless.

[Jonathanr]

I see no point in further discussion either, and since I’ve called you on strawman arguments before, I’ll leave the merits of your contrived hypothetical for others to judge.

zonsb Wrote:If a person was dying of dehydration and the only water in sight was inside the only house within survival distance and no one was in the house it would be initiatory force to break in and steal water to survive. The honest person would secure the break in, leave a note and set about quickly locating the home owner to explain why he did what he did and to reimburse the owner for damage he caused on breaking into the house. And, to thank the owner for being so wise to put the house at that location, for it was a real lifesaver, so to speak.

[zonsb]

zonsb Wrote:

Jonathanr Wrote:The ability, or absence of ability to reason doesn’t enter into it.

If you fail to see how reason applies any further "discussion" would be pointless.

Jonathanr Wrote:I see no point in further discussion either, and since I’ve called you on strawman arguments before, I’ll leave the merits of your contrived hypothetical for others to judge.

The initiatory force in survival dehydration example was used in an early discussion; first by NonEntity and then by myself. It has been previously judged by readers, so to speak.

As to what you proclaim from on high to be straw-men was you tilting at windmills -- your mind-spun fabrications. Including your attempt to deceive the reader. You shot yourself in the foot. Here it is: Re: Debate: Larken Rose / Michael Benoit - 4/6/11 [audio] Posted: May 16th, 2011, 1:16 am <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://marcstevens.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2810&p=17702&hilit=+adventure+legal+decieve#p17702" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://marcstevens.net/board/viewtopic. ... eve#p17702</a><!-- m -->

Yes, the example I gave was a hypothetical and it is also close to what would happen in a contemporary social construct. Millions of people each day struggle with dehydration and starvation. Most of them don't throw reason out and resort to "law" of the jungle, survival of the fittest. Some chose to use initiatory force, most don't. Conversely, barely a handful a year deal with dehydration and starvation while lost at sea.

contrived: having an unnatural or false appearance or quality

Your lost at sea survival example happened beyond the reach of contemporary social constructs. You tried to pawn it off as survival within contemporary social constructs -- a false appearance. You're running out of feet to shoot.

It's worth mentioning a second time that the only lasting social construct that will allow man to create a civilization of massive abundance and equal opportunity to interact with it is one of voluntary exchange. That rules out socialism and collectivism -- not to mention communism and fascism.

[NonEntity]

Say Dionysus, you should move to Bolivia!

“We all have a right to have a car” said President Morales.

Quote:President Morales justified the legalization of contraband cars arguing that the ‘chutos’ are purchased by “poor people” who want “to improve their status” and prefer them because they are ‘cheaper’.

- NonE :rolleyes2: