Declaration of Independence

[FormerlyBrainwashed]

Quote:NonEntity wrote: I must say that these ideas are based upon a tribal society, and don't seem to easily translate into a diverse globalized swirl of human interaction. That said, I find the underlying concepts to be mind changing. These concepts, for me, are 1) voluntary interaction, on all things at all times, 2) (derived from one) there are no "rights" per se, but only relationships with others. You may enjoy something I wrote on this subject to help get my head around the idea of "ownership": Do We Own Ourselves? ... 3) all relationships are reciprocal, and absent such there are no obligations (goes back to the "rights" issue.)

I read your article - "Do We Own Ourselves?" Thanks for sharing...

Suffice it to say, I fully understand the perspective you are coming from; although I cannot say that I fully agree with your analysis of “ownership,” specifically, and above all, in regards to ones own person.

[NonEntity]

deleted - see next post

[NonEntity]

FormerlyBrainwashed Wrote:I read your article - "Do We Own Ourselves?" Thanks for sharing...

Suffice it to say, I fully understand the perspective you are coming from; although I cannot say that I fully agree with your analysis of “ownership,” specifically, and above all, in regards to ones own person.

First off, thanks.

Second, since all I did was apply logical analysis to the issues, could you show me where my logic fails? And if my logic is not faulty, then on what basis do you depart from my conclusion?

- NonE

[FormerlyBrainwashed]

To be clear – My comments are not personal attacks. That is not to say that you observe them to be, I merely want to make it clear that my reply was given to let you know that I read what you shared, and what my basic opinion of it was.

By stating that I do not fully agree with your analysis, it should be understood to mean that I do agree with some (perhaps even most) of it. I agree that ownership, in general, is “recognized” via conventions of men. That is, that formal communication/acknowledgement of who owns what is plainly evident in the social realm. I have no problem with how you differentiated between someone assuming something is unclaimed and therefore claiming ‘ownership’ of it vs. someone knowingly acquiring something that was already originally appropriated by someone else, and merely having ‘possession’ of it. You adequately described several scenarios and variations of how ‘things’ can be assumed to be owned and/or possessed… I perceive no error there.

Where the error comes into play (IMHO), is in attempting to discount the validity of reality as merely a bystander in the presence of conventions of men. As if the intrinsic nature of [a thing] is inconsequential if, by force, someone declares for themselves that possession constitutes ownership, or, that ownership of oneself does not exist. For someone to merely ‘claim’ ownership does/or does not exist, does not necessarily make it so. This all gets back to the basics in that reality exists independent of the acknowledgement of men.

I agree that ‘identification’ of who owns what is ‘communicated’ via social constructs. However, I find it to be unreasonable to categorically place all material objects (especially sentient human beings) into a realm where the intrinsic value of them is utterly disregarded as though they are mere inanimate objects. While a person may not appreciate/acknowledge the intrinsic value of [a thing] such disregard does not negate the reality of its [potential] intrinsic value, and moreover, its natural state of existence in the universe. Identification, therefore, is not merely a social valuation but a literal attribute of an object existing in reality.

The sun requires no ‘acknowledgement’ on the part of sentient life forms for its value to remain self-evident. Additionally, no one can legitimately claim ownership of the sun. I fully understand that this is not a debate about value per-se, however, I submit that it is logically consistent to recognize value as an integral component of what one may [legitimately] claim ownership of.

In the case of a man owning himself, I would submit that such is the only ‘thing’ that an individual has irrefutable ownership of, as long as he remains alive. Since all men are on an equal playing field in terms of their intrinsic nature and material existence (rudimentarily speaking), they therefore own themselves by virtue of their absolute original appropriation of their own body (i.e. occupation of their own vessel in a manner that no one else can naturally achieve); and, the continued existence as a living entity dependent on the continuation of their mind. When they die, whether naturally or by force, their body is nothing but a lifeless corpse which, if left alone, will wither away with no sentient 'occupier' to claim legitimate ownership of it any longer.

At the end of the day the overarching question comes back to whether or not moral standing has any legitimacy amongst sentient beings. If morality does not exist, then how one acquires, owns, or trades [X] is inconsequential. Such an absence of morality would be similar to what you stated in a previous post when you described the sociopath who might find it perfectly acceptable to eat small children.

[NonEntity]

Good reply. Thanks. I may want to bicker with you later, if you're up for it, but not at the moment.

The one comment that I will make right here and now is that I refute your statement that there is any such thing as an "intrinsic value." I would suggest to you that value is entirely subjective. Water to a drowning man is of negative worth, to a man in the desert dying of thirst it is priceless. Like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder.

- NonE

[FormerlyBrainwashed]

"I refute your statement that there is any such thing as an "intrinsic value.""

Technically speaking, I cannot say that I disagree. Use of the term "value" was a bad choice. More appropriate terms exist that would have been better suited to make my point. How easy it is for one to poorly communicate via the English language.

[eye2i2hear]

FormerlyBrainwashed Wrote:How easy it is for one to poorly communicate via the English language.

(you're preachin'to the choir here with that one!)

How easy illusion (and even self-delusion?) is perpetuated via words.
I'm reminded of a couple of quotes:

Quote:Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.
–Rudyard Kipling

The battle for the world is the battle for definitions.
--Thomas Szasz

The problem with communication is the illusion that it has occurred.
--George Bernard Shaw

And I'd be remiss if I left off the infamous Mr. Dumpty:

FormerlyBrainwashed Wrote:Use of the term "value" was a bad choice.

Actually, it might be the optimal word...?!
I'm more and more finding myself easing into the Max Stirner-ish 'camp', where I find that values is essentially, if not in essence, what social-reality is (or is all about). Where the heart of the matter of societal conflict is examining the evaluation process that gets each to their value(s). (ironically, hoping most value logic... 'er, logic having intrinsic value? lol) :winkwink:

[Christophera]

NonEntity Wrote:

FormerlyBrainwashed Wrote:I very reluctantly post this here...

I hope not to abuse your trust with this commentary.

FormerlyBrainwashed Wrote:BTW - When I use the term "right(s)," I do so, in general agreement with the description given in the famous John Galt speech in the novel Atlas Shrugged.

"Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, his right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."

---------------------------

Please note that I have not read what follows the above, I am only commenting on this particular quote as I find it pernicious.

Consider this. "If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, his right to act on his own free judgment..." I suggest that the conceptual basis behind this thinking cannot be separated from that which a sociopath may use to justify anything he may care to do, including (to get ridiculous) eating small children.

On an individual basis what you say about a sociopath might be true. Meaning it would be most comprehensive to use, "individual conceptual basis". On a collective basis where the most effective thinking for survival could be done, the child eaten, older in life, may have been the one contributing many solution to serious problems.

NonEntity Wrote:I reject the idea of "rights" as merely "claims" which anyone may make but do not necessarily make them "right," where "right" is a concept which can only have meaning within the understanding of the empathic grasp that all life is related and deserves respect for it's own sake alone.

I would much prefer this idea, that man's life may require certain things, but that does not necessarily make them "right," only necessary. Going beyond this is narcissistic.

- NonE

It seems technically in a semantical sense your point is correct. Again, logically the "individual" or "collective" question frames the context.

The word "right" implies an agreement upon what is or enables a positive existence serving the survival and well being of two or more people. Therefore the word "right" is a word dealing with societal issues. Now we have complicated things with the factor of potentially incomplete or misinderstood communications bwtween people.

Again we've complicated the issue with the word "communications". What if we are telepathic? What if some people end up operating from a state other than a normal waking state during communications? How can they be accountable in our collectively conscious exchange of language if what they've learned is held unconsciously?

Hypnotists have documented many times a phenomena they refer to as "transference". Personally, knowing the great fear they live with in conforming to the system that certifies their ability to understand the human mind, they are afraid of agreeing with anything that is unsanctified or insane. "Unsanctified" is the meaning of insane.

Who sanctifies? The church does that.

Not trying to muddy the water, just introduce facts that may require observance.

I very much like this, almost to the point of adopting most of it.

FormerlyBrainwashed Wrote:"Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, his right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.

The following in spirit is correct but there is a use of a generalization not inclusive of our unconscious existence

FormerlyBrainwashed Wrote:Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."

The word "evil" is a label. A handle for generalizing that most often eliminates effort to understand. It is a fear label used by church interests to manipulate. Cognitive distortions have been ensconced in our language with deliberate intent to prevent understanding of our unconscious existence, by those that would use the same to dominate us.

I encourage a visit to the thread I've started on behaviors. Your expressions are well crafted and the information there might expand your uses.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://marcstevens.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2135" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2135</a><!-- l -->

I'm hoping Marc Stevens will get curious about the questions I asked regarding the Magna Carta on July 26th, 2010 during my call in to the radio show before I made that thread. The questions are at the beginning of the thread.

The answers to the questions explain a great deal about who compelled the barons and king and how, what rights are and how they evolve from a "claim" to a right and who upholds it, how.

[GLENN MCDONALD]

The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural rights, including a right of revolution.













boston bands