# One of the Hawaiian Islands is for sale!



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2012)

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/print-edition/2012/06/15/david-murdock-trying-to-sell-lanai.html


> Harry Saunders, president of Castle & Cooke Hawaii Inc., has confirmed one of the biggest rumors of 2012: The island of Lanai is for sale.
> 
> 
> The sixth-largest Hawaiian island is owned by Los Angeles billionaire David Murdock, who in 1985 took control of it as a result of his purchase of Castle & Cooke.



Here's what Castle & Cooke have to say about Lanai.



> An easy 25-minute plane ride from the hustle and bustle of Honolulu  or a scenic 45-minute ferry ride from Maui  and a world away from both   lies the enchanting Island of Lanai. No stoplights and no crowds  except for the colorful reef fish and the stars in the night sky. Miles  of cool green uplands, country roads, wide pristine beaches, and a  little plantation town with a smile for residents and visitors alike.
> 
> Two communities embody the beauty and diversity of Lanai.
> 
> ...



And if you have a surprisingly small amount of...



> [h=3]Source says Pineapple Island could go for as much as $500 million[/h]



You could actually buy this island.

This is very interesting because there are 8,000 people who live on the island and thousands more that work or visit there.  There are huge resorts and all kinds of businesses on the island.  A sale like this is actually a huge deal and brings up all kinds of property rights issues.  This much land hasn't been for sale in Hawaii since the days of King Kamehameha.  

Thoughts?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 16, 2012)

Merv Griffin, and Marlon Brando both owned islands. I always thought that was really cool. You could buy it for me...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

That island was conquered and sold by a Hawaiian King in the first place. Is that a proper precedent to establish property rights?


----------



## Gentle Fist (Jun 16, 2012)

I'll take two... oh wait they're how much?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> That island was conquered and sold by a Hawaiian King in the first place. Is that a proper precedent to establish property rights?



*Is there any other???*


----------



## Buka (Jun 16, 2012)

I haven't been there in a few years, but I've always liked it. Has kind of an odd feel to it, though, maybe because there's so few people around. (But you have to love an island with no traffic lights.) I hope a good person buys it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 16, 2012)

I'm sure mark Cuban will buy it he owns everything else


----------



## granfire (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> *Is there any other???*



Like bopping the occupants upside the head?


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 16, 2012)

If I were the current owner, I'd "lend" the money to a consortium of Kanaka Maoli so that they could buy the island.

Nah, can't have Native Hawaiians owning their land.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> *Is there any other???*



How did you acquire your property?  Did you march an army in and kill everyone who lived there?  Is there a peaceful way of establishing property rights?

One of the issues we have in Hawaii is that the whole archipelago was taken over shortly after it was "discovered" by Europeans.  Later, the Hawaiian Monarchy divided up the land and doled it out as they saw fit.  They also sold large chunks of it to people with lots of money, never mind the people that actually lived there and were using the land at the time.  Two of the islands were sold off in this fashion.  

The whole thing strikes me as a modern day example of feudalism.  There's a guy in a castle somewhere who gets his head stuck on a pike and now the land has a new "owner".  **** the serfs, they can be thrown off willy nilly.  Anyway it's just an interesting modern day example of how feudalism actually works and it's kind of weird that we have this sort of thing in the good ole USA...

On a different note, I have a theory about property in Hawaii.  Huge tracks of land are locked up in Trusts that were handed down from the initial conquests of King Kamehameha I.  In a lot of these trusts, nothing is happening.  No one is using the land despite historical precedent that people actually used the land before it was conquered.  On Lanai, a small portion of the land is allowed to be used by the people.  Consequently, there really isn't that much economic activity on this island.  The way that the owners have historically let it be used have led to it's ridiculously low price.  My guess is that if the land was sold to anyone who wanted a portion of it, economic activity would explode on the island.  We'd see all kinds of new businesses and wealth flowing off of Lanai.

All of this hints at a social experiment that could reveal the relationship of property to humans.  When governments come in and control everyone's property by the point of a gun, the wealth and productivity of that property is destroyed.  When people are allowed to establish property rights and are free from control, the wealth and productivity of property increases.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> How did you acquire your property? Did you march an army in and kill everyone who lived there? Is there a peaceful way of establishing property rights?
> .



Don't often say this, John, but you think too much-leads to over thinking things beyond their true simplicity. 

I mean, honestly-can anyone truly own the land, or anything?  All sorts of wealth and business flows ut of Wyoming, where there still is a population of about one person for every ten square miles, and large portions of land owned by corporate entities, government agencies, and private trusts, as well as a few individuals.
Wealth and productivity increase where they _*exist.
(See what I did with that "period," there? *_:lfao* )*


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Don't often say this, John, but you think too much-leads to over thinking things beyond their true simplicity.



LOL, you aren't the first person to say this, but sometimes among the numerous dead ends, I find something valuable from the experience.



elder999 said:


> I mean, honestly-can anyone truly own the land, or anything?



I own my body.  I own the actions of my body.  I own the product of the actions of my body.  The product of the actions of my body can influence a portion of land.  Therefore, I own a portion of land.  Is that argument irrational?  



elder999 said:


> All sorts of wealth and business flows out of Wyoming, where there still is a population of about one person for every ten square miles, and large portions of land owned by corporate entities, government agencies, and private trusts, as well as a few individuals.



Wyoming is a big place and is actually a perfect example of what I was talking about.  An individual can go to Wyoming and buy some land.  They can be productive with it.  Hence, Wyoming produces a lot of wealth.  On Lanai, an individual cannot buy the land.  98% is controlled by a small group of people who dictate what can or cannot be done on the island.  As it stands now, huge tracts of land lie unused and unvisited.  Imagine if more people could be creative and find uses for the land to increase their wealth.


elder999 said:


> Wealth and productivity increase where they _*exist.*_



Lanai is relatively dry because it is located in the rain shadow of Haleakala on Maui.  However, it still has some very productive soil.  It didn't work out to turn the whole island into a pineapple farm because that crop needs more water then is available.  However, other agricultural products may be more productive.  Lanai is easily reached from the populations of Maui and Molokai.  People on Oahu regularly import products from the Outer Islands for their consumption.  Lanai has the potential to produce a lot of food.

Also, as it stands now, the island has two massive resorts on it that are very expensive to visit.  If you want to stay there, you pretty much have to stay at those places.  If there were more options that were less expensive, more people would come to the island and more people could afford to make a living there.  There is excellent horseback riding, there is excellent hunting, there are excellent beaches on Lanai, there are great places to fish, there is a lot of potential for wealth there...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I own my body. I own the actions of my body. I own the product of the actions of my body. The product of the actions of my body can influence a portion of land. Therefore, I own a portion of land. Is that argument irrational?



You *don't* own your body, any more than you *are* your body. You *will* be separated from your body-_no matter how you try to keep it, or how much you try_ it will ultimately prove not to have belonged to you at all-it is, at best, on loan. 

Yes, the rest of the argument is irrational and silly, being built on a fallacy of "ownership."


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> You *don't* own your body, any more than you *are* your body. You *will* be separated from your body-_no matter how you try to keep it, or how much you try_ it will ultimately prove not to have belonged to you at all-it is, at best, on loan.
> 
> Yes, the rest of the argument is irrational and silly, being built on a fallacy of "ownership."



Interesting point.  Essentially, you are saying that since all of the matter in my body is "borrowed" and will be recycled into something else, I don't actually "own" my body.

Perhaps I can own the order in which that matter is contorted?  Perhaps that order is what constitutes my personhood.  If that is the case, then the rest of my argument for ownership could flow out of that.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Perhaps I can own the order in which that matter is contorted?



Tell that to a paraplegic, quadruple amputee, epileptic or even a mere congenital klutz with Olympic aspirations-or, speaking of _spirations_, someone like me who suffers from COPD-all people who are-or will ultimately be-quite incapable of "owning the order in which that matter is contorted."

Just as you are.



Makalakumu said:


> Perhaps that order is what constitutes my personhood.



That order is an illusion-as is ownership.

You don't even "own" your "personhood."



Makalakumu said:


> If that is the case, then the rest of my argument for ownership could flow out of that.



Nope. Fallacious, silly and vain. Your argument is based on sand, from which nothing flows.......


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> That order is an illusion-as is ownership.
> 
> You don't even "own" your "personhood."



Why is the order of the matter that composes my body an illusion?  Why don't I own my personhood...or perhaps I should say consciousness?  Is this also an illusion?  If so, why?

I argue that my consciousness is real, that my body is real, that the order that contorts the matter of my body is real.  I argue that I exist, therefore I am and thus, I own myself.  If those things are illusions, why do you argue this?


----------



## Carol (Jun 16, 2012)

It sounds to me as if Lanai may have a turbulent future, regardless.

The island is for sale, yet it is unclear whether it could actually be sold.  The population is dwindling.  The resorts on it are losing staggering numbers of millions each year.  The firm which behind it all is no longer in Hawaii having relocated to LA.  Ahhhh...first world problems...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

Carol said:


> It sounds to me as if Lanai may have a turbulent future, regardless.
> 
> The island is for sale, yet it is unclear whether it could actually be sold.  The population is dwindling.  The resorts on it are losing staggering numbers of millions each year.  The firm which behind it all is no longer in Hawaii having relocated to LA.  Ahhhh...*first world problems*...



No kidding.  I'm interested in this because it's an interesting social laboratory to test some ideas about property rights.  I think that all of the problems that Lanai is experiencing can directly be traced back to it being forcefully taken and controlled.  I think this idea can be extrapolated onto all government control of property.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Interesting point.  Essentially, you are saying that since all of the matter in my body is "borrowed" and will be recycled into something else, I don't actually "own" my body.
> 
> Perhaps I can own the order in which that matter is contorted?  Perhaps that order is what constitutes my personhood.  If that is the case, then the rest of my argument for ownership could flow out of that.


Your personhood is not comprised of anything tangible.. Cut off your arm it is still you.. You are not your body.. and what you are cannot be owned.  This land cannot be owned because it was _never_ anyone's to own.. The doyens and elders in all original civilisations would perhaps appreciate this truth best I think.  The ownership in law of this land is an arbitrary concept and but it is the one we must abide by..


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Why is the order of the matter that composes my body an illusion?



Choose an order of the matter that composes your body that includes it growing wings, and fly. Better yet, go to a high place, and jump off and fly.

Try to lower the amount of oxygen in the matter that composes your body, and see how long you can maintain the illusion that it actually belongs to you, and how much control you have over it.

Try to lower the amount of water in the matter that composes you body, and see how long you can maintain the illusion that it actually belongs to you.

Try to lower the amount of blood in the matter that composes your body, and see how long you can maintain the illusion that it actually belongs to you.

In fact, I'd say that if there's any "ownership" going on, it works the other way, and you are "owned" by your body, but there is no ownership whatsoever-your body-*and its "order" are wholly on loan, at best.
Why don't I own my personhood...or perhaps I should say consciousness? Is this also an illusion? If so, why?



Makalakumu said:



			I argue that my consciousness is real, that my body is real, that the order that contorts the matter of my body is real.
		
Click to expand...


I'll accept all of that, for the time being, but not what follows-real they may be, but you do not own "the order that contorts the matter," nor the matter itself, nor, really, your consciousness.

Where does your "consciousness" go in NREM, stage 3 sleep? Does it cease to exist? If you "own" it, try doing without REM and NREM sleep, and see how long you can maintain the illusion that it belongs to you. :lol:



Makalakumu said:



			I argue that I exist, therefore I am and thus, I own myself. If those things are illusions, why do you argue this?
		
Click to expand...


We can argue your existance-we can even accept the premise that "you" do, in fact, exist. Mere existance, though, is not a basis for ownership-you cannot say that you own "yourself" merely because of existance, especially since "yourself," selfhood, and personhood remain completely undefined terms, and, as we've already demonstrated, you can lay no claim to ownership of your consciousness, which also, btw, remains undefined.



Jenna said:



			Your personhood is not comprised of anything tangible.. Cut off your arm it is still you.. You are not your body.. and what you are cannot be owned. This land cannot be owned because it was never anyone's to own.. The doyens and elders in all original civilisations would perhaps appreciate this truth best I think. The ownership in law of this land is an arbitrary concept and but it is the one we must abide by..
		
Click to expand...


What she said, but our discussion's more fun....:lfao:*


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> We can argue your existance-we can even accept the premise that "you" do, in fact, exist. Mere existance, though, is not a basis for ownership-you cannot say that you own "yourself" merely because of existance, especially since "yourself," selfhood, and personhood remain completely undefined terms, and, as we've already demonstrated, you can lay no claim to ownership of your consciousness, which also, btw, remains undefined.



Did you make this argument?

If the answer is yes, then you exist and you own the product of your existence.  If the answer is no, then who made the argument?  Who is responsible for it?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> No kidding. I'm interested in this because it's an interesting social laboratory to test some ideas about property rights. I think that all of the problems that Lanai is experiencing can directly be traced back to it being forcefully taken and controlled. I think this idea can be extrapolated onto all government control of property.



What if nothing-or relatively nothing-changes? This is, after all, the most likely conclusion-that another trust or corporate entity will make such a large purchase, contingent with all past agreements and leases carrying over as part of the purchase, and with relatively few other changes undertaken in terms of exploitation.

Hell, maybe the Sierra Club will buy it....or Dick Branson-though it represents about an eight of his net worth, he might think it worthwhile-the Sierra Club only has about $60 million, last time I looked, anyway....


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Your personhood is not comprised of anything tangible.. Cut off your arm it is still you.. You are not your body.. and what you are cannot be owned.  This land cannot be owned because it was _never_ anyone's to own.. The doyens and elders in all original civilisations would perhaps appreciate this truth best I think.  The ownership in law of this land is an arbitrary concept and but it is the one we must abide by..



If my personhood isn't comprised of anything tangible, what is it composed of?  If I am not my body, what am I?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> What if nothing-or relatively nothing-changes? This is, after all, the most likely conclusion-that another trust or corporate entity will make such a large purchase, contingent with all past agreements and leases carrying over as part of the purchase, and with relatively few other changes undertaken in terms of exploitation.
> 
> Hell, maybe the Sierra Club will buy it....or Dick Branson-though it represents about an eight of his net worth, he might think it worthwhile-the Sierra Club only has about $60 million, last time I looked, anyway....



I think that if another entity buys the whole island, nothing will change.  If the island is parceled out to more people, Lanai's economic future will actually change.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If my personhood isn't comprised of anything tangible, what is it composed of? If I am not my body, what am I?




_Nothing of substance_-much more than mere *stuff*.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I think that if another entity buys the whole island, nothing will change. If the island is parceled out to more people, Lanai's economic future will actually change.



At even that relatively low price, which is more likely? I think that another entity might just do a little development for exploitation, and spread a little actual wealth on the island itself in the form of job creation, but not so much that it would change the nature of the island itself. The island won't be "parceled out," as much as parts of it will be developed.

Heck, I can buy a _house_ in Lanai right now, or even two acres brodering Manele golf course-how does the sale of "the entire island" affect that?

Would I still "own" that two acres? Would I still _own_ that house? :lol:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> _Nothing of substance_-much more than mere *stuff*.



If it is more then matter and energy, then what else is it composed of?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Would I still "own" that two acres? Would I still _own_ that house? :lol:



If you own yourself and you own the product of your labor, then you would own the product of your labor on the land.  If the product of your labor affects the land, then you would own the land.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If it is more then matter and energy, then what else is it composed of?



*You* tell me-you're the one who insists that it exists, and that you "*own"* it....:lol:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If you own yourself



but, for the purposes of this discussion, I contend that I do not-that such an ownership is impossible.

I truly don't know where my consciousness goes during NREM sleep...:lol:



Makalakumu said:


> and you own the product of your labor, then you would own the product of your labor on the land. If the product of your labor affects the land, then you would own the land.



I contend  that all of that is based on a faulty premise of ownership, owning neither myself, nor the product of my labor, nor land.....


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Did you make this argument?
> 
> If the answer is yes, then you exist and you own the product of your existence. If the answer is no, then who made the argument? Who is responsible for it?



I'd contend that _*you*_ "made the argument," with the fallacious and vain notion of "ownership." :lol:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If I am not my body, what am I?




If your "personhood" ceases to exist when your body ceases to operate, then how can you claim "ownership" of either of them?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> *You* tell me-you're the one who insists that it exists, and that you "*own"* it....:lol:





You're the one who made the claim that we are more then matter and energy.  So, what is that extra *stuff*?  I don't know what it is...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> but, for the purposes of this discussion, I contend that I do not-that such an ownership is impossible.



By making this argument, you accept self ownership.  The argument against self ownership self destructs when *you *make and argument against it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> If your "personhood" ceases to exist when your body ceases to operate, then how can you claim "ownership" of either of them?



What if I could find a way to maintain my "personhood" indefinitely?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> By making this argument, you accept self ownership. .



What do you base that contention on? Not owning myself in no way limits my ability to ideate, or to communicate my ideas-it only limits my ownership of those ideas and communications-my argument isn't merely against "self-ownership," it's against the very concept of "*ownership*"


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> What if I could find a way to maintain my "personhood" indefinitely?



Who's to your personhood isn't indefinite? We only know that your body is indefinite.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> What do you base that contention on? Not owning myself in no way limits my ability to ideate, or to communicate my ideas-it only limits my ownership of those ideas and communications-my argument isn't merely against "self-ownership," it's against the very concept of "*ownership*"



By making an argument you acknowledge that you exist and can make something.  If you exist and you can make something, you are responsible for it.  If you are responsible for it, you own it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Who's to your personhood isn't indefinite? We only know that your body is indefinite.



What if I found a way to make the matter that holds myself indefinitely organized in such a way that it maintains my Self?


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> No kidding.  I'm interested in this because it's an interesting social laboratory to test some ideas about property rights.  I think that all of the problems that Lanai is experiencing can directly be traced back to it *being forcefully taken and controlled*.  I think this idea can be extrapolated onto all government control of property.



As is often said: HAWAIIAIN BY BLOOD, AMERICAN BY FORCE

Social commentary aside, I'm also interested in the potential property rights litigation or, heaven forbid, any congressional hearings (if they can break themselves away from meddling in baseball and boxing).


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> By making an argument you acknowledge that you exist and can make something. If you exist and you can make something, you are responsible for it. If you are responsible for it, you own it.



You are conflating _doing_ with *being,*, when we are talking about "being." While what we do may or may not be part of what we are, and what defines us as a person, it isn't what we *are*, any more than our bodies are.

A question: does the ocean own the wave? Even after the wave has broken on the shore, and surely no longer exists, but its substance, the water, has  remained part of the "body" of the ocean?



Makalakumu said:


> What if I found a way to make the matter that holds myself indefinitely organized in such a way that it maintains my Self?




It wouldn't matter: in a year or four hundred, you wouldn't be the same person, so your "personhood," that you are arguing that you "own," would be lost to you-just as you are no longer the "person" you were when you were 2-*that* personhood is long, long lost, and, I'd wager, barely someone you'd remember......

in any case, if the "matter that holds yourself" became "indefinitely organized," you'd hardly be a "person" anymore, would you? :lol:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2012)

To be is to do. To do is to claim that you exist. To claim that you exist is to claim ownership of yourself. Claim your existence, Jeff, and sup at the table of reason.

We are like waves in matter, but unlike waves, we seem to have a little more control over our direction, hence ownership exists.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> To be is to do.



Tell that to a quadriplegic, or a person in a coma. 

Or a rock.

_"To be is to do,"
sounds like Sinatra,
"to be is to do,"
that's John's mantra"_
:lfao:
Just keep telling yourself that....:lol:



Makalakumu said:


> To do is to claim that you exist.



To exist is to claim one exists: existance is self-evident. See: a rock.



Makalakumu said:


> To claim that you exist is to claim ownership of yourself.



This is an as yet unsupported leap in logic on your part.



Makalakumu said:


> We are like waves in matter, but unlike waves, we seem to have a little more control over our direction, hence ownership exists.



I'm going to maintain that the illusion of ownership exists-if ownership exists, and you're in control of the matter that defines you, do me a favor to prove it: take a deep breath, and hold it. Don't let it out.......

_for the rest of the day._ No inhalations permitted. Try not to do that, okay? :lol:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2012)

elder999 said:


> This is an as yet unsupported leap in logic on your part.



Oh, well, why do you practice *SELF*-defense?

You exist, the products of your existence exist, you are responsible for the products of your existence, therefore you own those products.  

Maybe this will help you better understand...






Can I have YOUR liver?



elder999 said:


> I'm going to maintain that the illusion of ownership exists-if ownership  exists, and you're in control of the matter that defines you, do me a  favor to prove it: take a deep breath, and hold it. Don't let it  out.......



This is entirely possible after a short trip to the hardware store...but no thanks.

Since I own my life, I can decide to do anything I want with it.  Even terminate it.  

To be is to do
and if I fling poo
at you
you might get pissed...

Why?

LOL


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Oh, well, why do you practice *SELF*-defense?



But I'm not denying the existence of the "self," or "personhood." I've only argued that "owership" is illusory.

With that in mind, self-preservation as motivation is self-evident: again, try to hold your breath all day, and you will fail: in an effort to preserve itself, your body will draw breath, independent of what your "self" wills......

I practice self-defense because I never got to play football, and I wanted to be James Bond as a child......:lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2012)

elder999 said:


> But I'm not denying the existence of the "self," or "personhood." I've only argued that "ownership" is illusory.



It's a terrible argument and it's one that you don't accept anyway.

Can I have your liver?  

See my above post, I've added to it.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Can I have your liver?



Sure, just as soon as I'm through with it. :lfao:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Oh, well, why do you practice *SELF*-defense?
> 
> You exist, the products of your existence exist, you are responsible for the products of your existence, therefore you own those products.



My children are the products of my existence-I don't own them.

In fact, I dare you to try telling them that I do....:lfao:




Makalakumu said:


> This is entirely possible after a short trip to the hardware store...but no thanks.



No, it truly is not. The motivation to draw breath is chemically induced in most healthy people by high levels of CO2 in the bloodstream. This cannot be mitigated for the length of a day by O2 saturation, or any other means-_you breathe in because you *must*-_it's why people _drown_-they breathe in water as though in air.



Makalakumu said:


> Since I own my life, I can decide to do anything I want with it. Even terminate it.



You have now re-identified the "self" with the body. You can certainly terminate the life of your body, if you decide to-at which point, the illusion of ownership of that body will have come to an end.

Of course, for the purposes of this discussion, neither of us can definitively state that the "self" would actually come to an end at that point, or the illusion of self-ownership-we can only say that the self will be separated from the body.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Sure, just as soon as I'm through with it. :lfao:



I bet if I came to get it now, you'd demonstrate some ownership.

And, yes, for a time you own your children until they are responible enough to own themselves. 

Lastly, the self ends when the body ends. Can you demonstrate otherwise?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I bet if I came to get it now, you'd demonstrate some ownership.



It would be a response directed toward self-preservation, no different than that demonstrated in response to any other threat to the body-including inhaling water and drowing.




Makalakumu said:


> And, yes, for a time you own your children until they are responible enough to own themselves.



I'd submit that I had _stewardship_ of my children-which is not "ownership."



Makalakumu said:


> Lastly, the self ends when the body ends. Can you demonstrate otherwise?



Can you demonstrate that it's a fact that the self ends when the body ends? *No.* It's simply what you choose to believe, based on other apparent facts. It's as I posted, for the purposes of this discussion, neither of us can make a definitive statement on the status of the "self" after the dissolution of the body.I can assert that the self is separated from the body, of course, whether it has actually ceased to exist _*or*_ gone elsewhere-it is clearly separate from the body, once the body is dead.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2012)

If I came to get a kidney, and had the proper training, you could survive that. Therefore, it's no longer a matter of self preservation. You could choose to defend yourself and demonstrate ownership of that kidney.

I agree, stewardship is a good concept when dealing with children, but ownership is unfortuneately more accurate. A person can sell their children and there is a certain age this becomes impossible. And don't forget Dueteronomy...lol.

If I damage the brain, I can permanently alter the Self. Therefore, the Self is dependent of the function of the body. Thus, we can infer that if we damage the body to a point where it ceases to function, the self dissolves. If you believe that the Self is separate from the body, it's up to you to prove it.

On a side note, are we misusing the word Self?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If I came to get a kidney, and had the proper training, you could survive that. Therefore, it's no longer a matter of self preservation. You could choose to defend yourself and demonstrate ownership of that kidney.



If you _needed_ a kidney, I'd give you one.



Makalakumu said:


> I agree, stewardship is a good concept when dealing with children, but ownership is unfortuneately more accurate.



No, stewardship is what it was. 



Makalakumu said:


> A person can sell their children and there is a certain age this becomes impossible. And don't forget Dueteronomy...lol.



One cannot legally sell children, so it doesn't fit that model of ownership. Nor would a quasi-legal "grey market:" adoption.

Deuteronomy? I don't think so.


> *Deuteronomy 4:9-10*Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them.
> "Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children."





Makalakumu said:


> If I damage the brain, I can permanently alter the Self.



You can permanently alter the _expression_ of the self-there is no telling what the actual *state* of the self (of another) is.

Your example also is further demonstrating the lack of ownership of the self, thank you. If the self (or its expression) can be permanently altered, how can you claim ownership.



Makalakumu said:


> Therefore, the Self is dependent of the function of the body.



The _expression_ of the self might be dependent upon the function of the body, but the self clearly is not: ask Stephen Hawking.




Makalakumu said:


> Thus, we can infer that if we damage the body to a point where it ceases to function, the self dissolves.



All we can infer is that the self no longer has access to that body to express itself.Whether it ceases to function with that body-_dissolves_-or goes elsewhere-are both equally undisprovable.



Makalakumu said:


> If you believe that the Self is separate from the body, it's up to you to prove it.



What I "believe" is irrelevant. As I said, both are undisprovable, and are, therefore, equally untenable.



Makalakumu said:


> On a side note, are we misusing the word Self?



Let's see what the _Merriam Webster's English language technical manual_ has to say:



> _a_ *:* the entire person of an individual _b_ *:* the realization or embodiment of an abstraction
> 2
> _a __(1)_ *:* an individual's typical character or behavior <her true _self_ was revealed> _(2)_ *:* an individual's temporary behavior or character <his better _self_> _b_ *:* a person in prime condition <feel like my old _self_ today>
> 
> ...



nah, we're using it correctly,.,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## Jenna (Jun 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If my personhood isn't comprised of anything tangible, what is it composed of?  If I am not my body, what am I?


Imagine you step into a Star Trek teleporter and by some accident (Geordi LaForge has been on the saki) you are duplicated and out steps two known as Makalakumu.

There are now two who both have the same bodies, scars, features, memories from childhood onwards and same experiences, everything.  

Which is you?

.. interesting conversation btw.. Thank you


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

Jenna said:


> There are now two who both have the same bodies, scars, features, memories from childhood onwards and same experiences, everything.
> 
> Which is you?



And does he own the other one? :lfao:
]


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2012)

elder999 said:


> If you _needed_ a kidney, I'd give you one.



You can give me a kidney, because you own it.  If it wasn't yours, how could you "give" it to me?



elder999 said:


> No, stewardship is what it was.



I think if it came down to you and I comparing our parenting philosophies, we'd both agree that we are more like stewards rather then owners.  However, logically, parents do _own _their children until they are capable of owning themselves.  There is no universal moral handbook that gets handed out when a child is born and even though we may choose to extend rights to our children, we do not have to.  The truth is that humans may sell their children.  People all over the world do it all of the time and right now the United States is the #1 destination country for trafficked children.  As much as I hate to admit it, for all practical purposes, children are property until they are capable of taking care of themselves.




elder999 said:


> One cannot legally sell children, so it doesn't fit that model of ownership. Nor would a quasi-legal "grey market:" adoption.



The laws of a country may or may not have any logical basis.  Often we conflate the idea that our laws reflect the true nature of things, but most of the time they only show us how we prefer things to be.  I like to examine these things from the perspective of an alien observing from his spaceship.  What would it say about us.

That said...



elder999 said:


> Deuteronomy? I don't think so.





> Deuteronomy 21:18-21
> If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the  voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they  discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother  shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at  the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders  of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey  our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city  shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from  your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.



I might be reading this wrong and you're the biblical scholar, so I'll defer to you, but the alien is going to jot down in it's notebook that humans regularly kill their own children.  In our own culture, we kill our children starting shortly after they've been conceived and ending shortly before they are born.  The children are treated this way because they are property...but there is something else to consider when it comes to humans.

I do not consider it moral to kill or sell children.  This is because I think that it is immoral to initiate force against another individual, which includes children.  I think that when you combine the principle of Self-Ownership and the Non-Aggression Principle, your parenting ends up looking like Stewardship.




elder999 said:


> You can permanently alter the _expression_ of the self-there is no telling what the actual *state* of the self (of another) is.  The _expression_ of the self might be dependent upon the function of the body, but the self clearly is not: ask Stephen Hawking.



We can clearly test the connection between the self and the body, but there is no way we can actually test if the self is separate from the body.  I think we can both agree on this.  However, why should anyone believe that the self *is *separate from the body in the first place?  IMO, the whole idea is a spiritual hangover from the days of souls, ghosts and demons.  All we know is that the expression of the self is dependent on the body, therefore we can infer that the self is the body and nothing else.  

Stephen Hawking has a diseased damaged musculature, but his brain still works.  I know plenty of people who are not the same people they once were because of the damage taken to their brains.  The physical arrangement of the anatomy determines who that person is and is the source of the self.




elder999 said:


> All we can infer is that the self no longer has access to that body to express itself.Whether it ceases to function with that body-_dissolves_-or goes elsewhere-are both equally undisprovable.



Essentially, we are debating whether the body is an antennae or a transmitter.  We both know that we can prove the physical nature of both.  What we are missing is the signal.  Can you prove that a signal exists?  Do you follow my metaphor?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Imagine you step into a Star Trek teleporter and by some accident (Geordi LaForge has been on the saki) you are duplicated and out steps two known as Makalakumu.
> 
> There are now two who both have the same bodies, scars, features, memories from childhood onwards and same experiences, everything.
> 
> ...



A zygote splits into two identical halves.  They are born identical to one another.  Are they the same person?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2012)

elder999 said:


> And does he own the other one? :lfao:



Nope, but I own my self.  And my Star Trek Transporter Identical Twin would own himself.  



> *Self-ownership* (or *sovereignty of the individual*, *individual sovereignty* or *individual autonomy*) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity,  and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. According to  G. Cohen, the concept of self-ownership is that "each person enjoys,  over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and  use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has  not contracted to supply."



Therefore, my twin has no obligation to give me one of his kidneys.  If I chose to take it by force, he would have every right to defend himself.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> You can give me a kidney, because you own it. If it wasn't yours, how could you "give" it to me?



I don't own it, any more than I own my body.

I would actually be giving over _stewardship_ of my body's kidney. Just as with my children, I have stewardship over my body-I don't own it; we will be separated. You would have stewardship of my donated kidney, with all that entails, including regular doses of immunosupressive drugs.

If you think you "own" the  organization of the matter that constitutes your body, try maintaining its functions with donated stewardship of another body's organ, and no immunosupressive drugs......:lfao:





Makalakumu said:


> I think if it came down to you and I comparing our parenting philosophies, we'd both agree that we are more like stewards rather then owners. However, logically, parents do _own _their children until they are capable of owning themselves.



Parents don't own themselves or their children. No one "owns" anything, especially someone else: if you don't own your self, how can you own anything else? 




Makalakumu said:


> We can clearly test the connection between the self and the body, but there is no way we can actually test if the self is separate from the body. I think we can both agree on this.




Good-then I'll maintain that the self is separate from the body.



Makalakumu said:


> However, why should anyone believe that the self *is *separate from the body in the first place?




Goes back to one of my original, unanswered (by you) questions: where is the "self" when he body is sleeping?



Makalakumu said:


> IMO, the whole idea is a spiritual hangover from the days of souls, ghosts and demons.




Did those days ever end? :lol:

Souls,ghosts and demons are all also equally undisprovable. 




Makalakumu said:


> All we know is that the expression of the self is dependent on the body, therefore we can infer that the self is the body and nothing else.



Writing is dependent upon a pencil-can we infer that thought is pencils, and nothing else? :lol:



Makalakumu said:


> . The physical arrangement of the anatomy determines who that person is and is the source of the self.



Again, you're confusing the pencil with the thought.




Makalakumu said:


> Essentially, we are debating whether the body is an antennae or a transmitter. We both know that we can prove the physical nature of both.



That's funny-we're getting closer here.From the end of a long poem I wrote 20 years ago:

_And the luckless just-just stand there.
It is not the terror of the sky-
that giant sky-that sky
whose points of light we connect
to write our daily tales of other worlds
of chemical life, gaseous life, 
of earths that are the mirror of this earth.
It is not that terror that breaks the I,
but the fresh report of disaster:
*"THERE IS AN ANTENNA IN THE SPINE OF MAN!!"
*and who can bear 
to bear that news within?_



Makalakumu said:


> What we are missing is the signal. Can you prove that a signal exists? Do you follow my metaphor?



and the last verse:

_To switch it off. To hear intricity,
to crawl, eyeless on the city floor, 
to switch it off, 
and sink in stars' harmonia.
THe patterns of particle and molecule,
the long-dancing message
that sings in the spirals
-that will sing in spite,
to switch it off and live in static.
Yes, this hand is a retreat.
The airwaves are full of voices:
shades sing in the alley:
their songs smear the window:
        the revolutions of history
        the repetitions of myth,
the tale of blood running
through the brain, and through the street.
Like many others,
I try to live *within this shape.*_

We live in very different worlds, John. I'll let you know when I'm in Hawaii next, though I don't imagine it'll be soon-though I plan on being in the South Pacific in December, I think I'll be a bit far off from your islands. Perhaps you'll make it here to New Mexico-in either case, I'll be glad to help you tune into that signal, and see for yourself. Normally it shouldn't take more than a night. _*Really*_-it will either happen or it won't.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2012)

If stewardship is the closest we can get to agreement, that is good enough for me. I think my concept of ownership is probably closer to stewardship anyway because I fully acknowledge my own impermanence. I can only "own" a thing for a little while until I dissolve into the mists of time.

That said, this business about the nonlocality of self is not something I'm going to go with. I feel lots of strange things, but I don't "see" the signal. I don't think there is any reason to believe in the signal. Maybe a strong dose of entheogens would help? Lol!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2012)

Oh and yeah, when you come to Hawaii, let me know. Two consciousness waves in matter can constructively interfere with another kind of matter wave.

Surfs up and Lanai is for sale...whatever that means...lol.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 17, 2012)

I wish you people would shut up and take a collection and buy me a friggin island...


----------



## Jenna (Jun 18, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If stewardship is the closest we can get to agreement, that is good enough for me. I think my concept of ownership is probably closer to stewardship anyway because I fully acknowledge my own impermanence. I can only "own" a thing for a little while until I dissolve into the mists of time.


Though stewardship implies managing "you" on behalf of some other party, no?  It also implies a temporariness, correct? If that were true, I would wonder on _whose _behalf are you steward of your body?  And also what happens to "you" once that temporary stewardship is rescinded?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 18, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Though stewardship implies managing "you" on behalf of some other party, no? It also implies a temporariness, correct?


Not necessarily. From the _Merriam Webster English Language Technical Manual_ (that's engineerspeak for _dictionary_ :lol: ):



> ·ard·ship _noun_
> \&#712;stü-&#601;rd-&#716;ship, &#712;styü-; &#712;st(y)u&#775;rd-\
> 
> 
> ...





Jenna said:


> If that were true, I would wonder on _whose _behalf are you steward of your body?



Even without a definitive answer to this question,there *is* something to be said for doing something correctly for its own sake.



Jenna said:


> And also what happens to "you" once that temporary stewardship is rescinded?



Indeed.


----------



## granfire (Jun 18, 2012)

you guys....
I leave you for a day and you turn a real estate story into the philosophical discussion on whether or not somebody owns his/her body....


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 18, 2012)

granfire said:


> you guys....
> I leave you for a day and you turn a real estate story into the philosophical discussion on whether or not somebody owns his/her body....



It's really been about the establishment of basic property rights.  I think a person does have natural rights over their body and over the products of their labor and over the things their labor affects.  Whether we want to call these rights stewardship or ownership is matter of semantics, because both of these end up the same in the end.  

That said, there are some interesting questions about property rights buried in this Lanai story.  For one thing, the people wearing the black and the white hats aren't the people you think.  Most of the time we think about the white man coming in and taking property away from indigenous people and murdering everyone.  In this case, you had a Hawaiian conqueror who took the property, bundled it up, and sold it to the Haoles as one big chunk.  The Hawaiian Monarchy allied itself with powerful business and banking interests and ended up shafting it's own people.  That's one of the reasons why it fell.  

So, who really owns this place?


----------



## granfire (Jun 18, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> It's really been about the establishment of basic property rights.  I think a person does have natural rights over their body and over the products of their labor and over the things their labor affects.  Whether we want to call these rights stewardship or ownership is matter of semantics, because both of these end up the same in the end.
> 
> That said, there are some interesting questions about property rights buried in this Lanai story.  For one thing, the people wearing the black and the white hats aren't the people you think.  Most of the time we think about the white man coming in and taking property away from indigenous people and murdering everyone.  In this case, you had a Hawaiian conqueror who took the property, bundled it up, and sold it to the Haoles as one big chunk.  The Hawaiian Monarchy allied itself with powerful business and banking interests and ended up shafting it's own people.  That's one of the reasons why it fell.
> 
> So, who really owns this place?



who ever buys it has an average enjoyment expectancy of roughly 71 years, naturally much less if he/she is already up in middle age. 

No different from all the other land on this globe.
Who ever can plant the flag on it 'owns' it. At least for the time being. 

Besides, Lanai is much easier to figure out than say all the Eastern German properties that belonged to people who fled to the West. 40 years later somebody had since laid claim to it and really for 39 of the 40, there was no reason to assume that would ever change.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 18, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> So, who really owns this place?



 Castle & Cooke Hawaii, Inc. has *stewardship* of 97% of the island, which they've offered to sell for $500 million.

No one really *"owns"* anything, especially land.....:lfao:


----------



## Buka (Jun 18, 2012)

At least whoever buys it won't be moving it.  (Unless Hank Johnson from Georgia buys it.  )


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 19, 2012)

Here's an article on it in our local paper.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20120619__Buyer_pursues_Lanai.html?id=159536115



> Billionaire David Murdock and his  company, Castle &&#8200;Cooke Inc., are in discussions to sell Lanai in a  deal that could alter       the future of the former Pineapple Island  and dramatically reduce Murdock's land ownership in Hawaii.
> 
> 
> Castle &&#8200;Cooke officials met  with Gov. Neil Abercrombie and Maui Mayor Alan Arakawa late last week  to say the company is talking with a buyer about    a potential sale.
> ...



Can you imagine if Bill Gates bought Lanai?  I guess the story goes is that he rented every room on the island when he got married.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 19, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Can you imagine if Bill Gates bought Lanai? I guess the story goes is that he rented every room on the island when he got married.



Now him, he'd *own*it. :lfao:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 19, 2012)

Ownership is an issue of law....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jun 19, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Ownership is an issue of law....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2




Here we go again....:lfao:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 19, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Here we go again....:lfao:



 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/436353/ownership 

"Because the objects of property and the protected relations are different in every culture and vary according to law, custom, and economic system and the relative social status of those who enjoy its privileges, it is difficult to find a least common denominator of &#8220;ownership.&#8221; Ownership of property probably means at a minimum that one&#8217;s government or society will help to exclude others from the use or enjoyment of one&#8217;s possession without one&#8217;s consent, which may be withheld except at a price."


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jun 19, 2012)

All ownership has ever really meant is that you have an enforceable claim to something. 

In "caveman days" that meant bashing in heads with a bone to keep others away from your stuff. Today it means you can have the gvt/law enforce your claim to something.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tames D (Jun 19, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Ownership is an issue of law....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Well... Duh...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 19, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Ownership is an issue of law....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2








elder999 said:


> Here we go again....:lfao:





_ *"Law"* is an illusion_. :lol:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 19, 2012)

elder999 said:


> _ *"Law"* is an illusion_. :lol:



"You keep on using that word......"







Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jun 19, 2012)

Law is an "if/then" societal programming language.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jenna (Jun 20, 2012)

In the context of this thread, I imagine that law is an arbitrary concept imposed by those (and the progeny of those) who had greater firepower through the history of that land..  while currently the ownership of any land is apportioned through our property laws still I think that does not preclude its pointlessness against the _philosophical _question of ownership.. Anyway.. get orf my land you hippies.. this aint Woodstock..


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> "You keep on using that word......"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



89% of all U.S. burglaries go unsolved.........


Every year, only about 63% of murders in the U.S. get "cleared": abuot 6000 people get away with murder-police fail to make an arrest in about 1/3 of murders. The only reason that figure isn't higher is because so few people really lack the will to act on murderous impulses and desires-in fact,though, even as the murder rate in the country continues to fall, and methods for solving crimes-like collection and analysis of DNA evidence-continue to expand law enforcement's ability to solve crimes, the unsolved murder rate remains constant.

There really is no statistic for the number of wrongful foreclosures that occur-we only know that they do: banks have even foreclosed on people whose mortgage was paid off......

The "law"-in terms of property, rights, and even basic morality-is an illusion.

View attachment $166546_469838929698636_1366731420_n.jpg

Always has been....:lfao:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

Whatever...effectiveness statistics dont change the fact that "ownership" is a legal definition.

I repeat. All ownership is, is an enforceable claim on something. In our current society that enforcement is provided by government/law. I'm not debating the rightness/wrongness/effectiveness of that non-illusary fact.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Whatever...effectiveness statistics doesn't change the fact that "ownership" is a legal definition.
> 
> I repeat. All ownership is, is an enforceable claim on something. In our current society that enforcement is provided by government/law. I'm not debating the rightness/wrongness/effectiveness of that non-illusary fact.



Ownership and law are both illusions that arise from the belief that one is separate from the Universe. Once one recognizes  that there is only _*one*_, there is no need to cling to the illusion of ownership, or the illusion of "law," which really isn't *law* at all: I drop an object, it falls to the ground. That's a *law*, the law of gravity. 

"Government/law" is enforceable only to the extent that one who "violates" it is prepared to avoid/evade enforcement, and thus, not *law* at all-more of a nice idea that people try and sometimes, or even often succeed in stipulating and enforcing. 

To the man who has a way of making people disappear, a law against murder is not a law at all.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

Definitions are however we choose to define them. Ownership is an enforceable claim on something. My hat is my property. If you steal it, its still my property as defined by law. It matters not...as legally defined...if you "get away with it". Society has defined what belongs to me and what belongs to you. That's all that ownership ultimately means. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

Even if you get away with it there is still a law against murder. It's written down right here. Of course it all depends on if you get caught...don't be silly. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Definitions are however we choose to define them. Ownership is an enforceable claim on something. My hat is my property. If you steal it, its still my property as defined by law. It matters not...as legally defined...if you "get away with it".



This is not logical at all: if I take your hat, and travel across the country with it, and remain there with it, it is, by definition, *my* hat-though likely would not fit me. It is no longer your hat, in that you no longer have possession of it-you might have occasion to say, "_I used to have_ a Stetson in size 9, but some big-headed freak like me stole it." And, yes, if the FBI were to crack the case, since I stole this valuable hat-so large that it causes eclipses wherever it goes-you might get the hat back, and have it in your possession again, but it's not likely. All of this, of course, demonstrates the illusory nature of ownership: while the hat may have been in your possession, it was never _yours_, any more than your body, _or anything else society defines as "yours"_ is. The hat, though it may be in my possession, is not mine, any more than my body is. 



Tgace said:


> Society has defined what belongs to me and what belongs to you. That's all that ownership ultimately means.



Society's defintion is an illusion-witness the "legal" processes for seizing property, ala eminent domain-"ownership" is a fiction.




Tgace said:


> Even if you get away with it there is still a law against murder. It's written down right here. Of course it all depends on if you get caught...don't be silly.



I'm not being silly: what's written down is what people have agreed to and stipulated, and what society calls "law." To the man who sees himself as apart from society, it's not law at all-*laws* are inevitable, like gravity. Yes, he might recognize that there are consequences for his actions coupled with the "laws" of society, and choose to violate those laws for any number of reasons, perhaps even on impulse: he might find someone violating his 4 year old daughter, or choose to follow a teenage boy-or he might want to outright murder someone. In the first two instances, it's entirely possible-or even likely-that his actions might be protected under law, but in the last instance, he might make efforts to evade or avoid those consequences, and, yes, get away with it-for him, the "law" was no *law* at all, except to the extent that it dictated his necessary steps to avoiding its consequences-it is an illusion.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

You don't own my hat...you simply possess it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

You posses things by....well possessing them. You "own" them only through social agreement that in our society is codified by law. 

Don't confuse the two.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> You don't own my hat...you simply possess it.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk




Of course I don't own your hat-"ownership" is an illusion.

_You_ "simply possessed" the hat, and it is no longer "yours" in any sense, because you no longer have possession of it, while I will certainly speak of it as "my hat." While the "law" might recognize your ownership, and  legally restore your possession of the hat, it isn't likely, and it's far more likely that the hat would remain within my possession, allowing me to maintain my own illusion of "ownership" of the hat-having proven that your "ownership," legal and otherwise, are illusory, for at least as long as the hat remains in my possession, or it is destroyed: if I burn the hat on a fire in my backyard, it os no longer in my possession, no longer in your possession, and not "owned" by anyone, any more than it did  before I stole it.

Likewise, for the man who would take your hat, the "law" against stealing is no *law* at all-it is illusory.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four traveling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire in his yard to warm themselves.

While they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?"

One of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind."

"Your head must feel very heavy," observed Hogen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

"Everyone thinks law is an illusion till it punches them in the face." -Mike Tyson


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> "Everyone thinks law is an illusion till it punches them in the face." -Mike Tyson


:lfao:

Of course, first it has to catch them, and then it has to keep them.....:lfao:


----------



## granfire (Jun 20, 2012)

you guys really need to put the weed down....


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

granfire said:


> you guys really need to put the weed down....



No weed involved, but that's an excellent example: how many people successfully get weed into the country, reap a profit from it, possess it and use it, all with complete disregard for government imposed "law." 

On the user end especially, millions of people never get arrested, or see any consequences for breaking the "law."

If they never get caught, does the "law" really exist for them?


----------



## granfire (Jun 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> No weed involved, but that's an excellent example: how many people successfully get weed into the country, reap a profit from it, possess it and use it, all with complete disregard for government imposed "law."
> 
> On the user end especially, millions of people never get arrested, or see any consequences for breaking the "law."
> 
> If they never get caught, does the "law" really exist for them?



:lool:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

Of course the law exists...that's why they try to avoid getting caught. Some avoid it and some don't.

Don't confuse my argument that ownership is a legal construct with some sort of affirmation of its effectiveness. Without law there is no "ownership" of any sort....only possession. When we use the term owner all it means is that society will try to maintain your possession of an item through law. That's it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Of course the law exists...that's why they try to avoid getting caught. Some avoid it and some don't.



Of course the law _exists_.

So do all other _illusions_:



"optical" and otherwise. :lfao:



Tgace said:


> Don't confuse my argument that ownership is a legal construct with some sort of affirmation of its effectiveness.



Don't confuse my argument that ownership is illusory with some sort of denial of its existence. :lfao:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Of course the law exists...that's why they try to avoid getting caught. Some avoid it and some don't.



Likewise, those who avoid either getting caught or prosecution demonstrate the "law"'s illusory nature. If I drop a hammer, it's gonna hit the floor. 

If you sell, purchase, or possess marijuana, you might not ever even see a police officer, let alone the inside of a jail or courthouse-and, even if you do see the inside of a jail or courthouse, you might walk away......without the hammer falling on you. :lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 20, 2012)

Law is dependent on the initiation of force.  A "law" is only legitimized by gang of humans who has the power to force everyone to do what they want.  This is the reason why the growth of laws automatically leads to tyranny.  A law that is unenforceable, like laws on marijuana, demand the creation of an intrusive violent gang that literally has the power to terrorize people into submission.  This is why the concept of "liberty" and "law" do not mix.  This is why liberty can only be found amongst people who accept the Non-Aggression Principle.

Despite *Elder999*'s insistence, I believe that property is a natural law.  I believe that my arguments lay this out, and though you may disagree, the case for it really hasn't been assailed.  Whether you want to call it stewardship or ownership is a matter of semantics.  Philosophically, property exists through the principle of Self-*Own*ership.  If "ownership" was merely a matter of law, then you could be separated from any property, including your own life, by a changing of that law.  In this case, there would be no such thing as property.  The only thing that would exist is force. Therefore, if you are strong enough to take what you want, then you get it.

And maybe that's the lesson here. Philosophy can dissemble a lot of concepts, but history bears this out.  Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law...LOL!


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Law is dependent on the initiation of force.  A "law" is only legitimized by gang of humans who has the power to force everyone to do what they want.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Yes. Always has been....always will be. Except our "gangs" are made up of lawyers now.

Exactly...death penalty...heard of it?

Yup...if you have a bigger lawyer you tend to get what you want.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Likewise, those who avoid either getting caught or prosecution demonstrate the "law"'s illusory nature. If I drop a hammer, it's gonna hit the floor.
> 
> If you sell, purchase, or possess marijuana, you might not ever even see a police officer, let alone the inside of a jail or courthouse-and, even if you do see the inside of a jail or courthouse, you might walk away......without the hammer falling on you. :lfao:



Comparing scientific "law" to civil/penal law is silly. Different terms describing different things....just spelled the same.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Yes. Always has been....always will be. Except our "gangs" are made up of lawyers now.
> 
> Exactly...death penalty...heard of it?
> 
> ...



My argument is that "property" doesn't exist when law is used as the fundamental arbiter for it.  With Law, there is no standard that can't be changed, nothing can be owned by anyone who doesn't have the power to keep it.  Our system of property appears to be based off of this principle.  Force is the ultimate arbiter determining all of our rights.

This contradicts the concept of Natural Law which states that our rights are preexisting, revealed by reason, and unalienable.  Property is one of those rights that is a Natural Law.  In the absence of force, property begins with the ownership of your own body and extends to the products of your labor.  Thus, the principle of self ownership is actually an extension of the non-aggression principle.  People can only have property when other people are not initiating force against them.  

Therefore, law, which is the initiation of force, actually destroys property...and liberty.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Comparing scientific "law" to civil/penal law is silly. Different terms describing different things....just spelled the same.



Not a comparison and the only difference is that scientific law is the only one that's actually binding. 

Therefore, not silly at all...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Despite *Elder999*'s insistence, I believe that property is a natural law. I believe that my arguments lay this out, and though you may disagree, the case for it really hasn't been assailed.



If it were natural law, you'd be born with clothes on.



Makalakumu said:


> Whether you want to call it stewardship or ownership is a matter of semantics. Philosophically, property exists through the principle of Self-*Own*ership.




If you owned yourself (which we still haven't defined, "self") you could tell me where your "self" goes during NREM sleep.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> If it were natural law, you'd be born with clothes on.



Clothes are the product of my labor and therefore mine.



elder999 said:


> If you owned yourself (which we still haven't defined, "self") you could tell me where your "self" goes during NREM sleep.



Why should we expect it to *go *anywhere?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Clothes are the product of my labor and therefore mine.




If property ownership is a natural law,as I read it, you'd be born wearing clothes, whch are not a product of your labor-you'd own clothing, naturally-because a newborn infant does need clothing,





Makalakumu said:


> Why should we expect it to *go *anywhere?



It isn't necessary for it to go anywhere, or to expect it to, but, if you "own" it, you should be able to assert that it doesn't, then.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> If property ownership is a natural law,as I read it, you'd be born wearing clothes, whch are not a product of your labor-you'd own clothing, naturally-because a newborn infant does need clothing,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let me is if I can strike the root of what you are saying instead of swinging around in the branches like a monkey.

Your argument is if the Self is not dependent on it's parts, then it's parts are irrelevant to it's existence.  Therefore, the basis for "owning" anything is undermined because the existence of the self is not dependent on its parts.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> My argument is that "property" doesn't exist when law is used as the fundamental arbiter for it.  With Law, there is no standard that can't be changed, nothing can be owned by anyone who doesn't have the power to keep it.  Our system of property appears to be based off of this principle.  Force is the ultimate arbiter determining all of our rights.
> 
> This contradicts the concept of Natural Law which states that our rights are preexisting, revealed by reason, and unalienable.  Property is one of those rights that is a Natural Law.  In the absence of force, property begins with the ownership of your own body and extends to the products of your labor.  Thus, the principle of self ownership is actually an extension of the non-aggression principle.  People can only have property when other people are not initiating force against them.
> 
> Therefore, law, which is the initiation of force, actually destroys property...and liberty.



All our forefathers declared as inalienable were; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Property is likely inherent in those....no argument there....but its not stipulated.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> All our forefathers declared as inalienable were; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Property is likely inherent in those....no argument there....but its not stipulated.



And, as I said earlier (somewhere...) it was not stipulated because Jefferson saw that the Natives-who had no "property" were happy, and he recognized happiness as more important than property, and it's pursuit as inalienable-because of this observation, and his own reading, he declared himself to be an Epicurian, and one of the cornerstones of Epicurus's philosphy was that "happiness is the aim of life." Mmany argue that John Locke or Adam Ferguson might have influenced the choice of "happiness," but Epircurus predates both, and Jefferson saw an Epicurian ideal in Native American life, though he was more than a little conflicted about the Indians, who he saw as both ally and enemy, noble and doomed to extinction.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> My argument is that "property" doesn't exist when law is used as the fundamental arbiter for it.  With Law, there is no standard that can't be changed, nothing can be owned by anyone who doesn't have the power to keep it.  Our system of property appears to be based off of this principle.  Force is the ultimate arbiter determining all of our rights.
> 
> This contradicts the concept of Natural Law which states that our rights are preexisting, revealed by reason, and unalienable.  Property is one of those rights that is a Natural Law.  In the absence of force, property begins with the ownership of your own body and extends to the products of your labor.  Thus, the principle of self ownership is actually an extension of the non-aggression principle.  People can only have property when other people are not initiating force against them.
> 
> Therefore, law, which is the initiation of force, actually destroys property...and liberty.



So what happens when another person infringes on your "natural law" and steals a product of your labor? 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> So what happens when another person infringes on your "natural law" and steals a product of your labor?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



You have the right to defend your property.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> You have the right to defend your property.



I'm not talking about defending it. I'm talking about what happens when someone else is caught after taking your stuff.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I'm not talking about defending it. I'm talking about what happens when someone else is caught after taking your stuff.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



I would say that since you have the right to defend your property, you have the right to form a gang and defend other people's property. Therefore, if someone steals your property, you have the right to try and get it back. After the property is returned or after the person gets caught, that's a more complicated issue. 

I think you are talking about justice right? What is justice and how does that relate to property? Can you have justice without establishing property rights? All good questions.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2012)

Exactly. In the end we are back to my initial point (which is lifted from a law book...) ownership is always going to boil down to an enforceable right to property. If you cant enforce your right...personally or through the legal system...you don't own anything.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Exactly. In the end we are back to my initial point (which is lifted from a law book...) ownership is always going to boil down to an enforceable right to property. If you cant enforce your right...personally or through the legal system...you don't own anything.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



But that "right" *is* unenforcable, and thus, an _illusion._

With such a high rate of burglaries going unsolved, when one considers that the majority of them are hardly well prepared professional criminals, and are mostly just drug addicts looking to score, and that they still get away with it, then one has to realize that-especially in the case of a professional burglar-one cannot enforce their ownership of anything: if a pro burglar wants to take your stuff, that's what's gonna happen, and *he is not going to get caught.*

Likewise, when one looks at murder, they have to recognize that should someone want someone dead, and they think it through and perform the murder properly, then murder is easy to get away with: go random, and do away with the entire "motive" question, just for the thrill of killing someone, or orchestrate a disappearance of someone that you want dead, doing away with as much forensic evidence as possible in both cases, and there's a high likelihood of "success," that is to say, _getting away with it._

To sum up: if someone wants to take your life, they can: you don't own your life.

If someone wants to take your stuff, they can: you don't own your stuff.

You don't *"own*" _anything_.. :lfao:

EDIT: SOLD!. :lol:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 21, 2012)

I'm going to properly link this article for Jeff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/u...old-to-chief-executive-of-oracle.html?amp&amp



> Lanai, the smallest publicly accessible inhabited island in Hawaii, has  been sold, the governor&#8217;s office announced Wednesday. Castle &  Cooke, the company that owned 98 percent of the 141-square-mile island,  agreed to sell that land to Lawrence J. Ellison,  chief executive of Oracle, the software giant. The price was not known,  and neither Castle & Cooke nor Oracle responded to a request for  comment.



How much do you want to bet this guy can defend his claim to the island?  LOL!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 21, 2012)

elder999 said:


> To sum up: if someone wants to take your life, they can: you don't own your life.
> 
> If someone wants to take your stuff, they can: you don't own your stuff.



It's also possible to successfully defend your life and your property.  This is a martial arts board after all...%-}

pwn

:jediduel:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> It's also possible to successfully defend your life and your property. This is a martial arts board after all...%-}
> 
> pwn
> 
> :jediduel:



Successful defense is only maintenance of stewardship-or the illusion of ownership.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 21, 2012)

Stop confusing "laws of physics" with civil/penal law. The statistics of arrest and prosecution have NOTHING to do with having a legally enforceable claim. 

As defined "ownership means having an enforceable claim"....if you take my property I HAVE an enforceable claim. It doesnt say that ownership requires a successful enfircement of the claim. 

The law has defined my "ownership" based on a legal claim. As a definition, the effectiveness of enforcement system matters not.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Stop confusing "laws of physics" with civil/penal law. The statistics of arrest and prosecution have NOTHING to do with having a legally enforceable claim.
> 
> As defined "ownership means having an enforceable claim"....if you take my property I HAVE an enforceable claim. It doesnt say that ownership requires a successful enfircement of the claim.
> 
> ...



ALl of which seems to imply that "ownership" can be independent of "possession," another sort of illusion called a _legal fiction._ :lfao:

Enforce your claim all you want: if you don't *have* it, it isn't _yours_.

Never was, really......:lfao:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 21, 2012)

Possession is possession. If you are in possession of stolen property you will be arrested. Ownership is a legal definition. A concept defined by a system that provides a mechanism to enforce your claim to property....as the law allows.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Possession is possession. If you are in possession of stolen property you will be arrested.



Only if the authorities catch you. 



Tgace said:


> Ownership is a legal definition.



Agreed.

Legal definitions are _illusory._



Tgace said:


> A concept defined by a system that provides a mechanism to enforce your claim to property....as the law allows.



Should you and the authorities be in a position to enforce that claim-more to the point, should the law recognize that claim, regardless of what is right, legal or intended. Case in point: probate matters where real property is transferred to non-relatives, or people other than those the principle intended.  Totally "legal ownership," transferred to those who celarly shouldn't have any claim at all, due to a "concept defined by a system that provides a mechanism to enforce your claim to property, as the law allows."

Again, "the law," is an illusion. Therefore, "ownership" is an illusion.....


----------



## Tgace (Jun 21, 2012)

As humans what sets us apart from animals is our ability to use symbols/words and symbolic thought upon which things like society, civilization, law.....hell any concept...is founded. As such everything is "illusion".

The whole coffeehouse hipster philosopher meme of "all is illusion" sure sounds deep, but in the end produces nothing but exhaled hot air.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2012)

Tgace said:


> As humans what sets us apart from animals is our ability to use symbols/words and symbolic thought upon which things like society, civilization, law.....hell any concept...is founded. As such everything is "illusion".
> 
> The whole coffeehouse hipster philosopher meme of "all is illusion" sure sounds deep, but in the end produces nothing but exhaled hot air.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



I haven't said "all is illusion."

I don't go to coffeehouses much.

Maintaining that the individual is separate from the universe is the illusion that leads to all others. 

What I call "the big lie," for example: _us and them_.

'Ownership?"  "The law?" "Self-ownership" (without any grasp or definition of the nature of the "self?)

Pretty lies, nothing more. The law is a toothless chihuahua that thinks it's a rottweiller...:lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 21, 2012)

The only way an individual can be separate from the universe is if it is separate from its parts.


----------



## Buka (Jun 21, 2012)

This thread kind of makes me want to drink tea and chant "om". I think I'd rather have coffee and a doughnut. Either way, I'd rather be on Lanai.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2012)

Buka said:


> This thread kind of makes me want to drink tea and chant "om". I think I'd rather have coffee and a doughnut. Either way, I'd rather be on Lanai.



Or have a pizza.

Make it _"one with everything_...." :lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Or have a pizza.



Or Pakalolo...LOL!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Let me is if I can strike the root of what you are saying instead of swinging around in the branches like a monkey.
> 
> Your argument is if the Self is not dependent on it's parts, that it's parts are irrelevant to it's existence.  Therefore, the basis for "owning" anything is undermined because the existence of the self is not dependent on its parts.



I'd like to get into this issue if we're going to continue this conversation.  The basis for "ownership" starts with the body.  If we don't own our bodies, we don't own anything.  Taken a step further, if the self is independent of it's parts, there is no basis for stewardship.  There is no motivation to take care of it or protect it because the core of the Self has nothing to do with it's parts at all.  

So, let someone kill you.  Let someone take your stuff.  Smoke, drink and party.  **** it.  Why not transcend this Earth Suit as soon as possible and get into something new?


----------



## Buka (Jun 23, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Or have a pizza.
> 
> Make it _"one with everything_...." :lfao:



Oh, that was good, that was!


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2013)

And here are the great man's plans:




> For the first time, Mr. Ellison has publicly detailed his ambitious and costly plans for the 141-square-mile island. They include building an ultraluxury hotel on the pristine, white-sand beach facing Molokai and Maui and returning commercial agriculture to the clear-cut acres. He also plans to endow a sustainability laboratory that will help make the island "the first economically viable 100%-green community." And one of his biggest tasks: winning over the island's small, but wary, local population, one whose economic future is heavily dependent on his decisions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2013)

elder999 said:


> And here are the great man's plans:



It's neo-surfdom. Odin save us...


----------

