One of the Hawaiian Islands is for sale!

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Nothing of substance-much more than mere stuff.

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).