One of the Hawaiian Islands is for sale!

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[elder999]

"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]

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

 

[elder999]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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-Ownership. 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]

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.

...

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.

...

Therefore, if you are strong enough to take what you want, then you get it.

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]

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