One of the Hawaiian Islands is for sale!

[Makalakumu]

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

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]

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]

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.

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

Clothes are the product of my labor and therefore mine.

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]

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,

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]

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,





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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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’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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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