Hey Pat, I can certianly see the logic inherent in this we dont own things stance of yours. It is wrong though. When we look at the word 'own' we see it's roots mean possestion.
If I pay a morgage for the house I live in, and dwekll in that house too, then I certianl am in possestion of it, and so can claim ownership. Similarly if I replece the I above with You, then you undoubtedly deal harshly with thoese you found in your house in the dead of night trying to disposses you from your home. The questions is if you do not own your home, then it must be lawfull for others to try and take it from you? No doubt, there can be an arguement made concerning illusion of ownership, yet much like 'free will' this illusion is so strong that for all porposues we may as well claim it as truth. On 8 Feb, 15:38, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8 Feb, 15:12, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There is anotehr suggestion from a great man also, whos says that we > > should abolish the whole concept of money, and perhaps even the > > ownership of 'things' and ohh yeah robot work force! > > We DON'T own things. We just tend to be near some things for longer > than we are others. There is no ownership of anything 'in reality'. > 1) Things exist. > 2) Some things exist in spatial proximity to others. > 3) Some things exist in temporal proximity to others. > > When both 2) and 3) above are true for a long enough period of time, > we 'tend' to feel some kind of relationship to that thing and we call > that relationship 'ownership'. The fact is that this feeling of > ownership is FAR more troublesome than it's worth. > > And, oh yeah...we ARE a robot work force. ;-) > > > Truely although I have very litle time for the organised Christian > > church, when the bible say that the love of money is the root of all > > evil, well I belive that. > > Yup. That and 'Man cannot serve God and Mammon (Money) both'. > > > > > On 8 Feb, 14:57, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 6:25 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 6 Feb, 23:24, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > " ... we allow the rich to get off with all sorts." > > > > > > Nobody allows them anything, Neil ! For one, they are more > > > > > resourceful, more driven, more smart than the bureaucrats, to be found > > > > > out or to be found guilty enough to be penalised ... remember, ' I am > > > > > with the law. It has nothing to do with justice.' Secondly, they are > > > > > quite liberal to those who'd look the other way or choose to be with > > > > > them. Why ? Because, they can. > > > > > In other words, power corrupts. So, how do we take the power and re- > > > > distribute it? > > > > I wouldn't know, Pat. Lenin did it, and how. Gandhi suggested : Those > > > with money should know that it is kept in their trust, on behalf of > > > the society, inclusive of one's own family ; and, that, the trustees, > > > Govt included, must look at and go to where the people are, in the > > > villages, to make the village communities self sufficient. > > > > Sometimes, however rarely, a guy like Harshvardhan comes up king. He > > > used to bring ALL his treasury to bank of Ganges and distribute it > > > among the poor who'd throng there. Or, so the historical tale goes. > > > > > And, more importantly, do we even have a 'right' TO > > > > take the power and re-distribute it if we could? If we all did that > > > > which we could simply because we could, that would be, by definition, > > > > anarchy. That's not exactly law-abiding, is it? > > > > Gandhi's suggestion is only one I know of that is viable. And, non - > > > violent. > > > > > > On Feb 4, 8:41 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Go all the way with you on the reasoning Francis and then some. > > > > > > Wouldn't stop me doing a deal (did one with a Shankhill butcher > > > > > > once - > > > > > > you know what I mean). For me the moral questions lie in why we > > > > > > allow > > > > > > the rich to get off with all sorts. I see this as an undecidable > > > > > > one > > > > > > can only do one's best with. We probably don't disagree much. In > > > > > > practice with informants you have to make sure you ain't being > > > > > > ripped > > > > > > off (the norm) and that you aren't just making space for them to > > > > > > take > > > > > > over. We might also wonder why we don't ever seem to get our law > > > > > > right. If we did we'd not fall into moral reasoning need so much. > > > > > > I've been looking a cop blogs of late. They are a surprising > > > > > > indication of how despicable our politics have become. I've started > > > > > > my own at wordpress (allcoppedout). A publisher is interested if I > > > > > > can write a book quickly enough - Monday books. Did wonder if you > > > > > > might want to tell your own tale 'from the dark side'. > > > > > > > On 3 Feb, 17:42, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3 Feb., 03:10, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > No morals involved Francis. We do people for pennies in > > > > > > > > benefit fraud > > > > > > > > on the basis of information from much slimier sources. > > > > > > > > This, of course, is the deeper point, Neil. I often think we want > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > have it both ways in the western "democracies." (i) We want to > > > > > > > believe, at least at some level, that government is (however > > > > > > > imperfectly) the result of our collective approval, the > > > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > of some kind of social contract renewed through regular exercise > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the electoral franchise - "in the name of the people." (ii) We > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > generally agree that morality is important and even - in certain > > > > > > > areas > > > > > > > at any rate - demand morality from our elected representatives. > > > > > > > (iii) > > > > > > > At higher collective levels, however, we seem to have no problem > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > accepting a totally pragmatic, realpolitikal view of communal > > > > > > > activity, which, ultimately, reaches its peak in the Clausewitzian > > > > > > > definition of war as a continuation of politics by other means > > > > > > > [actually a misinterpretation of Clausewitz's thinking, but that's > > > > > > > beside the point]. This is a kind of schizophrenia, or at least > > > > > > > deep > > > > > > > inconsistency, in our attitude towards the "res publica". > > > > > > > > I'm not in the least suggesting that I myself am free of this > > > > > > > attitude! Personally, as a salaried, PAYE employee, whose tax is > > > > > > > deducted at source from his wage packet, I have absolutely no > > > > > > > sympathy > > > > > > > for fat-cats, who get caught trying to cheat the system. I'm not > > > > > > > sure, > > > > > > > however, that I'm comfortable about the idea of rewarding > > > > > > > criminals to > > > > > > > shop other criminals. It implies a sort of double-standard which > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > often be the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. Maybe the best > > > > > > > we can > > > > > > > hope for is that, having weighed-up costs and benefits, we do > > > > > > > approve > > > > > > > of this kind of action by our elected governments but continue to > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > a collective bad conscience about it, that we do not simply > > > > > > > regard it > > > > > > > as ok and go on with business-as-usual, even using such arguments > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > justify persecution of the weak little guys, often hounded in our > > > > > > > welfare systems (because, basically, they're much easier to blame > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > nail than the powerful, well-regarded, big-bucks, white-collar > > > > > > > criminals). > > > > > > > > In this sense, perhaps we DO get the governments we deserve. > > > > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
