Arlo's "property" is an abstract extension of Nick's "natural rights".
Logos and Bios are duelling for the hand of Ethos. A classical moment brought to us by the Moq. ________________________________ From: Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 8:08:37 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Coerce me? How? [Arlo previously] Let me try again. What makes your land YOURS, Nick. Just because you say it is? [Nick] Yes. As simple as it sounds, that's the whole point and always has been for centuries. [Arlo] Oh, Nick. So close and yet so far. So its YOURS just because you say it is. Let's say your neighbor says it is HIS? Who is right? What legitimizes YOUR claim and makes his WRONG? C'mon, Nick, you're close... you can do it. [Nick] That's called stealing, but since you don't understand what stealing is in the first place it's easy to see why you would conclude this. [Arlo] Why? You bought the land in a monetary transaction from me? Why isn't it YOURS? So close, Nick, you can do it... [Nick] But since you advocate government take-overs and stealing you would repeat history. [Arlo] Right. So its okay to benefit from stealing and murder, as long as you didn't pull the trigger. But if someone tries to take what you've acquired through murder and theft, that would be wrong. Got it. Your NAP sounds mighty whacky, if this is what it preaches. [Nick] Oh, so they didn't like stealing. They recognized property. Thank you very much. [Arlo] Ah, Nick, you keep coming so close, then falling back into your haze. They didn't have a concept of "stealing". They didn't recognize "property" in any manner similar to what you claim is "natural". It was communal, tribal, things belonged to the tribe. Their social agreements revolved around "need", not "mine". If you needed that bow, you took it, used it and that was fine. "Land" didn't belong to the tribe, the tribe belonged to the land, and they defended it because of their spiritual history being part of that land. It wasn't '"ownership", it was "being part of". This keeps eluding you, but keep at it, you might get it one day... [Nick] Read up on natural rights. I posted a good article. It will help you understand. [Arlo] I could read up on black helicopters and aliens under the ice cap too, but that doesn't mean anything. Since you avoided my question, I'll ask it again. Try to answer it Nick, you may learn something. Do animals have a "natural right" to property? They are part of the natural world, aren't they? They exist as biological beings just like we do, don't they? If no, then why do humans but not animals? Again, since you need a clue, the words "social" and "intellectual" are in the answer. If yes, then why do you keep stealing land from the animals, Nick, give it back. "Rights" are intellectual patterns. They come from "man", not the natural world. And, in modern times, these intellectual patterns have formed the basis for our civil governance, a governance we created to give legitimacy to our claims (of property, for one). You are close, Nick, real close, keep at it... I have hope for you yet. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
