tBlog - Even another paradox.

Even another paradox.

Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Blog

Powerful links

The Great "I"

Advanced Thinking

Promethea

The Third Age of the World.

Just do it.

More consistently solid thinking.

Theory and application.

"Rights", The Bad Con

Sign...or not.

Just say "no".

Declaration of Individual Independence

"Anybody wanting a piece of me without my consent can come back tomorrow and go to the end of the line. I gladly accept your requirement to be treated likewise." --jomama

Blog Search Engine

You are here: http://jomama.tblog.com

More ornery blogs John Lopez

Other fine sites Nexialist News

Simmering frogs.

Classic essays etc. Who owns you?

Reasoning for Rational Anarchism

The Granfalloon

Part of a short work of fiction. (See Chaps. 7-12) I won't.

Hit counter

November 19, 2004

17085

add this to your site

Where are visitors to this page?

Even another paradox.

11.18.04 (11:42 am) [edit]

"Government can only survive as long as a
majority is programmed to believe that theft
isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset
forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and
kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest,
that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war."
-- Bill St. Clair

Paradoxically, this group of folks known as
government are really not interested in protecting
life, liberty and property, are they.

And Devlin says in one of his comments here...

"BTW, does Shaffer give any guidance on when we
should accept others' claims of ownership? You
can claim to own anything you want, but that
doesn't necessarily make it so."

Bingo, professor.

I hadn't noticed that Shaffer ever 'gave
guidance' in this. But like he has said in a past
essay, and you have said here, everyone is on
their own, despite all the laws ostensibly
written to protect our property or our lives.
All government is just another socialist experiment.
After having looked around a bit, I came to the
same conclusion some years ago quite a while
after I threw away those hi-school civics text
books that peddled the Glory of the State.

Have you seen any cops on the scene of a real
crime, eh? You know, a crime that has a victim?

And what Bill says above is unarguable.

Maybe Earth is the galactic nut bin. You know, the
place where the extraterrestrials throw the irrational
ones.

It's the only explanation I can come up with.

posted by: Devlin (reply)
post date: 11.19.04 (8:59 pm)

It seems to me that St. Clair's and Shaffer's position is self contradictory. On the one hand they buy into the gubmint rationing system to the extent that they believe various stuff to be "their (or whomever's) property", so they accept the word of gubmint. On the other hand, they don't accept it when the rationing system is rejigged in ways they don't like.

If fact the very concept of "private property" is an oxymoron. "Property" is a rationing construct which can only exist within the context of a rationing system. A rationing system requires authoritarian control of resources within that system.

The ultimate means of and reason for coercive authority is the rationing of resources. Accept one any you must logically accept the other. In fact, they are two ways of looking at the same thing.

posted by: jomama (reply)
post date: 11.20.04 (1:39 am)

Like I said, I am the rationer of
what I have and you can call it
oxymoronic cucumbers if you like.

I need no authority to tell me how
to ration it, or whether I have
final authority in this or not,
notwithstanding all the academic
abstractions, professor.

What's private about it is that
I'm usually successful in keeping
it from someone else who wants
it to be in his private collection.

If I'm not successful then it becomes
the thief's private stuff as long
as he can hold it/use it.

What's so difficult to understand
about that?

The System is irrelevent.

posted by: Devlin (reply)
post date: 11.20.04 (3:43 pm)

Sure. But this outlook seems to be the same as saying that property is bunk.

posted by: jomama (reply)
post date: 11.21.04 (5:19 am)

Reply to: Devlin

>But this outlook seems to be the same as saying that property is bunk.

Not with my property, you don't.