Should protesters respect private property?

[Caleb]

You know, I rather like this God fellow. Very theatrical, you know. Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence ... gotta get me some of that.

[John Edward Mercier]

But rectangles are not necessarily squares...
I can separate something with four equal sides and ninety degree corners from something with that does not.

[shyfrog]

Omnipotence ... gotta get me some of that.

Sorry, you don't get any of that. Only the Mormons do.

[MaineShark]

There are people, property, and unclaimed "things."

I don't agree with this.

What test can I use to see if a "thing" is a person?

Does it think?  Is it self-aware?  If you see it playing solitaire, and you keep telling it to put the red queen on the black king, does it glare at you and tell you to get lost?

If you are going to make a distinction between "things" in the universe, the obvious seperation would be "things that are alive" and "things that are not alive".

Why?  A bacterium is a "thing that is alive."  Doesn't mean it has any rights.

And the whole "property" issue, or ownership, is a legal thing. Possesion is not ownership.

Possession is ownership, subsequent to homesteading.  After that, ownership may be transferred by contract.

Joe

[sandm000]

Caleb, does my belief in god determine any part of your obligation to help me? If so don't help me.

No, your belief in God, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to whether I would help you in any given situation. But it is relevant to this discussion, since you asked me whether I believed in God, and then based an argument on it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can ask me a question, I can ask you, especially if you are basing statements which seem to assume a belief in God. For instance:

Have you heard the expression "God doesn't give you more than he can handle?"  If suicide is Him calling someone back to heaven, why would you fight it?

Is this your belief? If so, then I can proceed to discuss it with you. But I must be honest with you and tell you that it is *not* my belief. So if it's also not your belief, why would you present it as a topic for discussion? And if it's neither your belief nor my belief, why should we entertain it?

If God is benevolent,
then why does he allow evil to exist?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is God neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

These questions are all very good questions, but are off topic. There is a whole realm of theology called "theodicy" which deals with the very question "whence is evil." If you are truly interested in discussing it (not debating it) then we should start a new thread. 

I don't know if it's all off topic, because you are basing your initiation of force on others as part of god's love.
Is your god a benevolent, loving god?  Or an all powerful god? If the former then my list of questions applies and how is he a god, and if the later, where is it your place to interfere in the will of god?

And I do believe in a god, but not the judeo-christian smiter.  I believe that man is god on earth, god incarnate, god the flesh.  We are more than homopotent, homopresent, and homoscient.  Anything a man can do, a man has done, and we have built machines and harnessed animals to do more, faster than one man could alone.  Anywhere a man can be, a man has been, and we have built machines and harnessed animals to go places faster, and to more than a man could endure.  Anything a man could know, we can know, and we have built machines to hold information for us, that we may later ponder and extrapolate on its meaning.

But I can't argue your points based on my god.  So I have to use yours, because he is the basis for your claims of love and charity.

[Caleb]

Omnipotence ... gotta get me some of that.

Sorry, you don't get any of that. Only the Mormons do.

Yeah, or at least they do in the same way that only 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses are going to heaven: In their own little pipe dream.    Which actually reminds me of a joke.

A man died and went to heaven....

When he got there he was informed that it wasn't his time and he would be sent back--but that if he wished he could have a tour.

They set off on the tour and the first room he saw was filled with people eating all sorts of Pork, mixing meat and dairy and there were signs all over the room with anti-circumcision slogans.

The tour guide explained to him that this was the Jewish Room.

The next room was filled with calendars all proclaiming it to be Friday and there was a big meat pit in the middle of the room with all sorts of delicious roasting meat cooking. They had "STAMP OUT BINGO" signs all over and everyone was being cautioned not to confess to anything...

This is the Catholic Room he was told.

Next was a room filled with loud rock music, dancing and general partying...

The Southern Baptist Room.

Finally they came to a door that was shut tight. It had sound proof doors and many, many locks.

The man asked the tour guide.... "whats this"

He replied.... "oh, thats the Jehovah's Witness Room... they think they are the only ones here."

[Caleb]

I don't know if it's all off topic, because you are basing your initiation of force on others as part of god's love.

No. I initiate no force. Ironically, I have been accused by others of wanting to zero out the violence so as to make things easier for myself to decide. And yet, with the other side of their mouth they attack me for using my mind to determine how to respond to a particular person. I have already said that I don't view pacifism in a strict "no-contact" sort of way. Also, my views on property differ from yours, so I wouldn't presume to include a strict respect for property in my pacifism. My respect for other's belongings is part of my belief that I should treat them the way I want to be treated. So the end result is the same, though the basis differs. And none of this presumes any sort of God, although God does certainly fit within my paradigm.

Is your god a benevolent, loving god?  Or an all powerful god? If the former then my list of questions applies and how is he a god, and if the later, where is it your place to interfere in the will of god?

In some sense he is both, but I would challenge you to think outside the box. I've already said this isn't the proper place for the discussion, because it would take over the thread. Although, since the thread has already deteriorated to a discussion of squares and rectangles, I doubt we would be doing much harm. 

Briefly, I believe that God's creation included something called "free will", which he cannot alter or it would not be free will. By its very nature, this limits God. This explanation has traditionally been limited to explaining human evils (such as murder, etc.) but has been weak in explaining natural evils (cancer?). I believe this weakness is rectified by applying a process perspective, particularly pan-experientialism, which assumes a level of experience at even the most basic level of existence. In this view, God's role would be to bring order out of chaos, which would always presume a certain amount of chaos at any given time, or else his work would be complete. Assuming pan-experientialism also solves all the world knot problems which are inherent in Dualism and Materialism as it relates to the Mind/Body problem.

As I've already said before, to understand my views on Love (and its true nature) from a philosophical position you should read Plato or Jung. (Neither of which, by the way, was a Christian.) Plato's four madnesses are a good starting point. I note that the concept of love as a very real thing (an archetype, if you will?) is the nearly universal conclusion of the mystics, and I would suggest that the current disdain that our society holds for love is a result of a philosophy that is more properly suited to the knowledge of the nineteenth century, but which has unfortunately continued to persevere to this day.

[Jared]

yes, we should definately support property rights.

[Eli]

Caleb,

I did not read all of 12.  It became tedious after awhile. I can only read so much of government flogging before I become quite certain it would be justice to shoot the floggers.  I read 1/3 of twelve and skimmed the last 2/3 looking for a single explanation of why it would be unjust for the peasants to defend themselves.  Does Tolstoy intend that to be taken on faith? That Christs invocation not to resist evil should be carried out?  his argument only seems to address why the soldiers should do no evil, but I really didn't see where, in 12, he exhorted those peasants not to resist, not to claim the forest as their own.  But that seems to be the logical conclusion of your, if not Tolstoy's position..  That may all be well and good for a christian, but for me it is unconvincing, as Christ's Sermon was also unconvincing.  Nonresistance to evil only results in the triumph of evil, and the death of good but deluded people.

I did read all of 2, which seems more pertinent to me.

"The question amounts to this: In what way are we to decide men's disputes, when some men consider evil what others consider good, and VICE VERSA? And to reply that that is evil which I think evil, in spite of the fact that my opponent thinks it good, is not a solution of the difficulty. There can only be two solutions: either to find a real unquestionable criterion of what is evil or not to resist evil by force."

http://www.kingdomnow.org/w-inyou02.html

I think the ZAP may be an unquestionable criterion.  Don't initiate force.  Don't delegate it's initiation.  Doing those things is evil.  Resisting the initiation of force is not evil.  More than that, Christ's injunction to turn the other cheek, love the enemy, not resist evil is more than I can buy rationally.  I think that is truly beyond human capacity.  I think your author clued me in on this one.  He said, there are primitive, civilized and divine views of life. "These three views of life are as follows: First, embracing the individual, or the animal view of life; second, embracing the society, or the pagan view of life; third, embracing the whole world, or the divine view of life."  I happen to be reading R.A. Wilson right now, who takes pains to remind readers that we are primates and most of our number don't know we are primates and so are consistently confused about human behavior.  I think that helped me understand that the animal view, the individual view is the only one that is materially true, the rest, the social view and the divine view are mirage.  Self delusion.  A nice fiction but, as fiction, incapable of revealing truth.

I can't love the whole world.  I can't love the soldier that comes to slay my village.  It is too much to ask.

Even if I can love them, love doesn't necessarily demand nonresistance.  If I love my child, to use an example I heard from Chomsky once, I don't passively allow her to run into the street.  I don't try to reason with her if there isn't time.  I stop her.  I don't let her hit her brother.  I stop her.

If I love my dog and he's bitten by a rabid raccoon and becomes rabid I don't let him rampage.  Bite children, infect others, kill me.  I stop him, as mercifully as I can.

If that soldier comes to my home I don't let him kill my children, my wife, myself, then go on to do the same to my neighbors, and survive to spread him disease of immorality and statism, do I?  That is what pacifism demands.  It demands that I stand by as he stomps my dog, kills my children, rapes my wife and then goes on to my neighbor.  Somehow that action is moral?  Somehow that decreases suffering?  Somehow that ends tyranny?

And Caleb, I don't think you can retreat to a 'not no contact' position.  Physical force is violence.  No matter what your intention it can result in injury, death.  Even if you are successful in not harming someone you have coerced them, imposed your will upon them.  How does this make you different from the current crop of tyrants?

[sandm000]

I don't know if it's all off topic, because you are basing your initiation of force on others as part of god's love.

No. I initiate no force. Ironically, I have been accused by others of wanting to zero out the violence so as to make things easier for myself to decide. And yet, with the other side of their mouth they attack me for using my mind to determine how to respond to a particular person. I have already said that I don't view pacifism in a strict "no-contact" sort of way. Also, my views on property differ from yours, so I wouldn't presume to include a strict respect for property in my pacifism. My respect for other's belongings is part of my belief that I should treat them the way I want to be treated. So the end result is the same, though the basis differs. And none of this presumes any sort of God, although God does certainly fit within my paradigm.

So please let us discuss how you would not respect another's property, and what basis you would use to justify your position.

Also, I think I just had an epiphany.  If you own yourself, then you can do whatever you like with your life, including ending it.  If you own an object, you can do whatever you like with it, including throwing it away.  Therefore, once you throw an object away, you have relinquished ownership of that object. (for instance you would not care if someone took part of your trash, assuming that they aren't ID thieves, they could have all of the old clothes or scraps that were in the can) So we can equate the act of throwing away with the act of esteeming as worthless. So when an object is considered as worthless anyone who wants to homestead there can. So Caleb can, in the midst of someone commiting suicide claim the life of the person commiting the act.  But only in the commission of the act, the bullets into the magazine is not the act, the magazine into the gun is not the act and the pulling of the trigger is not the act, but the bullet's penetration into the flesh.  So you could claim the lives of cutters, O.D.ers, self stranglers, poisoners, "lying next to tailpipe"-ers, others where the process is long enough for you to claim them, however the second they request their freedom, it must be given.

So there you are Caleb, a partial principled framework for the intervention in cases of suicide.
And for all you potential suicides, jump off a bridge or shoot yourself, because if you don't make it fast enough, someone may intervene.

I see people like that as shoes on the side of the road, I have no idea how they got there, it's still a perfectly good shoe, but I wouldn't take it.

Please someone tell me why I'm wrong.

[sandm000]

And Caleb, I don't think you can retreat to a 'not no contact' position.  Physical force is violence.  No matter what your intention it can result in injury, death.  Even if you are successful in not harming someone you have coerced them, imposed your will upon them.  How does this make you different from the current crop of tyrants?

Because they have declared their lives and their bodies to be worthless to them by their actions, ready to be taken by the first person to claim them.

[Eli]

This may be an argument for harvesting organs.  I don't think it is an argument for enslaving someone who is seeking the ultimate escape.

[sandm000]

however the second they request their freedom, it must be given.
Please someone tell me why I'm wrong.

And eww for harvesting organs.

I'm also looking for logical inconsistancies in the arguments.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Also, I think I just had an epiphany.  If you own yourself, then you can do whatever you like with your life, including ending it. 

'nuff said!

[MaineShark]

however the second they request their freedom, it must be given.
Please someone tell me why I'm wrong.

And eww for harvesting organs.

I'm also looking for logical inconsistancies in the arguments.

You cannot "salvage" discarded property until it is actually discarded.

Your argument is for salvaging corpses, not living people.

To use the trash analogy, my trash is still my property, until I actually discard it.  It's sitting in a trash can, but I might realize I accidentally threw something important out, and retrieve it.  Once I take it to the dump and tip it over into the dumpster, then I have actually relinquished my claim to it.

Only once the suicide is complete, not merely attempted can it be said that the owner of that body relinquished claim.  Of course, the owner might have a contract (eg, a will) that was created prior to the act, detailing the disposition of that property, so it would not be available for salvage.

Similarly, you could argue that the property belongs to the estate of the deceased, and must be considered by whomever is taking responsibility for that, first.  Perhaps is will be sold to scientists in order to pay the debts of the deceased, for example, just as my house does not magically become ownerless if I die - the bank gets first dibs on that, because of the outstanding lien.

I suppose one could make the argument that a creditor would have standing to prevent your suicide, if your assets were not sufficient to cover your debt, and require you to stay alive and build more assets until you could discharge your debt to him upon your death.  In practice, I think that's not likely to be the case.

Joe