 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
A competitive angle of view:
Wrapping heads around property rights
Before reading further, commenting further, the idea that a fictional thing, such as a title, represents another thing, such as a measured section of the surface of the earth, or land, is the creation of a thing based upon the existence of a thing.
1.
A place on Earth, or Mars, or the Moon.
2.
A title
One is one thing, the other is another thing, exclusive use of one thing by a human being is factual because two human beings cannot occupy the same place on Earth, or Mars, or the Moon, at the same time. One person standing in time and place excludes another person standing in that same place at that same time. Ownership, or property, is factual in that measurable state of being human.
Building an impenetrable wall around a place on earth, a cube, or a complex geometrical shape, a globe, a pyramid, whatever shape actually existing, whereby one human being has the only way out into or out of that walled in area is another example of physically real ownership, which can now exist as absentee ownership.
The owner, in a strictly physical sense, has exclusive control over that walled in area, and physical occupation of that area is not necessary to demonstrate the actual fact of the matter, proven to be a fact of the matter, that that one individual human being has exclusive control, or ownership, of that specific walled in, physical area, with, or without having to demonstrate actual occupation of the actual physical space occupied the that actual physical body. By definition, by demonstration, by actual fact, the individual human being commands exclusive power to exist in that space owned by that person, and therefore that space, within those walls, are owned by that person, and no one else owns that space, as a matter of physical fact.
Such a space, in physical terms, would be difficult to actually demonstrate in reality, but not impossible.
The last human being in the entire universe, or the first, is a demonstration of an idea, a thought, a concept, of ownership in that sense too.
As soon as another human being exists, in the universe, is the moment that ownership is potentially challenged as a power commanded by each human being to occupy or exclude occupation in any place where one human being exists and another human being can potentially exist in time and place.
Therefore, obviously, the concept of property is a connection between individual examples of human beings, or living beings, whereby there is either an agreement to allow each other to exist in time and place or a disagreement to not allow each other to exist in time and space.
Ownership, in that sense, is the power to remove anther human being from time and place, or remove the power to be in specific places at specific times from a specific person or specific persons.
In other words, an individual human being access, gains, the power to exclude any other human being from a specific time and from a specific place in demonstrable fact.
Someone can therefore demonstrate ownership by killing every other human being and in so doing someone can own everything.
Other human beings are alive, so killing them, is owning them, in that sense, as power is employed by the killer, killing, occupants of time and space.
Creating human beings, demonstrated as reproduction, occupies space at the time of conception or birth in a real sense, as on cell becomes two cells, then four, then 16, and another life form, a human being for example, occupies more space, as time proceeds, and as matter moves in time.
So I have a competitive arrangement of symbols, ideas, filling up space, to offer as a good use of space, since there is so much space, enough space to satisfy any desire for more space, unless someone, somewhere, wants to own everything, excluding everyone else, I can still, at this time, afford to create more messages in English text.
There is land, on Earth, and it exists.
There are people, on Earth, and they exist.
There are things called titles, and Frank O'Collins offers arrangements of symbols in English to other individual people, like me, to read, process, and hopefully know what other people intend to do with me, and what other people intend to do with other people, as people occupy placed on Earth in time.
People create titles, out of nothing, out of thin air, and then these Titles are used by people for some reason, and the obvious reason is to exclude other people from specific places on Earth, to keep out, to remove, to exile, to force out, to take the power away from, other people, as other people have the power to exist on Earth in time and place, including the places and times described in these things called titles.
So an impenetrable wall, with only one way in, usable by only one person, is, again, an example of a physical fact of being, which can be called ABSENTEE ownership.
The owner can leave, and still exclude, all other human beings from that specific walled in, and locked up, physical area on Earth.
If there is an idea, a fiction, that serves as an impenetrable wall, where only one individual human being owns, or controls, or has the exclusive power of use, then that idea, if it is Real, as in Real Estate, then it is a very powerful idea, an idea that is equal to, or exactly the same as, an actual wall, with an actual key, where one human being has the exclusive power of ABSENTEE ownership.
Otherwise, one human being occupies time and space, since two people cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Even mothers who are pregnant have to make room for new human beings.
The certificate of title is not the property itself; it is not the home or the land, but yes it is ‘property.’ It’s not the home or the land. What it allows is a fictional construct to be created after a survey of that land which creates a title of ownership that allows that land to be sold, moved, and administered. So even from the times back to Egypt, Sumeria and in the most ancient of traditional cultures it was recognized that creating a fictional icon of something tangible but immovable was a way then of administering rights, ownership, possession, occupation and the trade or the rights inherited by those things.
I realize that no one, on this planet, may ever read my viewpoint on this, but I write anyway.
What Frank is describing above is the creation of money.
Frank is describing a type of money, or currency, which can be compared to any other form of money, and I offer a few example by which the facts of the matter can be compared one next to the other as forms of money take shape and appear to the viewer for what they are in fact.
1.
Land titles, pieces of paper, to be invented by, produced by, and then used by, or maintained by, those who the move those forms of money from one person to the next person equitably, or in iniquity (criminally).
2.
Debt notes, pieces of paper, to be invented by, produced by, and then used by, or maintained by, those who the move those forms of money from one person to the next person equitably, or in iniquity (criminally).
3.
Commodity money, pieces of things, including paper (paper is a commodity), to be invented by, produced by, and then used by, or maintained by, those who the move those forms of money from one person to the next person equitably, or in iniquity (criminally). Here the viewer may scoff some, but the thing is just a thing unto someone invents the concept of money, and either another person agrees with the thing, and then it is money, or another person does not agree with the thing, and in that case, between those two people, it is not money in that place, at that time, currently.
4.
Deposit receipts, records of things, or pieces of paper recorded as records of other things, such as a measure of grain made by a farmer in Ancient Egypt, whereby the depositor is depositing a ton of wheat grain into a Central Bank, or Silo, or Granary, and the person recording the deposit of wheat into the Granary, or Bank, writes that record of that deposit onto that piece of paper, and that piece of paper is then a form of money, that can be an agreement to credit the holder of the note with the credit of 1 ton of wheat, that exists as wheat in that Bank, or Granary, which may remain valuable, powerful, as food, or it may be stolen, eaten by rats, or depreciated over time for physical reasons involving the perishable nature of food.
5.
Water access, or control, as a farmer in Ancient Egypt, for example, may work a farm that depends upon a System of Irrigation, from a Central Source, such as The Nile River, and control over where the water goes from that source could be a manufactured agreement to reward those who get the water and use the water to make wheat, then return wheat into the Granary, and to not reward those who use the water to enslave people to work farms like so many animals, cutting off that water supply to those criminals, and therefore that MONEY, in the form of that "water right," is then sold to someone who may buy it once the criminals, who now have no water to use to enslave people, dry up and blow away, and the buyer of that "MONEY," in that form of Water Rights, may BANK that Money, or Sell it, or whatever so long as that BANKER does not also resort to crime in the form of enslavement.
Is 5 too many words?
Well Joe, I think 5 is equitable, not too much, and not too few.
From the Blog by Frank:
"This was the first creation of the concept of trusts. This was the papal bull called Unum Sanctum (1302).
Well Frank, there is this concept called trading with the enemy, lending moral and material support to those criminals, as power to defend against the enemy becomes power to be destroyed by the enemy, and the end result of such transfers of power are formerly powerful defenders who are now defenseless, and formerly powerless criminals who are not absolutely powerful and are perpetrating every conceivable form of crime that a criminal can invent, produce, and maintain upon their shrinking supply of innocent victims, including the crime of forcing, by deceit, by threat, and by violence, their formerly innocent victims into joining the crime spree for fun and profit.
By whatever twist of fact, confidence scheme, or deception a criminal may invent, produce, and maintain, the routine is the same in principle, each time, because the base principle is the common denominator shared by all criminals, their goal is the destruction of innocence, they destroy the actual spark of life, and that is their goal, that is the common denominator, and it takes at least three obvious, and accurately measurable, forms as such:
1.
Deception employed by the criminal upon the targeted innocent victims.
2
Threats of violence employed by the criminal upon the targeted innocent victims.
3.
AGGRESSIVE (not defensive) violence employed by the criminal upon the shrinking supply of targeted innocent victims that shrinks if the innocent victims are powerless to defend against the inevitable results of the path chosen by criminals.
So thanks Frank, thanks for all the careful research, as it can be know how the criminals took over, with their lies, their threats, and their violence upon their supply of targeted innocent people. No we know how they did what they did in good order, or bad order, depending upon who defines good, and who defines bad.
The Papal Bull in question, presuming that it is a factual record of actual events, which makes all too much sense to me, is this:
Unam Sanctum
I see no reason to read that with any expectation of understanding the motives of the writers who arrange those symbols, so I skim past what looks like just so much bla, bla, bla, and then arrive at the point where the actual message appears to be conveyed, as if the reader is then well capable of understanding the motive.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
In other words, obey.
Not obey, or else, rather the message is Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question.
In other words, you will pay, and if you exercise any power of your own individual will, all you will be doing is increasing the amount, measured by you, that you will pay.
Am I reading too much into the arrangements of symbols offered to me by those people (people?) who wrote that message, in blood, on the skin of murdered children, as may be the case where those children were skinned alive?
And don't even reach for the idea that I am insane, and I am making up stories, because the EVIL has arrived at a Theater Near me, you, and anyone else living in this Country we call America.
Waco the inculpatory evidence is well reported
Reality Television Who done it?
Are the authorities very well capable of finding out who does what, when, where, and why?
So Frank (and other people who agree with Frank) offers a competitive version of the definition of property, and before I cut and paste that definition I want to make sure that I go on the record as saying that Legal Criminals Define Property precisely as shown in the example offered by Legal Criminals in Waco Texas during those months that those Legal Criminals owned, and disposed of, their property which took the form of pregnant mothers, babies, toddlers, teenagers, adults, and old people, tortured for months, as property, and burned alive, beheaded, and who knows what else, as property.
A competitive version of property offered by Frank and whoever else may agree with this offering of the meaning of property:
Property is any fictional Right of Use expressed into a Trust relationship with other Forms whereby there exists a claimed Form of Ownership or Executorship, Form of Trustee(s) administering the Form as Property and Forms of Beneficiaries. Hence Property is the Rights of an Owner to Use the Form, never ownership of the object or concept itself.