 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Objection on Principles concerning ownership:
Stewardship is much more accurate in my view, and more useful, since ownership suggests mankind being above natural law.
Example: An owner can choose to abuse their physical and mental condition of life and in the ownership dogma that is right, or justified, because the owner is all powerful. I think the more accurate and useful concept is stewardship, as Natural
Law overpowers the so called owner in cases of physical and mental abuse. Who is your daddy now that you willfully place that monkey on your OWN back?
This may appear to be minor but it is not, this is the stuff that separates/divides the many stewards of life into one group that is against the other group because of these divisions of ideas where on group OWNS and the other group contends with that ownership in cases of abuse. Also, as a matter of record, it is this OWNERSHIP claim that is often used by the most serious of evil criminals.
An owner, such as a father, or mother, who now has children and who abuses their own mind and body to a state of destruction, incapacity, is an owner that obviously steps outside of Natural Law, as the children suffer without parents who could otherwise nurture their development into a state of similar OWNERSHIP?
The children learn the meaning of OWNERSHIP by example.
In the video:
“To deny this is to claim that another person has a higher claim on life than you do?”
That is false if the objection is as I have stated, in fact the claim is not that another PERSON has a higher claim on life than the so called OWNER who abuses his, or her, stewardship.
Having a Natural Law, or a God’s Law perspective is such that Natural Law takes over if someone human does not find a way to intervene and help the person who is stuck in this dogma of OWNERSHIP as the OWNER decides to abuse their Natural or God given Rights. Of course evil people can claim to be better Stewards than the Owner, but any lie works, but which truth is better? Which liar uses which truth to use as their cover story, since lies are cover stories covering up the actual willful injury intended upon the innocent victims?
1. Ownership (false capitalists claim false ownership)
2. Stewardship (false religious people claim false stewardship)
What is the source of any tile of ownership? You tell me, then I can ask that person where that person gained his power of ownership.
Property Rights are very controversial and are solved, in any case, upon discovery of the facts, whereby a victim is accurately identified as a victim and a criminal is accurately identified as a criminal, and the criminal is offered a means by which remedy is possible.
Why is someone claiming to know what is, or is not, property before there is a case of injury? Where is the victim? I strongly object to this information that is easily confused with other capitalist (false) dogma.
Why did The Declaration of Independence use the words Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and then there was a change to Life, Liberty, and Property?
Disputes over claims of ownership can be equitably settled by free people in any case, anywhere, until such time as one person causes injury to another person. How is that injury measured precisely so as to leave no reasonable doubt as to which individual person willfully causes the injury to which individual person?
When does this concept of property become real? If it never does become real, then it isn't real, it is another fiction.
Why does this concept of property cause confusion, division, conflict, argument, strife, weakness, and powerlessness?
Why not use the concept of stewardship?
A person is trusted, by Natural Law, or God’s Law, to take care of a portion of land, for example. A deal between the creator of he land, the creator of the human being, and that deal is made with that individual human being.
How does that work? God says I don't want this anymore, you can have it, do with it as you please, I relinquish all rights to that property that is no longer mine, it is now yours?
What happens if I supposedly own a source of water going down a river, and even an underground river? If I add lethal poison to “MY” land, then I am FREE from defensive intervention because I own the land? God gave me the title?
If you refuse to listen to reason here, then you are accessing dictatorial powers, how does that work for you?
Why resort to dictatorial power?
Why does the capitalist dogma propaganda fail to identify what happens when a falsehood (such as this property dogma) is believed by the victims and then the victims act upon that fraud? No longer is there a willful intent to injure by the true believer in the lie, because the true believer truly believes the lie, so such failures of knowledge are apt to impede reason; if the idea is to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not an injury was willfully perpetrated by the criminal upon the victim, then a true believer in a lie is going to have a hard time standing on his quick sand, and there is a case in point local to my experience.
PG and E poisons the ground water and under their dogmatic (capitalist) ideals they have a right to do so, and according to them it is the socialists who force upon them an injury when people start suffering from those poisons and those poisoned people seek remedy: the subjects of the willful injury by the true believers may even be actively, still, drinking the water.
So the people signing the order to dump the poison in the water are not willfully forcing people to drink the poison. But how do you explain the covering up of the internal decisions made by the company officers who defend their capitalist ideals from the socialist MOB, when they willfully hide the facts that the water being consumed by the victims downstream is poisoned?
Why start down that road of “property ownership” at all?
What happened between Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, and then somehow all that turned into enforced property rights?
Who gave you the right to enforce property rights upon me? To me it is pure dogma and I can pin point where capitalist dogma became dogmatic.
OK this property dogma is really going wild now in this video.
Quote:
“You have the right to protect your own life, Liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. “
Your incomplete (or my incomplete) history may be contributing to this division among us, as Land Titles began with a false claim made by very evil people in these places we reside currently in stewardship. Those who negotiated use of land justly did so in history, some did, some did not.
Now is now.
Are you claiming that, for example, the Land Patents for California were justly acquired?
Disputes over ownership vanish once stewardship is understood as the superior claim. Natural Law, or God’s Law, is a trust upon me to use the land I now occupy, from here, to here, to here, and so long as I do not injure an innocent person my stewardship is valid under any scrutiny of counter –claim.
Some misdirected soul wanders on "my property" and I have the just right to shoot that person dead? Would it be better if I torture the invader for months and then hang him on a fence post for all to see, since I have my property rights firmly established so justly? Why mess around with something, if it is true, then it is true, so go with it, and go strong?
Who, and what army of men, can claim otherwise, and by what justification is their claim based?
A Land Patent?
Those enforcers are long gone.
We are here now.
Why do you claim ownership while I have proven to be a good steward of this land right here, to here, to here?
This is going to be a proving grounds of ideas, and you had better get your story straight before presuming authority on this ownership stuff. When you start reaching for proof that this man has imposed his will upon this man, to gain this ownership, then you may confess the source of your ownership dogma, it is more of the same Rules of Man upon Man.
Have you done any title abstracts?
This becomes very problematic in cases of tax lean sales. There are battles among men claiming the God given right to own land at the end of this rainbow. Is that the principle on which you are going to stand?
There is no need for any of it. Stewardship is a much better concept, and then the introduction, or lack of, injury to innocent people, having nothing to do with ownership, and having everything to do with willful intent to cause that injury replaces, supersedes, and is of much greater utility, importance, jurisdiction, than any claim of ownership.
What is the injury?
Trespass?
What is the cost to the injured party? Was the trespasser dumping poison into the water well?
What happens in cases where the true believer in ownership dogma is claiming to be helping the people injured: for their own good? Now you have accurately identified the POWER that is not often recognized, as if it were unspeakable, whereby the inventors of the lie, those who know it is a lie, infect their victims with the lie, and then there is an army of do gooders, so called, saving humanity with their dogma, which happens to be in every case, a weapon, and an injury, to those who are supposedly being saved by this generous help.
1. The liars who know the lie is a lie, and they willfully intend to injure innocent victims.
2. The true believers who believe the lie, and are not willfully intending to injure innocent victims.
3. The victims who know the lie is a lie, but are powerless to defend against it.
4. The victims who believe the lie, and they actually pay the criminals and their minions payments to perpetuate the lie and to suffer the injuries willfully caused by the liars, and unwillingly caused by their minions; the true believers.
5. The former victims who realize the lie and no longer pay into it in any way including the concept that for evil to exist good men do nothing.
Note the fact that resort to the property concept instead of the stewardship concept is that Intellectual Sloth spoke of in the video.
The enforcement of property rights will lead you, again (it is called a Title Abstract), to claims of ownership founded upon the principle of might making right, and then the conquerors profiting from dividing up those spoils of aggressive war for profit.
Make your bed in that and you will be one of them.
If instead the idea is to upgrade the concept from property to stewardship then negotiations in cases of injury by someone upon someone can utilize those same Title Abstracts from a principle of current understanding even in the face of very serious past errors, without dictated further repetition of those same errors in judgment.
Might does not make right, it is a lie.
Property is just a word, as is Stewardship just a word, so which word expresses the higher quality and lower cost concept that is free from willful fraud, willful extortion, and willful aggressive violence by criminal human beings upon innocent human beings?
This does not have to be sold by me to you; this is an offer, to consider the evidence whereby property has been the word used by so many criminals who willfully slaughter innocent victims who happen to be doing a fair job of stewardship on their native lands without all that help is saving those natives from themselves.
You do not have to repeat past mistakes. Please consider competitive options.
I am not saying that the video is too destructive to be used by you, and my advice is not to pull it from the Jurist Orientation, I am merely letting you know of a competitive viewpoint that may be a more accurate viewpoint, higher in quality, and lower in cost.
That viewpoint speaks to capitalists who are well versed in capitalist dogma. That viewpoint will turn away anyone knowing better other than few exceptions who may see past it, and how many dare to let you know about it?
Of course I am assuming that you have time to read my opinions.
Sources:
Equitable Commerce
The Science of Society
The work of Frank O'Collins