On 1/9/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, but didn't they, using 'white' terminology, jointly owned the land they were living in? (and then whites came along and stole...)
this may explain a little more http://www.barefootsworld.net/seattle.html yes "white terminology" holds white CONCEPTS as do words in my tribe the blackfoot and other tribes languages i am also cherokee for instance the word "floor" does not exist because things are noted as actions so it is "flooring" because things are not stagnant they are active > everything is animated there are no inanimate and animate objects all are animate you may hear people say the whites 'stole' the land but what they did was move the people ... kill them etc they did not live in concert etc
do you know the story of lewis and clark by the way it shows how the 'indians' lived > very different
Anyway, ownership of natural resources is a bit more complex (or harder to define) than ownership through labor, that's why I mentioned growing food (which involves personal labor)
i am not sure mayb make an argument as to why it is different
That's fine. My question would be : If a tribe(?) took care of certain buffalo herd, did they have the 'right' (or choose whatever word is appropiate here) to hunt it and use the products? Or would it be OK for a tribe living nearby to 'steal' the herd from them?
i know of these instances yes but the land was vast so ... they moved on ... no i dont think they saw it as particularly 'ok' and they made confederacies and agreements regarding these issues - they had community agreements which they worked together to come to also fyi they had chiefs yes but they had different councils that made decisions they still function in this way and what your role was was what you were naturally good at - they didnt try to make people into something they were not
Because they want to? It's their food and they do with it whatever they please =P
funny
Now, what if some people don't want to give their food away for free, and a different group of people takes it by force?
What if some people spends their labor producing something and other people come along and get the products, for free, against the will of the producers? That sonds like slavery to me, and I'd risk saying that it's been recognized as slavery since a long time ago, and in all parts of the world.
thats what we have now with neo liberal capitalism
If I'm not the 'absolute' owner of my person and what I produce, who is it?
well i think ideas are in the air and we build on the shoulders of giants
That is true regarding ideas and knowledge (though things need to be re-learnt at the individual level, of course...) - but I'm talking more about physical production than intelectual production.
i meant physical production too - i mean do you understand how many hundreds of years it took life to come up with the spoon > just a spoon that took a ton of time and energy and really i see myself as no different than a spoon
so production is owed down thru the ages and i think there isnt really a you basically > your first form i would say is life itself and you are made mostly of water and some minerals (dirt) and when you 'die' your body dissipates like a cloud - i dont think 'you' die i think you just transform
Well, maybe, but individual consciousness seems to exist. Regardless of you and budhists calling it an illusion =P
i never said that i think in terms of co-creativity
so there is no 'you' to have ownership > would you say life owns life ? that would be odd > i think ownership is an illusion i also think you didnt make yourself so that would be a glitch in your argument
Living things are kinda self-assembling...Though I didn't argue that I 'own myself' because I 'made myself'. I'm talking about external property.
no i was extending and making an argument > but how do you think you "own" yourself?
My argument is : I own this tomato plant because I took the trouble to cultivate it.
BUT what about the tomato plant it took more "trouble" than u i would say - in ur world does it have "ownership"
i mean i think you had a bit to say in the matter but we are very limited mathematical concoctions (gorgeously made and amazing but limited) we cant presently manufacture ourselves in order to "own" ourselves but even then we wouldnt be independent of life itself
No, we wouldn't.
Also, you correctly point out that 'we' didn't 'make' ourselves, but are you suggesting that we were 'made' by someone else/some kind of entity/moral agent/or?
F no and i dont think there was a big bang either or a beginning i think life is a spiral cone time and space are - i dont think time is linear see deleuze and guattari > but native americans think like that too
i think the idea of ownership was made by rulers (seen thru millenia but look at the magna carta which will be 800 in 2015) i want as little to do with rulers thought patterns and functioning as possible
I think property is an extension of personal freedom, and so it's actually anathema to rulers.
i think property is a coffin BUT i understand what you mean how it could be seen that way actually it really is a multidimensional issue but overall i see that history - and my own inner gut - shows that having community is a more fully effective way of living than individualism BUT also i think rulers will turn anything they can into something fucked up
magna carta is as far as I can tell a document dealing with two factions of the ruling class - the 'noblemen', also known as oligarchy and the monarchic party (actually a different faction of the oligarchy)
yes that was my point those are the people that are so interested in property rights > hey ya know the largest land owner in manhattan ?? catholic church... know the second largest property owner in manhattan ?? episcopal church ... what i think they have socially engineered is the protection of ruling class property rights and convinced the people it serves them - it does not !! otherwise everyone would have food and clean water and a place to live (its not that much to ask for) really it doesnt serve humanity or life force either to have such levels of separation between ppl because of who they were born to, where etc
but to parse it for you believing in something is about religion which is smoke and mirrors + the public sphere is waning if you havent noticed
Not sure what you mean by the public sphere, but what I understand by the public sphere isn't exactly waning.
but its not so much an emergency but an emergence of the collective ... an opportunity > your choice to be mindful of the reality or not
klein is an economist
yeah well, so were keynes and marx. Or at least there are people who think they were 'economists'...
On 1/9/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:11 PM +0100 Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
to all the libratarians on the planet that 'believe' in ownership
In case you're addressing me... =P
(well, you seem to be talking to James, but replied to a post of mine, so I'm not sure)
'belief' and 'ownership' are idiotic arcane notions of anthropocentric type amygdala activity
https://archive.org/details/The_Shock_Doctrine.The_Rise_of_Disaster_C ap it alism
Is Klein some kind of radical anarcho communist? If not she probably subscribes to some notion of private property...
this means you james > with a caveat that obama is a disgusting reflection of the system and ppl were ill informed to think he wasnt > i offer this piece by naomi klein in dispute of your 'ideology' seen thru your crummy/flimmsy/pathetic analysis of aaron's work
if you have seen it then you have no excuse for your mindset > if you have not seen it i dare you to debate its consciousness
On 1/8/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: > > > --On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:59 AM -0500 Ulex Europae > <europus@gmail.com> wrote: > >> At 02:07 AM 1/8/2014, Juan Garofalo wrote: >> >>> fucking americunt fascist. >> >> >> Russian emigre. Yes there is a difference, and yes that is >> relevant. > > > As a transplanted nationalist, she was even more rabid than home > grown > nationalists. That's the first(and only) difference that comes to > mind... > > > >
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.