From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Subject: Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)
Summary: This is *way* too long, and I'm sorry -- but I couldn't let it go by
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:05:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.031512.1856@seanews.akita.com> billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.182911.11865@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
>>I think that the concept of "ownership" needs overhauling or refinement.
>>For example, what in the scheme of things dictates that "ownership" should
>>take precedence over, or be held more sacred than "occupancy" or "usage"
>>(in the instance where all refer to the same thing)?
>
>The argument is pretty silly on the face.  Do you really mean to say
>that you believe theft is ok?

After reading and rereading Bill's post <1992Aug11.031512.1856@seanews.akita.com>
I find the consistently sneering and hectoring tone a little boring,
not to mention a little distressing, and the tactics of ignoring questions
I asked in previous postings but instead, picking nits, pleading phony
incomprehension, or heaping ridicule (unbacked up by arguments demanded in
aforementioned ignored questions), to be *MORE* than a little tedious;
not to put too fine a point on it, but I am getting a little *RILED*.

All I did was suggest that the concept of ownership be reexamined, and
alongs comes all this contentious pholosophy-weenie crap.  Jeez!
I didn't mean to tread on your corns!

I also don't like spending time having to type out things like this paragraph,
explaining that "no, I don't think that theft is the single unifying
life-principle of conduct for the *Homo* *Sapiens* species", in answer to
the question above, and then setting forth, in tedious detail what constitutes
theft and what doesn't.  The short answer is, "Basically, circumstances
dictate cases."  There are no absolutes.  Sometimes "theft" is justified,
and sometimes it isn't.  Who decides?  Do you want a simple set of rules?
Well, Bill, use your imagination.  It should not be necessary to spell
this stuff out.  This makes me wish I'd never mentioned the subject.
No, I don't want to spend a lot of time exploring the various special cases
and ramifications.  Suffice to say that your personal belongings aren't in
danger :) ...

>                               Basically you're saying that if I take
>someone of yours (say your home or bicycle), and begin using it that
>somehow my use and occupancy is equal to or more important than your
>ownership?

If I was homeless, and you owned an unoccupied building that had been
vacant for several years, I would have no problems with squatting the
vacant building, and fixing it up to make it more livable, and resisting
eviction.  If you have a vacant lot full of junk, I'd have no problem
cleaning off the junk and planting a garden there.  At a future time when
you want to use your vacant lot to speculate in the condo trade, I would
resist your attempt to assert control over your land, in use by me for
a garden.  I would not, personally, demolish your existing condo to make
a garden (unless there were no alternative, and the condo was unoccupied :),
although it might make more sense to move into it instead!  Here are a
couple of instances where occupancy might be given a heavier weight than
ownership.

I believe that similar concepts exist in English common law.

[...]
I said:
>>If you assert that the h-g societies "have nothing", then what is it that
>>the presumably "more wealthy" society wants from them?  Why are there gold
>>miners in the Amazon, filling the rivers with mercury [ I can't resist --
>>turning the h-g societies into Hg societies ]?  What are all those
>>missionaries doing down there?  Don't tell me that the h-g societies have
>>nothing, for if they did, the society we are a part of would leave them
>>alone.  The fact is, that they have things that this society wants (gold,
>>souls, and raw bio-materials -- all fairly regarded as wealth), and it is
>>taking them, and it's not exactly a favorable or balanced exchange.
>
>But wait -- you're arguing at cross-purposes.  Either private ownership
>means something or it doesn't.  You argue first that ownership of things
>is meaningless in a hunter-gatherer society and then argue that they "have
>things".  Which is it?

I was speaking about the "reaching out" and expansion that one society was
doing with respect to the other, and confusions about just what was "wealth",
and the apparent predatory behavior that ensued.  It's all going in one
direction.  For example missionaries *proselytize* -- basically, hawk their
belief system --, they don't just sit back and wait for people who have heard
wonderful stories about their religion to flock to their door -- they'd starve
if they did, and rightly so.  We don't have Indians invading the cities,
saying "Oh, I just can't do without those white-man goodies!", just as we
did not have West Germans heading eastward over the Berlin Wall.

Individuals "have things" like personal gear, that they alone are ordinarily
expected to use, like, for example, ornaments or toothbrushes or clothing.
Things like land, air, streams are *not* owned; they are part of the
environment.  Private ownership of, say, a tract of land, with rights
appertaining thereto (o lovely legalliteration! :), such as the right to
sequester or exclusively occupy or use, would be an essentially alien, absurd
or perhaps even heretical concept.  Some tribes regard such an act akin to
raping "Mother Earth", yet you find it easy to sneer at the concept and demand
that the tribe respect the no less abstruse and essentially arational legal
principles that underly your concept of ownership.  Naturally, the tribes
protest when their concepts are weighed in an alien culture and found wanting
by the standards of the alien culture.

>>I wish that this question had been replied to in a fashion different than
>>the following:
>>
>>>>>What a crock of shit.
>>
>>I think that the tone of the debate demands a more substantive response.
>
>If you notice I respond to substantive arguments with substantive responses
>(at least for the most part).

Yeah, but it ("crock of shit") contributes to the over-all sneering tone I
complained about earlier, and makes a spirited debate more painful and
unpleasant.  Addressing questions in earlier posts is also something I
complained about.  Of course, you may have been really riled, but I get the
impression that you weren't.  It looked like a casual put-down was tossed
in there.

[...]
>>>Anyone in the United States can enjoy a higher standard of living than
>>>*any* hunter-gather society with no work whatsoever.  No "unpleasant,
>>>mind-deadening, and body-killing" tasks needed.
>>
>>Sounds like a pyramid scheme here...
>
>Perhaps.  More like charity.  The government of this country has decided
>that no one may starve, regardless of their desire to produce.
>
>This can happen because those people who are producing create such a
>surplus of goods and wealth that is becomes possible.

OK.  I can't argue that there's a lot produced in this country, and that
a lot of it, surplus, finds its way into the hands of those that need it.
I think that's good, as far as it goes.  There's lots of places in the world
where that isn't the case, and we should be glad that it is here.  Fortunately
I am in the position where I need not avail myself of said surplus.
But if I had to, I would not expect to have to give up my other freedoms to
avail myself of it.  Not would I find it necessary to permanently abase
myself to the providers, or wonder if my conduct while availing myself of
said surplus met gratefulness criteria established by the providers.

There is a set of priorities of human needs vs. their level of satisfaction
that exists for every human being (although I think that it can take some
strange forms!).  The existence of this scale can account for the apparent
unhappiness of a "rich" person, or the bliss of a full belly after a hobo
goes 3 days without food.  It can also take on a temporal structure in the
small as well as in the large; from minute to minute, as well as from year
to year, our scale varies, both terms of the magnitude of the unfulfilled
needs within it, as well as the needs themselves.  Desire for air comes first,
followed by hunger and thirst.  Other needs follow, rearranging themselves
over time as life is lived.

>>In some sense this is probably true, although it's pretty limited, IMO.
>>Absolutists and Randites are fond of saying things like, "gosh, the jungle
>>savage doesn't have blenders, pocket-protectors, fluorescent lights, VCR's,
>>big buildings, unix, or a *whole host* of labor-saving devices that make our
>>life pretty darned easy".
>
>No -- the jungle savage doesn't have:
>
>	- medical care (have appendicitis in the jungle and you die)
>	- water that is safe to drink (cholera is a problem)
>	- 

Well, let's not be so free and easy about such terms as "jungle savage".
Next you'll be complaining about the "servant problem" outback -- they just
*can't* be trained to serve drinks properly.

The "jungle savage" does not have to worry about insurance coverage or
iatrogenic illnesses, or FDA approval, or the sequelae of automobile accidents.

[...]
>>Families don't die from scratches (99% of the time). Individuals die from
>>severe injuries and lacerations that overwhelm the body's defenses.
>>The immune system can usually cope with scratches.  In any case, antibiotics
>>*are* available.  For example, it's an old folk remedy to slap a piece of
>>moldy bread on a wound as a healing aid; occasionally (perhaps quite
>>frequently -- I don't know but wouldn't be surprised) the mold is of the
>>*Penicillium* genus, and secretes anti-bacterial matabolites.
>>In any case, shit happens, both in your system and in mine.
>
>Have you ever actually *been* in the 3rd world, or do you just have
>these romantic notions of how life was so much better then?  Have you
>seen the running sores that people in S.E. Asia have that deform them
>for life? Have you seen the worms that literally eat you from the inside
>out, beginning in your stomach and exiting through your skin?  Have you
>ever seen an infant die from plague because no antibiotics are
>available?  Hell, there are still leper colonies!

Yes, I have been in the third world.
But don't conditions in American cities approach those of the third world?
I see people on the streets of Seattle with running sores.  People here
die of noxious diseases because the pathogens have evolved to resist
usual treatment methods.  There's a "leper colony" right here in the US --
at Carville, Louisiana, run by the Public Health Service (or used to be --
it might have disappeared in the depredations of the Reagan era).
There's new strains of diseases that have evolved to meet the rigors of
the "brave new world" -- certain STD's, for example.

>>Half of the population dying of cholera is a scenario that I doubt occurs
>>in unperturbed hunter-gatherer societies often enough to be considered a
>>major drawback.  This is more likely to occur in the slums of Sao Paulo
>>than in the jungles of the deepest Amazon.  The slum-dwellers are, these
>>days, likely to be former members of h-g societies, displaced by "more
>>advanced civilizations" from their previous way of life, and made more
>>vulnerable to attacks by various diseases by disruption of systems in
>>equilibrium.  This is a pattern that occurs repeatedly in history.
>
>This is the sort of fuzzy-brained thinking that makes it difficult
>to converse: "more vulnerable to attacks by various diseases by disruption
>of systems in equilibrium."

Example of such attacks are the opportunistic infections of AIDS, where,
because the immune system is seriously deranged, these infections are able
to gain a foothold in somebody's body.  Ordinarily the relation between
one's immune system and other life-forms in the world is in a state of
equilibrium, or homeostasis.  Perhaps I picked the wrong word, I don't
know.  Yes, perhaps the thinking is "fuzzy-brained", but that is because
I am feeling my way with concepts that are, because of (IMO) inherent
fuzziness, are hard to deal with.  We aren't debugging C programs here.
We are using natural language to discuss and exchange extremely abstract
concepts.  It's hard work -- that I won't deny.  But the fuzziness pervades
the universe, and one might as well get used to it.  Actually, I'm thinking
as clearly as I can, and hope that I can express my thoughts on the
keyboard as well.  Evidently I'm not always successful.  C'est la vie.
The phrase "This is the sort of fuzzy-brained thinking..." did smack of
ridicule, though, which I complained about earlier.

[...]
>>>>                                                               I just
>>>>want a free society, where relations among people are determined solely
>>>>by the people interested, in a purely voluntary fashion.
>>>
>>>I would argue that we, in fact, have that.  What changes would you make
>>>to this society that do *not* involve forcible confiscation of other
>>>people's wealth?
>>[...]
>>
>>I'm soooo glad you asked!  I've got a whole laundry list for such occasions
>>as this [ :) ]; others can doubtless add more:
>
>>o	End the War on Drugs! (doable *RIGHT* *NOW*)
>
>	- Yes, but this has little to do with socialism/communism

What I'm doing here is enumerating various changes to society, per your
request, that do *not* involve confiscation of other people's wealth.
Some of those enumerated things may or may not have anything to do with
socialism/communism.

[...]

>>o	Realign social relations on basis of free and voluntary associations
>>	of autonomous and sovereign free spirits
>
>	More fuzzy thinking or speaking.  What does this mean?

Get rid of power relationships, for one.  Boycott them.  Fuck them up.
Stop glorifying them.  Disrupt them.  Sure, sure, I know, when we restrain
somebody from murdering somebody else, we are in a "power relationship" over
the person we are restraining, and we thus blow our argument to smithereens,
rendering the whole concept null and void, semantically null.  Gosh, I just
can't think straight, guess I'll go hang myself...
[NOT!] Come on.  You know what I mean.  If not, then, impasse, I guess.
Let it ride.

>	Again I ask, what changes?  This is more than "things would be
>	better if everyone were nicer."
>
>>o	Stop discriminating against people who are different or who have
>>	non-conventional beliefs, such as homosexuals, atheists, pagans, fat
>>	people, hippies, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ... <aleph-null-th etc.>
>
>	How do you intend to do this?

Well, make a personal commitment to do so in your dealings with others,
for one thing.  Don't assume that they all stand for the same thing.
Stick up for people who get dumped on for being different.

>>o	Trim off the fat on the "list-of-things-considered-crimes"
>
>	Ok.
>
>>o	Stop stacking the social/civic deck against alternative organizational
>>	forms/processes and ways of doing things
>
>	What does this mean?

Laws against unrelated people living under the same roof, for one thing.
Laws against people taking their clothes off, for another.
Legal forms that say, demand that the "President" of an organization
sign the form, as if that were the only legitimate way of organizing a
group.  Now a collective could have somebody "be the President" (and in
fact this is what is usually done), but there's an assumption operating here
that says that collectives aren't a really "legitimate" grouping.
Another example is the assumption that groups be run by a democratic process,
as opposed to a consensus process.
Another example is the concept of "tribal council," run by a democratic
process, essentially a Western concept foisted on to the Indian
tribes by the BIA (and repeated throughout the world WRT aborigines and
BIA analogs).  The latter example reflects the schism between the
"traditionals" and the "progressives" among American Indians.  This schism
is exploited and manipulated.

Those are what I mean by stacking the social/civic deck against alternative
organizational form/processes and ways of doing things.

>>o	Stop stacking the social/civic deck in favor of Sky-goddists, other deists
>	You'll have to be a bit more plain here.

Abolish the state religion!!! or at least, dethrone it from its cozy
relationship with the state.  Look at your currency for a clue :) ...
Tax churches, for example.  The society could well do without even the
concept of clergy, for example.

>>o	Stop confusing symbolic things with real things
>
>	Again, fuzzy-thoughts.  What does this mean?

THIS IS REALLY EXASPERATING!!  Will somebody please explain about
symbols, referents, map-vs-territory and other concepts?  My fingers are
getting tired.

[...]
>>o	Adopt LESS Aristotelian, meddlesome/interventionist, hard-line,
>>	"masculine", dualistic, ...<countably infinite chain of negative
>>	parts of dualities>, MORE integrated/wholistic, "feminine", diverse,
>>	..., <countably infinite chain of "positive" parts of dualities>
>>	world-views
>
>	This has got to be the *fuzziest* muddled line of the entire
>	post. 
>
>	Again, rather than some feel-good claptrap rhetoric, explain
>	what should be *done*.

Discard world-views that encourage dualistic, absolutistic, rigid
thinking, because they are inherently restrictive and map poorly to
the universe.  You keep calling this fuzzy.  It's pretty plain that
we have an argument where our premises differ, and neither seems willing
to budge.  The subject itself is inherently fuzzy.  The universe is fuzzy,
for better or worse (worse, it's *chaotic*! and anarchistic! oh, no!).

>>o	Simplify, simplify, simplify.  Loosen up.  Get happy.
>
>	Fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy.

Yeah, yeah, yeah!
Warm fuzzies to all!

>>Apologies in advance for redundancy, abstraction, inconsistency, fuzziness,
>>etc.
>
>	Thank you.  Apology accepted.  I would appreciate it if you'd
>	address the questions, though.
Speak for yourself.  I thot I did, but you aren't satisfied, and I'm
dissatisfied with your answers, too.
[...]

ARRRRGHHH!!!
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
e-mail me at kurt@eskimo.celestial.com for a copy of Bob Black's essay,
"The Abolition of Work"