"The institution of private property was founded by acts of violence, such as our European forebears expropriating land that belonged to the Native Americans (who usually held land in common), and it continues to be maintained by violence to this day."
Canada was not formed this way. There are treaties with the First Nations back in the 1700's regarding peaceful relations between nations (both English and French), and how land was to be bought and preserved as First Nation land vs. Crown land.
There was much trading between the First Nations peoples and English and French traders as well, which supports the concept of property, even if that concept didn't look exactly European.
I am not an expert, and there were definitely mistakes made along the way, but there is a rich history of British and First Nation treaties that I'm just recently learning about.
For one thing, the First Nations are not conquered peoples. They have their own land, their own government, their own laws, and while their treatment is not stellar in Canadian history, as far as I can tell, the mistakes have been mostly bureaucratical and legal blunders of massive proportions rather than war. And such blunders can be fixed, and the work to fix these issues is continuing today.
It would be a mistake, I think, to consider ancient aboriginal culture and way of life as some utopia where no property, no government, and no laws were needed. Their versions may not have looked exactly like ours, but there were governments, there were laws, in general all men were armed, the death penalty existed, and there were wars between nations.
There's probably a lot we can learn from the First Nations. Their philosophy for dealing with wrongdoers may be significantly more advanced than ours. But to chuck the idea of government and property based on their history is going too far, I think.
I look forward to someday being able to chat more quickly about your views on private property, rather than through the slowness of snail mail. This abolition of private property seems to me to be one of the basic ideas behind anarchism, and I just can't see it, nor get behind it.
Does theft exist, to an anarchist? Is theft not violence? Is it only land that is to be shared communally? What about houses? Is my time not my own? What about my own work? Can I not claim the fruits of my own labour as my own?
If land were communal, and I could chop down the trees I needed to build my own house, and plant my own garden, would I have no claim to the result of my labour? Could another family move into the house I built and crowd me out? Could my neighbours come and harvest my garden in the night and I would have no recourse?
These are the basic questions that always seem to be glossed over in anarchic writings, but without answers to them, anarchy seems like a house of cards to me.
If property exists, then (potentially violent) defense of property must also exist, in order to preserve it. If property does not exist, then I am a slave to the first evildoer who knocks on my door and walks away with years of effort.
I think the concept of property is necessary, in order to demonstrate that theft is wrong. And if theft is wrong, then it is not wrong to punish it justly, and such punishment is necessary until the last thief disappears from the earth. Anarchists cry loudly against the government and the power it uses, but I hear very little cry against theft. Why is this?
So after reading your comment on "Stay" I ventured over to youtube to see if it was there. Nice song. :-) There doesn't seem to be an official video for it yet.
Miley is a bit of a puzzle to me, but a fun puzzle to watch.
I recently took at look at her "Wrecking Ball" video. I noticed there were actually two versions of it: the main one with her nakedly riding a wrecking ball that seems to conflict with the lyrics of the song, and a "director's cut" which has no wrecking ball at all. I thought the director's cut version was much more powerful. But either way, I liked the song.
After watching both videos a few (dozen?) times, I started to fancy myself as a director, and wonder how I would have crafted the video. The main video makes no sense to me. If the lyrics have any meaning, it's the wrecking ball itself that should explode, not the wall. And that would have been a cool video, if Miley was on a TV screen inside the wrecking ball, and the ball shattered at the end of the video against a solid brick wall. Oh well. Nobody asks me about these things.
I figured you may appreciate my critique, and so I pass it along for your enjoyment. :-)
There might be another argument for isolationism: humility, or at least a recognition of our own limitations. Sometimes barging in on a problem with the best of intentions does nothing helpful.
Ernesto Sirolli gave a TED talk about humanitarian aid, and how little good it does, and how it can even harm. To my knowledge, it is in video format only, so I can't easily share it. His solution was to "shut up and listen." Be ready to give to those who really want help, especially those who have a passion for doing something productive (i.e. feed the entrepreneurial spirit), but otherwise stay out of the way.
So I would hesitate to look down on those who seem to be isolationist. They may have already tried the altruistic road.
As for the answer to division by zero, it is undefined.
Wikipedia states it more clearly:
"In mathematics, division by zero is division where the divisor (denominator) is zero. Such a division can be formally expressed as a/0 where a is the dividend (numerator). In ordinary arithmetic, the expression has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming a≠0), and so division by zero is undefined. Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 has no defined value and is called an indeterminate form."
Lacuna Coil was formed in 1994 and they are from Milan Italy. They have sold over 2 million albums. Any other ?'s please feel free to ask. I can Google your ?'s instantly on my phone and reply in less than a second.
RSS
You wrote:
"The institution of private property was founded by acts of violence, such as our European forebears expropriating land that belonged to the Native Americans (who usually held land in common), and it continues to be maintained by violence to this day."
Canada was not formed this way. There are treaties with the First Nations back in the 1700's regarding peaceful relations between nations (both English and French), and how land was to be bought and preserved as First Nation land vs. Crown land.
There was much trading between the First Nations peoples and English and French traders as well, which supports the concept of property, even if that concept didn't look exactly European.
I am not an expert, and there were definitely mistakes made along the way, but there is a rich history of British and First Nation treaties that I'm just recently learning about.
For one thing, the First Nations are not conquered peoples. They have their own land, their own government, their own laws, and while their treatment is not stellar in Canadian history, as far as I can tell, the mistakes have been mostly bureaucratical and legal blunders of massive proportions rather than war. And such blunders can be fixed, and the work to fix these issues is continuing today.
It would be a mistake, I think, to consider ancient aboriginal culture and way of life as some utopia where no property, no government, and no laws were needed. Their versions may not have looked exactly like ours, but there were governments, there were laws, in general all men were armed, the death penalty existed, and there were wars between nations.
There's probably a lot we can learn from the First Nations. Their philosophy for dealing with wrongdoers may be significantly more advanced than ours. But to chuck the idea of government and property based on their history is going too far, I think.
- Chris
I look forward to someday being able to chat more quickly about your views on private property, rather than through the slowness of snail mail. This abolition of private property seems to me to be one of the basic ideas behind anarchism, and I just can't see it, nor get behind it.
Does theft exist, to an anarchist? Is theft not violence? Is it only land that is to be shared communally? What about houses? Is my time not my own? What about my own work? Can I not claim the fruits of my own labour as my own?
If land were communal, and I could chop down the trees I needed to build my own house, and plant my own garden, would I have no claim to the result of my labour? Could another family move into the house I built and crowd me out? Could my neighbours come and harvest my garden in the night and I would have no recourse?
These are the basic questions that always seem to be glossed over in anarchic writings, but without answers to them, anarchy seems like a house of cards to me.
If property exists, then (potentially violent) defense of property must also exist, in order to preserve it. If property does not exist, then I am a slave to the first evildoer who knocks on my door and walks away with years of effort.
I think the concept of property is necessary, in order to demonstrate that theft is wrong. And if theft is wrong, then it is not wrong to punish it justly, and such punishment is necessary until the last thief disappears from the earth. Anarchists cry loudly against the government and the power it uses, but I hear very little cry against theft. Why is this?
- Chris
Huron
Ontario
Michigan
Erie
Superior
- Chris
Miley is a bit of a puzzle to me, but a fun puzzle to watch.
I recently took at look at her "Wrecking Ball" video. I noticed there were actually two versions of it: the main one with her nakedly riding a wrecking ball that seems to conflict with the lyrics of the song, and a "director's cut" which has no wrecking ball at all. I thought the director's cut version was much more powerful. But either way, I liked the song.
After watching both videos a few (dozen?) times, I started to fancy myself as a director, and wonder how I would have crafted the video. The main video makes no sense to me. If the lyrics have any meaning, it's the wrecking ball itself that should explode, not the wall. And that would have been a cool video, if Miley was on a TV screen inside the wrecking ball, and the ball shattered at the end of the video against a solid brick wall. Oh well. Nobody asks me about these things.
I figured you may appreciate my critique, and so I pass it along for your enjoyment. :-)
- Chris
Ernesto Sirolli gave a TED talk about humanitarian aid, and how little good it does, and how it can even harm. To my knowledge, it is in video format only, so I can't easily share it. His solution was to "shut up and listen." Be ready to give to those who really want help, especially those who have a passion for doing something productive (i.e. feed the entrepreneurial spirit), but otherwise stay out of the way.
So I would hesitate to look down on those who seem to be isolationist. They may have already tried the altruistic road.
- Chris
As for the answer to division by zero, it is undefined.
Wikipedia states it more clearly:
"In mathematics, division by zero is division where the divisor (denominator) is zero. Such a division can be formally expressed as a/0 where a is the dividend (numerator). In ordinary arithmetic, the expression has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming a≠0), and so division by zero is undefined. Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 has no defined value and is called an indeterminate form."
- Chris
Transcribed your poem. Sad one ...
What did break your heart?
I really liked this poem of yours. First, I found it a little strange... but in the end it all comes together. Smartly done :)