You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: OBEY YOUR MASTERS
I agree this is a horrific tragedy.
It is also in direct violation of my +proFAMILY AXIOM.
Parents and children should NEVER be forcibly separated.
It is also in direct violation of my +proHUMAN AXIOM.
Humans should NEVER be forcibly removed from their homes.
I'm not sure why you seem to think "personal sovereignty" means, "take everyone else's stuff".
That's actually a direct violation of both principles.
Yes it is. I don't think it means "take everyone else's stuff". From straight logic I ask "When is it moral to refrain some stuff from other's and consider it one's own?" or "When is it ok to build fences?" It certainly don't see a problem with (1) body and (2) family. But I see plenty with (3) land. Might have to do with domestication. With all this said, property and domestication looks like a highly dangerous mix. !invest_vote
Thanks for clearing that up.
Everyone has a right to their home, even if that home is a tent.
Each person has a right to a minimum amount of land that they can grow their own food on (about 1 acre).
Nobody should be forced to "get a job" (by implicit threat of starvation or imprisonment).
You're welcome!
There we are. This minimum is worth to wrangle about. All I want to say is that the objective does not justify the means. So when we derive ANY property from personal sovereignty, we probably are missing some logic here. I am interested in what we're missing. !invest_vote
Hypothetically,
If you travel to a distant land, and there are some (very fine) people already living there, (if you respect the principle of personal-sovereignty) you should NEGOTIATE with them in order to secure a homestead.
It gets a little complicated when the very concept of "permanent" land-ownership is anathema to the nomadic natives.
I don't think it is a matter of a religion (speaking of some action being anathema for someone), if we don't likewise view ownership to (3) land through the same lens.
Can it be that nomadic-lifestyle is anathema to land-owning... what, land-owning natives? ... believers? ... intruders?
Just because someone does not want to negotiate or was not there when someone asked for negotiation, doesn't mean we forget about (1) body and (2) family when it comes to aggression (a.k.a. missunderstandings), do we?
That's the momentum when property usually is "protected" by disposing someone else's property. Giving or even taking a reason to do so. I hope you see the conflict of interest here.
I don't want to say there's an easy answer here, but from our conversation I get the idea that (1) body and (2) family are different from (3) land.
!invest_vote
I agree. There is no "obligation" to negotiate. It is the suitor's duty to seduce.
I disagree.
You can't protect yourself if you can't feed yourself.
And you can't feed yourself without land to grow things on and hunt and gather water.
Land is essential to (+proHUMAN) life.
Sounds dumb to me after all I shared. Land is essential for sure. That's the point!! Yet infringement to land ownership might not.
We should treat each person, even the one's we don't like (enemies/criminals/idiots), with the same basic (bare minimum) respect.
Each person has the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
@andrepol denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient! ----> Wer ist investinthefutur ?
@andrepol thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !----> Who is investinthefutur ?
@andrepol denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient! ----> Wer ist investinthefutur ?
@andrepol thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !----> Who is investinthefutur ?
@andrepol denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient! ----> Wer ist investinthefutur ?
@andrepol thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !----> Who is investinthefutur ?