RE: "I AM DONNA - and I'm the hammer"
Life
That is interesting. I like life. I love life. I love the process of life. There is a process. People do good and bad. That includes turning people into property so to speak. The problem with slavery is that it violates the ownership rights of an individual. Now, if that person does not own one self, then it does not matter.
Ownership
I love to own. You hate it. People who hate ownership rights are the same people who endorse communism, socialism, Obamaism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, etc. You might as well join them if you have not already. I believe in free markets because I do not trust people. I can trust some people sometimes. But people can do bad. People choose to do bad. The meaning to life involves making choices over stuff. But if you cannot own things, then you cannot have them. TO have is to own. And responsibility does not exist without possession.
Disposing
If you own something, you may want to dispose it. Yes. But at the same time, I don't own you. Technically, you own yourself.
Earth
People own the earth. You disagree. So, what are you going to do about it?
Relationships
It is better when people learn how to let go sometimes. So, I can be friendly to people who may come and go.
Differences
Different people are different. Equality is a lie.
Anger
There is good anger and bad anger. The anger that is not yours is from God who is the owner of all things.
Owning People
Do people own people? Good question. The better question is in regards to whether people can own anything. If people don't own things, then who does? If there is no ownership, then who gets to decide what is done to what is owned?
You Believe in Ownership
You are lying when you say you don't believe in ownership. When you make decisions over your body and over things around you, then you do so as the owner. You can yell and scream all day to say that you do not own yourself and the things around you. But imagine if somebody was trying to kill you. Because you do not own yourself, you do not have the right to fight back. The person can kill you because you are not you. It is that simple. People can eat your food without asking. They can steal yourself. Well, it is not theft because you do not own anything. But you would try to stop them. You have walls and doors. You should never ever lock your door. But people lock their doors.
Your Conclusion is Insanity
You believe in nothing. I believe in something. Except, you actually believe in what I believe but you write down that you don't. Because you don't let people steal. You try to keep people from stealing. You don't like it when people punch you. That is hypocrisy. Private property exists and you live in deception.
I said that I deliberately tried to convey my view in an irritating exaggeration, right?
You need not to understand that differently, don't you? I already told you that I care for my body and my health. Why would I want to get punched? I'd protect and defend myself, my instincts would kick in. You are right, claiming otherwise would be hypocritical. But I never claimed that. Of course, private property does exist, it's convention. I never said that it doesn't, either.
I guess we're going around in circles in the ownership business. I think I'll leave it at that. I've given you my perspective on this, and I trust you've understood it. No need to develop our differences on that particular point. In any case, it was interesting for me.
Private Property Exists:
Do you believe in private property? You wrote, "Of course, private property does exist, it's convention. I never said that it doesn't, either." I agree with that. Are you saying that people should not become too addicted to possessions? I would agree that excessive attachment is dangerous.
Dangers of Money
The love of money is dangerous. If you believe in the desire of generosity, of sharing, of not becoming too possessive, too dependent on things that we may or may not own, I agree with that. I generally write from the perspective of federal and global government. In other words, I try to promote making government smaller.
Authoritarian Cancer Tumors
Over time, government can grow and begin to take things from people. Some people don't believe in ownership. Some people do. But both people groups could come together to fight against government who try to take land from people. Now, people have the freedom to believe what they want. I endorse and encourage freewill. I try to look for things, for ideas, that can bring people together. I encourage people to buy guns to protect themselves from tyrannies.
Personal
I generally talk about legality. But you are mostly talking about what individuals should do as people, as individuals, on a personal level, morally, socially, locally, spiritually, physically, practically, psychologically, in regards to a mindset that can be helpful, and I agree with you in regards to what people should do.
Classical Liberalism
But I was mostly talking about allowing people to do what they want, in what they can do, legally speaking, both good and bad, in order to allow people the ability to make choices without being forced to do certain things. You believe in principles that I agree with.
Violating Humanity
But I do not want to try too hard, too excessively, too often, everywhere, or too much, to force people to do what is right. I do not want to ban too many things. I do not want to make too many things illegal. I prefer the free market to balance things out through decentralization over centralization. But you are right that people should share and not become too attached.
You're Right
People should learn how to be content. People should consider joy over circumstances, hope over dope, love through action, infinite altitude, eternal principles, the golden rule, proverbs, wisdom, charity, compassion, and a lot of original oatmeal.
Yes. I would change the formulation a little, though, and say: I myself would like to learn to become less dependent on possessions. I am not about to dictate the pace and form of other peoples development. As you said down below. I see that you see the problematic effects it can have when dictation becomes strong.
Correct, I do. I have a reason for that.
To make a provocative statement: First of all, I don't care about the political law. Only in the second step does it become important again. I am a social worker.
I sometimes advise married couples who are separating and express conflicts with the handling and custody of the children. Before they even think about their own intentions and wishes, they ask about the legal regulations. My reaction to this is: "We can look at these regulations. But I want to ask you first: What exactly do you as a mother and father want for your child? What do you need for yourself? What do you think would be possible and sensible to clarify and negotiate for the future?"
If I were to go into the official law immediately, then the clients would have been deprived of an important experience: That they are able to create a reasonable basis for this particular situation based on their personal and individual needs. This may indeed differ from the law in that, for example, the amount of child support payments may differ from the amounts indicated by the law. A law is there for guidance only, it is intended to provide support for fully contentious cases. It is not intended to interfere in private matters, but to provide justice for those who are in the weakest position among those in dispute. In this case: the children.
My experience with this is good. I try to provide the adults in dispute with a basis for negotiation and a space in which they do not develop or further nurture enmities through all-party moderation. This often requires very direct, albeit friendly words. If I send out even the slightest hint of one-partiality, I have lost the clients. The consequences can be severe. Instead of calming down a conflict, I would have to answer for having fueled it even further. It's dangerous to be, for example, on the side of the woman and turn against the man. It's not up to me to judge them but to support them both, no matter how I see it fit. They must come to terms.
I transfer this method to the micro and macro level of human interaction.
A gun will not protect me from tyranny, since tyrants always have the more powerful weapons and violence than I have. When tyranny has grown to the point where it has become dictatorial, violent, depriving freedom, a weapon in my hand will not change that. I can only ensure peaceful coexistence in peacetime by using my means and abilities to resolve conflicts privately and professionally.
If you imagine that a shattered relationship turns a man and a woman into enemies, what do you think both will do if they fail to come to an amicable resolution? They will divert their frustration and anger to others, even to their own children and those they consider guilty of their plight. ... You can also use a weapon metaphorically by taking sides with either the man or woman, encouraging him or her to take revenge, to get back at the other, to "bleed" him or her in the separation. Whenever people interfere in other people's relationships in such a way that they transmit their own bad experiences and speak of disappointment, deceit or cheating, they do more harm than good.
I think a good way out is to take both sides and never let yourself be used as an opponent by one or the other party. This testifies to human strength, understanding and love for being human.
Sorry, I got carried away a little.
I am relieved to find in you some interfaces and understanding. We can have a good argument and separate with the confirmation that what we seek for, is consensus.