Woody Guthrie & The taking of property by violence...

RalphPosts: 486
The taking of property by violence... 4/15/2005 8:21:06 AM
Woody Guthrie was fond of telling the story of a fellow who was out walking one day. Now this person was of the sort that some might call a hobo or perhaps a bum but whom I shall call a free spirit. Now as this free spirit was walking he found a fence blocking his progress and a large sign that said "PRIVATE PROPERTY - No trespassing." But being a free spirit he ignored the sign, hopped the fence and proceeded on his way. After a while another fellow approached him at rather a fast clip displaying signs of extreme agitation. "Didn't you see that sign" he demanded. "This here is private property and there's NO TRESPASSING." "So you're saying you own this land" inquired the free spirit. "Damn right" replied the other. "Well how did you get to own it?" said the free spirit. "I got it from my father" said the man. "Okay" said the free spirit, "but where did he get it?" "He got it from his father" was the reply. "I'm understanding your general drift" said the free spirit, "but how did he come to own it?" "He fought for it" was the answer. "Fine," said the free spirit, "I'll fight YOU for it." FOR DISCUSSION: 1) If the ownership of land depends ultimately on the assertion that one's predecessors in possession obtained the right to the land by the use of force then what, if anything, is wrong with the offer to fight a purported owner for it today? 2) If the answer to 1) above is that it is wrong then is it your position that one purpose of government is to preserve ancient injustices or to secure the descendants of those who secured their property thru violence in the fruits of that violence?
Collapse all posts in this thread
Author
Replys
GuidoPosts: 125
Re: The taking of property by violence... 4/15/2005 11:23:14 AM
In order to keep people from shooting first and asking questions later in regards to property rights, governments, over the centuries, have backed legal claims to property. In some cases, these claims were to properties that, decades, perhaps even centuries ago, were taken by violence or threats thereof. If we were to ratchet back the claims to those who might have initially held the land, or rather their decendents, the economy of both this nation and the world would suffer tremendously. Indeed, searching for ""rightful heirs"" would be a difficult, if not an impossible task. And, imagine, even if someone came up with an agreement as to how to apportion that property. To find how this works, let us look at the situation in the Middle East in respect to Israel. Certainly, many will agree that there was once a Jewish state somewhere in that sand in the armpit of God, but exactly where was it and when? The powers that be in 1947 decided however, in order to right past injustices, to place Israel in that spot thereby dislocating hundreds of thousands of other people. In other words, in order to right a wrong, they committed a second wrong. Okay, now back to the question at hand. Should government allow those wishing to take a parcel of land to merely kill or otherwise forcibly remove the current owner? Under those circumstances, I certainly feel for all those elderly folk out there. They would be prime candidates for removal. Perhaps, under the new feudal system, the lord of the land might grant them squatters'' rights. No, I much prefer things the way they are now, though I would likely be given lands in Europe being as my family once owned inhabited there. My parcel of land, though small and covered with fire ant mounds, was purchased in good faith. I do not require a return of my family lands in Scotland, nor do I seek restitution from the Roman Empire or its successor, the Holy Roman Empire.
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 3499

Re: Re: The taking of property by violence... 4/15/2005 11:28:53 AM
I think the question was more along moral lines... not what would be the implications if force determined proporty ownership... but what are the moral grounds for legally recognising ownership of ""stolen"" land while making re-stealing that land illegal... And thats the paradox you get when looking at governments from moral angles... governments arn''t moral institutions, their POWER institutions... look at them from the power angle and they make perfect sense. ""We took this land now its ours, and its wrong to take away our stuff(becuase its ours and we want it)..."" thats the jist of government reasoning...
curmudgeonPosts: 2918

Woody Guthrie . . . 4/15/2005 11:36:13 AM
. . . was a communist but . . . Individual property rights are central to any civilization. Without property right we have anarchy. Since I am an anarchist is is probalby alright with me. I will end up with your property.
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 3499

Re: Woody Guthrie . . . 4/15/2005 1:11:12 PM
Individual property rights are central to any civilization. right, and thouse propoerty rights are organised with laws through government. But do you think a government ever questions the authority of itself? Especially something so essicencal to its existance as proporty rights? It would never cross a Kings mind he wasn''t intitled to his land... that would be like the planets moving out of their orbits, a violation of the way things are. Granted opinions within a country can work to limit its expansion... or even weaken its control... But very rarely does it ever question its own existance, which is what questioning the moralness of its claim to proportey is all about.
RalphPosts: 486
Re: Re: Woody Guthrie . . . 4/15/2005 2:22:41 PM
It is a moral question, but its not just about government is it? I suspect there aren''t many people who would say that while they think it immoral to claim ownership of stolen property they go along with it because government says its okay. Think of all the people who constantly carry on about the ""right to private property"" but never bother to mention that its THEIR private property, derived from theft, that they want to protect. Its amazing how people can get on their high horse about how righteous they are and how property rights are ""natural"" or ""God given"" when defending what is nothing more than being the receivers of stolen property. Remember, European Americans were stealing property of Native Americans just a few years ago. This isn''t anything like ancient history, it is, historically speaking, not much longer ago than yesterday. Nor is private property the sole method of organizing society. Its clear that early Christians held their property in common. Many of the 19th century religious movements such as the Shakers did the same. These were hardly anarchic groups and, moreover, in the case of the Shakers, they were very productive and efficient. (The Shakers problem was that they also practiced celibacy and therefore died out).
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 3499

Re: Re: Re: Woody Guthrie . . . 4/15/2005 2:49:51 PM
yea, thats one of the basis of communism... no one owns anything its all everybody''s and everybody means members of the nation... so there is still the government claiming ownership of the land the nation is on... but the idea of private proporty is gone in communism. and again, your looking at governments under moral lights... something governments arn''t bound by. Its amazing how people can get on their high horse about how righteous they are and how property rights are ""natural"" or ""God given"" when defending what is nothing more than being the receivers of stolen property. Thats in a way because of nationalism... ""natural"" and ""god given"" realy mean, government given... the government is the authority, the law.... We love our country, theirfor respect our government as the soul source of authority... we wouldn''t think of recognising chineese or Cuban laws... So what ever is done with the santion of government, within the set paramaters of the law... like legally buying proporty or buying legal durgs whatever, is all ""right"" because its legal... its done with the concent of our authority. Thats the day to day mind set of a person, and also what keeps a nation functioning. Think of a packet of information flying its way across the internet. All the nodes it crosses direct it to where it needs to go, and it does what its told. If a packet of bits could think, it might question the authority of its commands. ""who are you to tell me I need to go here or do this"" But when you stop and think about it, how government laws are just human constructs imposed by police force... look at, not the leagal side, but moral side... government''s authority errodes. Spengler in Decline of the West points out, a constitution isn''t worth the paper its printed on, it does nothing to control or bind the people... its authority, either imposed or simple recognised... when people SEE the government as the authoirty, then what it does is ""right."" These would also lead into Nietzsches idea of Master/slave morality. For organisation to take place, there has to be a structuring force, something that brings it all togather and makes it work. Any system is like that. ...For a system of people(nation state), its government... you just have to accpet its authority if its gonna work. Like if you wanna be saved by god, you have to ""accept him into your heart"" basicly the same thing, if you want to have the comfort the system provides(be it phsical safty of government, or spiritual comfort of religion), you must become a part of it, accept it, be re-born into it, so to speak... Trade and industry, books and letters, the way in which all higher culture is shared, the rapid change of house and scenery, the present nomadic life of everyone who is not a landowner—these circumstances necessarily produce a weakening, and finally the abolition, of nations, at least in Europe; and as a consequence of continual intermarriage there must develop a mixed race, that of the European man. . . . It is not the interest of the many (of peoples), as is often claimed, but above all the interest of certain royal dynasties and also of certain classes in commerce and society, that drives to nationalism. Once one has recognized this, one should declare oneself without embarrassment as a good European and work actively for the amalgamation of the nations. In this process the Germans could be helpful by virtue of their long proven skill as interpreters and mediators among peoples.
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 3499

Re: Re: Re: Re: Woody Guthrie . . . 4/15/2005 2:51:31 PM
oops... thats last paragraph at the end was Nietzsche... from Human all-too-human
RalphPosts: 486
Re: Re: Re: Re: Woody Guthrie . . . 4/15/2005 3:25:05 PM
Just a quick note...I''ll have something more weighty in a bit (I''m still dealing with the fact that the DOW closed down 198 points today)... Communism is only one form of the many, many possible systems that do not recognize private property, especially private ownership of land. The Shakers and early Christians were communalists not communists. Communism is much more that a statement about private ownership and includes such essential (to communism) concepts as ""democratic centralism,"" ""the leading role of the people''s party,"" ""class warfare,"" ""the dictatorship of the proletariat,"" and ""the new socialist man.""
Jaime KenedenoPosts: 813

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Woody Guthrie . . . 4/16/2005 6:34:44 AM
It would become much more than one man fighting another man. Ever heard of the home field advantage? Property owners have rights that the challenger trespasser is not entitled to. If the property owner kills the trespasser and visa versa; one is more likely to be the criminal. You are talking about ""survival of the fittest"". Anarchy as Curmy puts it, would create feudal lords as we have ""political bosses"" and other power brokers based on less physical control but slight of hand & manipulation, distortion & deception & propaganda. Squatter''s Rights If you as an occupier have no ownership documents, no lease or tenancy agreement, no record of having paid rent to a landlord, and no other evidence exists that you have occupancy rights, then you may well be occupying illegally. It is perhaps of no consolation to landlords that squatters often believe they have a perfect right to occupy when properties are left vacant, especially for long periods. Even so, the squatter has rights. Squatters cannot be evicted from premises without a court possession order, unless they leave voluntarily. http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/squatters.htm The homestead principle is the idea that if no one is using or possessing property, the first person to claim it and use it consistently over a period of time owns the property. Squatter''s rights embodies the idea that if one property owner neglects property and fails to use it, and a second person starts to tend and use the property, then after a certain period of time the first person''s claim to the property is lost and ownership transfers to the second person, who is actually using the property. www.answers.com%2Ftopic%2Fsquatter-s-rights Ownership can transfer in a wager, by imminent domain, or by influence. Many other ways. A simple fight for the land will never be simple.
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 3499

quicly. . . 4/18/2005 9:13:19 AM
quicly... class warfair is a product of proporty ownership... Communism is only one form of the many, many possible systems that do not recognize private property, especially private ownership of land. No mater what the system of group ownership is, you still live on a planet with other nations... so if we suddenly declair everything in the us belongs to everyone else... then the US is still claiming ownership or control over that land, that would be ""stealing it"" from mexico or canada...
RalphPosts: 486
Re: quicly. . . 4/20/2005 7:04:15 AM
We don''t need to declare that it belongs to everyone else. We could, after all, simply limit it to Americans. But that''s not the point. The entire point of the original post is to remind people that there is no such thing as ""obvious"" truths about political and economic systems and that if we pretend there are then we deserve to be slapped around for it. Private property is only one of many possible constructs. It doesn''t come from God. it isn''t written in stone. it isn''t obviously true. We, as Americans, agree that we prefer it to other systems and it generally does work for us. Let me put it another way. If God (or substitute any other source of sure and certain knowledge) came and assured you that abolishing private property would produce a perfect world would there be any reason not to change? Does the concept of private property have any value other than that it seems to be the most effective system for assuring the greatest good for the greatest number?
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 3499

let me ask you this 4/20/2005 8:55:39 AM
The entire point of the original post is to remind people that there is no such thing as ""obvious"" truths about political and economic systems and that if we pretend there are then we deserve to be slapped around for it. ahhh.... Then let me ask you this... Do you not see the benifit gained when one things about their laws and contry and customs as ""obvious truths"" or ""god given?"" Manifest destiny was ""god''s wish"" for us to pretty much steal a bunch of land. Would the US have expanded if everyone took a step back, and realised their the error of their ways? Would the US become what it is today without manifest destany? Dosn''t that egocentric ""we''re the greatest"" ""my god is better than your god"" have some benifical outcomes? Basicly second guessing ourselves is whats got Eurpoe in such a pickle... Islamic fanatics never question their authority or rightness... thats why their willing to strap bombs to themselves... Us on the other hand, ABC can''t figure out why people keep signing up to be Iraqi police, knowing they will be attacked. Private property is only one of many possible constructs. It doesn''t come from God. it isn''t written in stone. it isn''t obviously true. But are the hordes of masses mentally dexterious enough to realise that AND still believe in what they are doing, so whole heartedly their willing to give their lives? Would we fight and die to defend something we think its just a matter of opinion?
RalphPosts: 486
Re: let me ask you this 4/20/2005 3:41:32 PM
Would we fight and die to defend something if we think its just a matter of opinion? I don''t know about you but I would. I believe you may have fallen afoul of the modern notion that all opinions are valid and, worse still, equally valid. It is my opinion that a system of private property is better than any other system that I have heard of. It is enough for me that it is MY opinion. While I stand ready to be corrected, I have no doubt as to correctness of my own view. I don''t need to be told it is God''s or Thomas Jefferson''s or Mickey Mouse''s or even Mickey Mantle''s opinion. do you not see the benefit gained when one thinks about their laws, country and customs as ""obvious truths"" or ""god given?"" No I don''t see the benefit. Whatever a nation of sheep may do, a nation of men will do better. Basically second guessing ourselves is what got Europe in such a pickle I disagree. Its not second guessing. Rather, its reaching an erroneous conclusion after that second guessing that got Europe into trouble. Don''t confuse the process with the conclusion.
GuidoPosts: 125
Re: Re: Woody Guthrie . . . 4/17/2005 1:15:16 AM
Generally, in a Monarchy, all the land belongs to the nobility. In Communism, generally all land belongs to the people, but all control of that land belongs to the government. Ironically, only in a state of anarchy do people actually own land without fear of government interference; however, they must fear the interference of anyone else who might want their property. As for governments controlling themselves, any introspection that a government has generally comes upon formation. After that, the basic property of any government is that it has a propensity to grow and consume. All governments move, slowly or not, towards Totaliarianism.
dannoynted1Posts: 421

Re: Re: Re: Woody Guthrie . . . 4/17/2005 2:25:47 AM
are you suggesting anarchy is our current property law legal situation? total totality? total liar ianism is defined inurho as.....?
GuidoPosts: 125
Re: Re: Re: Re: Woody Guthrie . . . 4/17/2005 3:46:40 AM
Totalianarism is where the people have ceded total control to the government. The government decides where you live, what kind of work you have, how many children you have, who you marry, etc. Having said that, many merely define that state of government as the government controlling the marketplace, the courts, the churches, etc. In my mind, pretty much the same thing. I was not proposing a solution, just pointing out an observation. In reality, even anarchy would eventually result in some form of governance, even if it be at the end of a gun barrel. The stronger, smarter, meaner would rule without any curtailment or boundaries other than those of their whim.
Jaime KenedenoPosts: 813

What if Woody Guthrie . . . 4/17/2005 4:28:40 AM
kicks his ass? Necessitatis non habet legem - Necessity knows no law Feudal Lords would evolve? Divisions & Subdivisions become the norm? Eventually into a formalized government once again?
curmudgeonPosts: 2918

Woody was . . . 4/17/2005 7:52:25 AM
. . . good with a guitar and a tune but he was a wimp.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1520
Re: Woody Guthrie . . . 4/16/2005 6:52:18 AM
So Curmudgeon, you would be OK with losing the right to your property to advance your philosophy of anarchy? How could you end up with rights to someone else''s property when nobody had any property rights, including you? I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion: Individual property rights are central to any civilization.
curmudgeonPosts: 2918

Do you really . . . 4/16/2005 7:31:16 AM
. . . think that property rights would cease to exist without a government? I have many guns. I don''t have a title to any of them. Doya think someone is gonna come a take them from me because I can''t prove ownership through the government.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1520
Re: Do you really . . . 4/16/2005 7:54:11 AM
Gun ownership-the ultimate property right! Good point. All of us should consider this the next time some ""tin foil hat"" politician screams for more gun control.
dannoynted1Posts: 421

Re: Re: Re: The taking of property by violence... 4/16/2005 6:09:13 AM
stealing property is harder now the old fashioned way was to kill everyone who could claim it and voila its on the market moral implications? tell it to those losers in congress defending the ""ethics rules"" complaint process and change of rules to suit their ""ethics"" did the delay the redistricting of texas? its bad enough to violate their ethics but so egregious that the rules need to be modified? what are they doin with american peoples property?
mark blankenshipPosts: 1520
Re: Re: Re: The taking of property by violence... 4/16/2005 7:05:10 AM
[governments aren''t moral institutions, they''re POWER institutions... look at them from the power angle and they make perfect sense.] Words of irrefutable wisdom from Sidewalk_Cipher. This is the same point I make about the need to destroy assault weapons bans. The only counterbalance to such power institutions is another power institution. What better counterbalance than distributing the tools of political power (assault rifles) amongst the people? History conclusively proves institutions of power without such a counterbalance can become murderous and oppressive.