This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Peter Schiff’s Father Dies In Prison, Shackled To A Hospital Bed
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
Most of you will be quite familiar with Peter Schiff. Fewer of you will know much about his father, Irwin Schiff, who was posthumously referred to as the “grandfather of the contemporary tax protest movement” in Forbes.
Irwin was treated very poorly by his own country, particularly toward the end of his life when, despite being legally blind and dying of cancer, he was not permitted to die in peace amongst family members.
His son Peter wrote the following as a tribute:
My father Irwin A. Schiff was born Feb. 23rd 1928, the 8th child and only son of Jewish immigrants, who had crossed the Atlantic twenty years earlier in search of freedom. As a result of their hope and courage my father was fortunate to have been born into the freest nation in the history of the world. But when he passed away on Oct. 16th, 2015 at the age of 87, a political prisoner of that same nation, legally blind and shackled to a hospital bed in a guarded room in intensive care, the free nation he was born into had itself died years earlier.
My father had a life-long love affair with our nation’s founding principals and proudly served his country during the Korean War, for a while even having the less then honorable distinction of being the lowest ranking American soldier in Europe. While in college he became exposed to the principles of Austrian economics through the writings of Henry Hazlitt and Frederick Hayek. He first became active in politics during Barry Goldwater’s failed 1964 presidential bid. His activism intensified during the Vietnam Era when he led local grass root efforts to resist Yale University’s plans to conduct aid shipments to North Vietnam at a time when that nation was actively fighting U.S. forces in the south. Later in life he staged an unsuccessful write in campaign for governor of Connecticut, then eventually lost the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination to Harry Brown in 1996.
In 1976 his beliefs in free market economics, limited government, and strict interpretation of the Constitution led him to write his first book The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You, a blistering indictment of the post New Deal expansion of government in the United States. The book achieved accolades in the mainstream conservative world, receiving a stellar review in the Wall Street Journal, among other mainstream publications.
But my father was most known for his staunch opposition to the Federal Income Tax, for which the Federal Government labeled him a “tax protester.” But he had no objection to lawful, reasonable taxation. He was not an anarchist and believed that the state had an important, but limited role to play in market based economy. He opposed the Federal Government’s illegal and unconstitutional enforcement and collection of the income tax. His first book on this topic (he authored six books in total) How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes, published in 1982 became a New York Times best seller. His last, The Federal Mafia; How the Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully collects Income Taxes, the first of three editions published in 1992, became the only non-fiction, and second and last book to be banned in America. The only other book being Fanny Hill; Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, banned for obscenity in 1821 and 1963.
His crusade to force the government to obey the law earned him three prison sentences, the final one being a fourteen-year sentence that he began serving ten years ago, at the age of 77. That sentence turned into a life sentence, as my father failed to survive until his planned 2017 release date. However in actuality the life sentence amounted to a death sentence. My father died from skin cancer that went undiagnosed and untreated while he was in federal custody. The skin cancer then led to a virulent outbreak of lung cancer that took his life just more than two months after his initial diagnosis.
The unnecessarily cruel twist in his final years occurred seven years ago when he reached his 80th birthday. At that point the government moved him from an extremely low security federal prison camp in New York State where he was within easy driving distance from family and friends, to a federal correctional institute, first in Indiana and then in Texas. This was done specially to give him access to better medical care. The trade off was that my father was forced to live isolated from those who loved him. Given that visiting him required long flights, car rentals, and hotel stays, his visits were few and far between. Yet while at these supposed superior medical facilities, my father received virtually no medical care at all, not even for the cataracts that left him legally blind, until the skin cancer on his head had spread to just about every organ in his body.
At the time of his diagnosis in early August of this year, he was given four to six mouths to live. We tried to get him out of prison on compassionate release so that he could live out the final months of his life with his family, spending some precious moments with the grandchildren he had barely known. But he did not live long enough for the bureaucratic process to be completed. Two months after the process began, despite the combined help of a sitting Democratic U.S. congresswoman and a Republican U.S. senator, his petition was still sitting on someone’s desk waiting for yet another signature, even though everyone at the prison actually wanted him released. Even as my father lay dying in intensive care, a phone call came in from a lawyer and the Bureau of Prisons in Washington asking the prison medical representatives for more proof of the serious nature of my father’s condition.
As the cancer consumed him his voice changed, and the prison phone system no longer recognized it, so he could not even talk with family members on the phone during his finale month of life. When his condition deteriorated to the point where he needed to be hospitalized, government employees blindly following orders kept him shackled to his bed. This despite the fact that escape was impossible for an 87 year old terminally ill, legally blind patient who could barley breathe, let alone walk.
Whether or not you agree with my father’s views on the Federal Income Tax, or the manner by which it is collected, it’s hard to condone the way he was treated by our government. He held his convictions so sincerely and so passionately that he continued to espouse them until his dying breath. Like William Wallace in the final scene of Braveheart, an oppressive government may have succeeded in killing him, but they did not break his spirit. And that spirit will live on in his books, his videos, and in his children and grandchildren. Hopefully his legacy will one day help restore the lost freedoms he died trying to protect, finally allowing him to rest in peace.
I’d like to end this post on a lighter note, by sharing one of my favorite clips of Irwin, a man unappreciated by his country and left to die and elderly man, shackled to a cold hospital bed.
RIP Irwin Schiff.
»
- 146530 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Instead of just "taking it," why don't you go do your own research instead of yapping about what you THINK is the truth. I keep having to remind myself you can't fix stupid.
I take it Peter and Irwin are related to Jacob Schiff,
It's pretty hard to trace the geneology of the tribe. They change their names all the time.
My condolences to you and your family, Peter.
Irwin Shiff was a super-hero and a martyr. Perhaps his son Peter Schiff is merely a hero so far, but then he has plenty of time remaining.
But the fraud is much deeper than even Irwin Schiff claims. All organizations (including corporations and government) are "fictitious entities"... even in fundamental law (which itself is pure fiction).
More technically, all organizations are fictions. Period. They do not exist, never have, and never will. And as such, they are no basis... well... no basis for anything whatsoever that presumes those fictions.
If not for the 12~24+ years of brainwashing by repetition by parents, schools, family, friends, neighbors and media... every human would laugh in disbelief at any assertion that presumed "government exists". Because ONLY endless repetition from a young age could make a brain malfunction so badly, egregiously, fundamentally and self-destructively.
Seriously! Just think about this with a clear mind for a few seconds!
A few [dozen] humans sit around a table. They smear ink on paper or parchment. They may claim "we created a nation and government", but the REALITY is, nothing popped into existence.
Before these humans gathered, their supposed "nation" and "government" didn't exist. All they did is talk and smear ink on paper. Nothing real popped into existence. They didn't create anything real, which means, they didn't create anything. And so, their so-called "nation" and "government" don't exist.
To be sure, they can pretend something exists. Humans do that all the time... as when they write novels that contain and name fictional planets that don't exist, continents that don't exist, humans that don't exist, events that don't exist and so forth.
This is called FICTION.
This is distinct from REALITY.
Sadly, when humans can't distinguish real from fiction (or forget to), they act as if the non-existent fiction actually existed. This phenomenon should be quite obvious. SantaClaus doesn't exist, but kids think one does, and so they are quite motivated to make lists of toys they want, write letters to Santa, get up extra-early on xmas morning, get all excited, run down to the xmas tree, and so forth. So while fictions don't have external referents (old man in a toy factory on the north pole), they certainly can and do motivate human actions.
-----
Besides, let's be just a bit sane and serious for a second, okay? So a few [dozen] humans sit around a table and claim "everyone within [some large area] must henceforth obey whatever we say, do whatever we demand, and not do whatever we prohibit".
Will ANY sane human being take any of this seriously?
!!!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!!!
What those few [dozen] humans did was play the game "Simon Says". Except young kids are sane enough to understand "this is a game, and I don't have to jump off the cliff, or do anything else I don't want to, just because Simon says so".
Sadly, after a decade or two of incessant brainwashing and repetition, humans become utterly insane by the time they are adults, and somehow manage to forget the obvious --- that a few [dozen] people playing a game is... just a freaking game!!!
And an infinitely sick and horribly dangerous and destructive game if those playing somehow forget "this is a game".
When humans forget this is just a game... they are called "adults".
-----
As far as I'm concerned, Irwin Schiff and folks like him are heroes or super-heroes, depending on how much time, effort and resources they invested to help others avoid being savaged by human predators.
So don't take my alternate and more fundamental and definitive explanation of "why you need not obey other human beings, no matter who they call themselves" as denigrating his efforts and achievements. It is not meant that way. Irwin did what his honesty and understanding permitted, and for that he is a super-hero. And sadly, a martyr too.
-----
Learn to think clearly, carefully and fundamentally. The best understanding is almost always found at the fundamental levels... plus, most fundamentals apply to a huge swath of reality, not just one issue. To understand the fundamental issue one might call "liberty" provides all one needs to know to conclude "all taxes are inherently invalid", because "authority" is also a fiction.
Think about that one too.
You and every other human being are the same kind (species) of creature. You both came to exist the same way (you were born). The mere symmetry of your relationship to every other human is sufficient to make clear that "no other individual can possibly have any valid basis to tell you what to do or not do... than you have to tell them what to do or not do". Namely NOTHING.
Humans live utterly, totally, completely insane lives. Most of what humans do and think every day is stark raving insane! I'm not kidding, not in the least. Because most of what humans do, think and worry about every day is pure fiction.
The most fundamental form of insanity is... an inability to distinguish what is real from what is fiction; what exists from what does not exist; what is from what is not; something from nothing. In fact, nothing can be more fundamental than this.
YET... the ability to distinguish what is exists from does not exist is precisely the ability that virtually every human being on the planet has lost. This most fundamental requirement of sanity has been brainwashed out of virtually every human being on the planet by endless repetition, positive reinforcement, and punishment for any significant resistance to becoming thoroughly insane.
-----
One reason humans seem utterly unable to "do anything about" the problems virtually everyone "feels" in the modern world is... because they don't see what are the fundamentals of the problem. Most folks hear some gripe that appeals to them, adopt that gripe, and ignore everything else.
That leads to the world we see today... endless useless or barely relevant efforts to "fix things" (most of which involve some form of "authoritarianism" and thus can't possibly "fix things"), and virtually ZERO cooperation to actually fix things. That would require humans to get to the bottom of the modern problems that annoy them, and address the one or two simple fundamentals that are the cause of all of them.
What is most fundamental? Learn to distinguish what is real, and what is not. If humans were to take that one action, they would know what actions are required. And that one actions really shouldn't be asking too much, because that action is necessary to become sane in the most fundamental way. That shouldn't be asking much of human beings.
BUT IT IS.
Which is why... humans are finished.
-----
RIP... Irwin Schiff... RIP.
It's Just A Ride
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYwV0fqEQrw
BRAVA!!! Amen, and right on. Very few understand as you do that all forms of authority are illigitimate. There are only 3 laws, which we are all born with, including full ownership and control of our person, property and interactions which nobody has the right to infringe upon. All other laws are either a restatement of these, or invalid.
Copied your post to revisit from time to time.
The criminals who call themselves US government, and most other entities that claim authority over others, will soon collapse. Then, if enough understand these simple and universal truths, we will have the opportunity for an infinitely better future of mankind.
There are only 3 laws, which we are all born with, including full ownership and control of our person, property and interactions which nobody has the right to infringe upon. All other laws are either a restatement of these, or invalid.
You delude yourself. What you enumerate there are the fictions honestann describes. Gravity... that is a law.
No, gravity is not a law. Seriously. What do you imagine? That the "law of gravity" makes all objects in the universe (that have mass) move the way they move?
Sadly, even many physicists think this way... that "laws of physics" control reality, just as "laws of man" supposedly control humans.
Maybe you don't actually think that's how "law" works, but your formulation makes it seem you do.
Nonetheless, whatever you believe, what is this "law of gravity"? What is the nature of that law? Does that law exist? In what form? Show me some. Point at it. Kick it. If it is something real... show me some.
One funny factoid about gravity (that 99.999% of physicists don't even realize), is that "gravity is not a force".
I'm not saying there is no referrent at all to the concept "gravity". Well, not quite. There is an aspect of reality that one could identify with the term "gravity", though it does not involve a physical force of any kind, in any way shape or form. However, if someone wants to counteract that part of the motion of an object that is caused by the phenomenon generally called "gravity", one could do so with some OTHER kind of force (since "gravity" is not a force).
-----
I have to agree with you that humans are extremely sloppy with the term "law". In fact, this is a term so abused, so manipulated, and so completely twisted by so many people... that thinking with the term almost always leads to intellectual malfunction and error.
As far as I'm concerned, the term "law" is yet another fiction. One might be able to find some strange situation in which some very carefully limited and narrow meaning might be legit... but I can't find one.
In physics, what passes as "law" is simply "a description". Nothing more. And in fact, all these descriptions are narrow in context... in the sense that a great many other influences exist that also cause consequences. Plus, in popular meaning, the "law" is typically imagined or explicitly stated to be "outside and separate from" the phenomenon itself. Which just goes to show, "law" is fiction (virtually always, if not always).
Show me some.
Let me see you float out of your chair.
Wouldn't that be me showing you the absence of gravity? Or perhaps some same-pole magnetism?
Wouldn't that be me showing you the absence of gravity?
Not really. The sum of voltages in a loop is zero. The sum of currents into a node is zero. Yet neither observation says there is an absense of current or voltage.
We have permanent magnet devices that act as magnetic switches using this concept for magnetism. You turn a knob 90 degrees and it removes a magnetic element from a loop, thereby enabling a net magnetic attraction. Once turned, no additional power is needed (unlike an electro magnetic relay).
If we could discover such a device for gravity it would be a really really big deal.
Or perhaps some same-pole magnetism?
Yes.
However, if someone wants to counteract that part of the motion of an object that is caused by the phenomenon generally called "gravity", one could do so with some OTHER kind of force (since "gravity" is not a force).
Is magnetic attraction caused by a force?
I don't understand magnetic attraction enough to know. However, my guess is, what we call "magnetic attraction" is not a force, but an interference effect in the fundamental field. So is "gravity".
However, the formulation of your sentence is incorrect. If "magnetic attraction" is an appropriate description of the phenomenon (which it may or may not be), then the force IS the attraction, rather than caused by the attraction.
I don't understand magnetic attraction enough to know.
As a species, human beings know far more about magnetism than they do about gravity. Yet you know about gravity and not magnetism. This is a good thing. Cars without wheels may become a reality with your unique genius. Go girl!
However, the formulation of your sentence is incorrect. If "magnetic attraction" is an appropriate description of the phenomenon (which it may or may not be), then the force IS the attraction, rather than caused by the attraction.
And just how far did that marvelous observation move the wagon down the road?
In physics, what passes as "law" is simply "a description". Nothing more.
Fine. What more is needed?
And in fact, all these descriptions are narrow in context... in the sense that a great many other influences exist that also cause consequences.
Fine. Name another influence that causes two bodies to be attracted to each other. I'll start you off with the Bernouli effect. Another is magnetism. Are these law? Notice, one is called an "effect". Is that a distinction without a difference? Widen the context honestann.
Plus, in popular meaning, the "law" is typically imagined or explicitly stated to be "outside and separate from" the phenomenon itself. Which just goes to show, "law" is fiction (virtually always, if not always).
Should we be using a different term when we refer to things like Ohm's law, the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc.? If so, go ahead and serve up the word and we'll start this conversation again. My prediction: Any word you serve up is a fiction (probably of the English language). So what?
Here's another fiction I would like you to work on:
Someone must first save before someone else can make a trading promise and get it certified (i.e. create money). It's the fiction I have lived under my full 70+ years. It's the fiction that has allowed governments to steal from me through inflation and money-changers to steal from me through arbitrary interest collections, and international bankers to steal from me through their farming operation they like to call the business cycle.
You are clearly in a different space honestann. And most great advances usually come from people in a different space: Tesla, Copernicus, Fermi, Boyle, Maxwell ... and notably "not" Einstein.
It would be a major advancement if you (from your space) could show us how to reverse and block gravity as we can magnetism.
These aspects of reality you're talking about are phenomenon, quite fundamental phenomenon in fact. They are certainly not laws.
There are no "laws" in nature... unless you want to call those mental-units in humans that they label with the term "law". But if you do that, then you'd have to say that "Santa Claus" is the mental unit... not the referrent of that mental unit. But if you do that, anything that can be imagined is real (a real mental unit), and there is no such thing as "fiction". But that approach is pure psychosis... a psychosis that most human beings suffer from to a very great degree. Like whenever they imagine "law", "state", "nation", "official", "authority", "corporation", "government" exist.
-----
To certify something doesn't change the thing it certifies. Furthermore, if something exists... is real... it does not depend on being certified.
-----
I understand to a significant degree what is the nature of reality that corresponds to what humans call "gravity". Unfortunately, I haven't managed to figure out the elusive "key" understanding required to "block gravity" or "reverse gravity". Perhaps if I spent more time on those problems I could. But I'm busy helping a small team of scientists re-implement smarter than human inorganic consciousness... to make it also faster than human consciousness (which the prototype wasn't, but an unfortunately wide margin).
-----
How should humans talk about phenomenon like electrical resistance ("Ohm's Law") and so forth, to avoid misleading themselves? In many cases, perhaps all that's necessary is to simply change "law" to "relationship" (where the equation describes a relationship between certain aspects of reality). That doesn't cover every so-called "law", but just go through them one by one, look at them carefully, and figure out what is the more precise term.
The "space" I'm in is simply "look at every mental-unit very carefully and then identify what that mental-unit refers-to in reality... if anything". That's a necessary part of my job, and a fundamental part of being sane... one that the vast majority of humans avoid (since they are strongly encouraged to since birth).
Definition of law from dictionary: a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
HA: These aspects of reality you're talking about are phenomenon, quite fundamental phenomenon in fact. They are certainly not laws.
Do you want me to give you the dictionary reference so you can get those people to correct their definition?
HA: Like whenever they imagine "law", "state", "nation", "official", "authority", "corporation", "government" exist.
From the same dictionary: the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
You may want to get them to tweak that definition as well.
I understand to a significant degree what is the nature of reality that corresponds to what humans call "gravity". Unfortunately, I haven't managed to figure out the elusive "key" understanding required to "block gravity" or "reverse gravity".
Not that long ago the same was true of electro-magnetism. All they had to make them look into it was the "lodestone". They've really come a long way since then. Pretty amazing work with those "mental-units".
Perhaps if I spent more time on those problems I could. But I'm busy helping a small team of scientists re-implement smarter than human inorganic consciousness... to make it also faster than human consciousness (which the prototype wasn't, but an unfortunately wide margin).
Scary. Are they getting "help" from anyone else, or do you have an exclusive.
How should humans talk about phenomenon like electrical resistance ("Ohm's Law") and so forth, to avoid misleading themselves?
Stop talking and start doing. Demonstrate!
In many cases, perhaps all that's necessary is to simply change "law" to "relationship" (where the equation describes a relationship between certain aspects of reality).
Where were you when Copernicus, Bruno, and Gallaleo needed you?
That doesn't cover every so-called "law", but just go through them one by one, look at them carefully, and figure out what is the more precise term.
Would you consider yourself a scientist? ... or simply a linguist?
The "space" I'm in is simply "look at every mental-unit very carefully and then identify what that mental-unit refers-to in reality... if anything". That's a necessary part of my job, and a fundamental part of being sane... one that the vast majority of humans avoid (since they are strongly encouraged to since birth).
Fine.
A person is a corporate fiction, fake as the day is long. Never identify with "your person," i.e. your legal NAME. We are spiritual beings that should be living by one rule and one rule only- do not harm others or their belongings in any way, shape or form. That's it, period. BTW, you don't own your property. As long you pay taxes on something, you do not have allodial title.
I always read your posts and find them accurate and informative. This one has been one of your best.
Honestann, I ask you: Do property rights exist?
I'll answer the question as if it was asked of me.
A right is "a defended claim". Make no claim and you can expect no right. Make a claim and fail to defend it and you can expect no right.
So property rights do exist (because I claim they do). And my claim is defended by my county government (in the form of a record made by the county clerk) and by a title company (in the form of insurance). Before title insurance, real estate owners needed to maintain and protect an abstract document that recorded every transfer of rights leading up to current claims. Where my defense fails is with government itself. They can take anything they want (while hiding who "they" actually are). My choice is to "stand and deliver" or take out as many as I can as they annihilate me.
All are fictions, honestann. They are not like gravity. None existed before they were created. And all were created by smudges on paper ... or worse, word of mouth that became lore. To the greater extent, they are an opaque process.
So everything you write may be correct honestann, but it is immaterial. The system we have now is better than no system at all. Unfortunately, it has deteriorated significantly in the life span I can know personally ... that spanning from my grandparents and parents spoken descriptions to my own personal experience ... about 120 years.
We know from reading Maclay's journal that this organism we call government began to putrefy the day it was installed.
Your message is a self-fulfilling prophesy (or formulation). Yes, what you declare to be the basis of "property" is a fiction... nothing more than a declaration, just words. Also, "rights" are fictions.
This is indeed very similar to some humans sitting around a table, smearing ink on paper, and simply declaring (with verbal and/or written words) that "nation" exists, that "government" exists, that "everyone must obey them".
So your train of thought is correct. What you mean by "property" is fiction.
-----
However, what I mean by "property" is not fiction. My meaning of property is, in fact, extremely real. In fact, it is just about as directly real as one could imagine.
How so?
The notion "property" simply identifies and directs your attention to [one instance of] the most fundamental aspect of reality possible... existence. Nothing is... or can be... more primary and fundamental than "exist" AKA "real" AKA "is" (as opposed to "does not exist" AKA "fiction" AKA "is not").
For any thing/entity/existent to exist, the thing/entity/existent must be created (except for the entirety of the universe, which is eternal).
Far and away, most things in the universe are created by "natural" entities, actions and processes in the universe. Those entities, entities and actions that cause something to exist are called the "cause". Quite obviously, "cause" and "effect" AKA "causality" is an exceedingly fundamental aspect of reality.
In this context, what I mean by "natural" is, all actions and processes except for intentional actions and processes taken by a sentient being (like a human).
However, the cause of some things/entities/existents is intentional actions taken by a sentient entity. For humans, "sentient being" typically means "human", but also means any other organic or inorganic sentient being.
So, what did I just identify and describe? The answer is, "causality applied to human action". What I specifically identify here is, "humans creating things/entities/existents". In other words, "humans creating goods and goodies".
NOTHING could be more real.
Humans are REAL.
Actions humans take are REAL.
Things/goods/goodies humans create are REAL.
NOTHING in or about the above is "fiction".
And so, if this is what I mean by "property" (those things/entities/existents/goods/goodies created by intentional human actions), then "property" is absolutely, positively, 100% real... and 0% fiction.
And indeed, this IS what I mean by property.
-----
And so, you and I are both correct.
What you mean by "property" is fiction.
What I mean by "property" is 100% real, not fiction.
Also note this. My "property" is still my "property" if someone holds a gun to my head while his partner runs away with my "property". The fact that I do not defend my claim is entirely irrelevant. And that is true because my meaning of "property" IS real, and 100% based upon reality.
By your meaning of "property" (or "property right"), you must say the thing they stole from me was NOT my property, because I was unable to defend myself, that thing, or my relationship to that thing. The same would be true if my airplane vanishes while I'm asleep... I was unconscious and unable to defend anything.
-----
I am perfectly aware that the process of me clearly and precisely identifying and understanding the nature of reality (and important concepts like "property") does not make the other 7 billion humans change their behavior. No kidding! I also understand that the predators-that-be don't care whether I or anyone else is correct or not, because they will do whatever they wish, regardless of anything anyone knows.
-----
BTW, did you notice that you just justified everything the predators-that-be do? Do you realize that you defend their claim that "everything in the universe belongs to us, and everyone in the universe must obey us"?
Do you understand that?
Because THEY MADE THAT CLAIM... endless times.
And THEY DEFEND THAT CLAIM (with cops, military and endless egregious actions against those of us who create/produce the goods and goodies that we and they need to survive and life an enjoyable life).
And therefore, by YOUR meaning or "reasoning", the predators-that-be have a right to enslave and destroy each and every one of us, and take everything we have created.
Hopefully understanding this will make you think again about your meaning of property... and the consequences of holding such a meaning as valid.
-----
I'm not sure I'm "against" what you consider "the system we have". Well, in one sense I sure am. But in another sense, just the opposite. I'm not willing to accept BS assertions. And so, what I have done (above, and in many messages here in ZH) is to provide 100% reality-based, 100% precise identifications and explanations of reality and the fundamental nature of reality that JUSTIFY many of the concepts you and many folks consider important. Because as with you, virtually NOBODY defends those concepts in a valid way. This not only defeats your support for good and potentially valid concepts, but often ends up with you supporting the human predators that you hope to defend yourself against. That's precisely what you did in this case, as I illustrated above... hopefully by accident.
Also, "rights" are fictions.
But claims are real ... even if they are unfair. And defenses are real even if they protect fictions. So how are rights not real when their two components are obviously real.
This is indeed very similar to some humans sitting around a table, smearing ink on paper, and simply declaring (with verbal and/or written words) that "nation" exists, that "government" exists, that "everyone must obey them".
Anyone can make a claim. Few can really defend them.
So your train of thought is correct. What you mean by "property" is fiction.
Fine. Give me a word to use for something like real estate or this keyboard that I'm typing on that is not "a fiction".
The notion "property" simply identifies and directs your attention to [one instance of] the most fundamental aspect of reality possible... existence.
Does my keyboard not exist? Does the property that my shelter sits on not exist?
For any thing/entity/existent to exist, the thing/entity/existent must be created (except for the entirety of the universe, which is eternal).
Oh really? And what supports your making that distinction. Things that exist must be "created" ... but the "creator" doesn't have to be created? Eternal works both ways ... forever before as well as forever after.
Quite obviously, "cause" and "effect" AKA "causality" is an exceedingly fundamental aspect of reality.
But it's not required that something also must cause the cause?
what I mean by "natural" is, all actions and processes except for intentional actions and processes taken by a sentient being (like a human).
I have a friend who has no sense of hearing. Is she more "natural" than me because she is less sentient?
For humans, "sentient being" typically means "human", but also means any other organic or inorganic sentient being
You really like to cherry pick your context. I have dogs and chickens. All have senses I don't have. They may even be totally more sentient than I am. As near as I can tell, they are "natural" ... as am I.
In other words, "humans creating goods and goodies".
So services ... like this education you are giving ... are not in the subject context?
NOTHING could be more real.
Descartes: "I think ... therefor I am". Now really!
Pascal's wager: Pascal's Wager is the argument that states that you should believe in God even if there is a strong chance that he might not be real, because the penalty for not believing, namely going to hell, is so undesirable that it is more prudent to take your chances with belief. Now really!
Things/goods/goodies humans create are REAL.
But real estate (a basket of rights ... i.e. defended claims) is not real. Go figure.
And so, if this is what I mean by "property" (those things/entities/existents/goods/goodies created by intentional human actions), then "property" is absolutely, positively, 100% real... and 0% fiction.
Excrement ... real. Dirt ... not real.
What you mean by "property" is fiction. What I mean by "property" is 100% real, not fiction.
Pretty messy language isn't it. How do we carry on any conversations at all? And yet, somehow we both know we're not talking about Brazil's MOE.
Also note this. My "property" is still my "property" if someone holds a gun to my head while his partner runs away with my "property". The fact that I do not defend my claim is entirely irrelevant. And that is true because my meaning of "property" IS real, and 100% based upon reality.
A really great mind from Arkansas once said: "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is". So now comes honestann: "It all depends on what the meaning of "my" is". Now really!
By your meaning of "property" (or "property right"), you must say the thing they stole from me was NOT my property, because I was unable to defend myself, that thing, or my relationship to that thing.
I didn't limit my definition of right to "property right". I see no reason to do that. Also, honestann, you must now dissect your meaning of "my" as you have parsed everything else.
The same would be true if my airplane vanishes while I'm asleep... I was unconscious and unable to defend anything.
So defense cannot take place without your personal direct action? But defense "can" take place "with" your personal action? Obviously both suppositions are fiction ... they are wrong.
No kidding! I also understand that the predators-that-be don't care whether I or anyone else is correct or not, because they will do whatever they wish, regardless of anything anyone knows.
Is there significance in your choice of words: "knows" over "does"?
BTW, did you notice that you just justified everything the predators-that-be do?
BTW, did you notice that "I" take responsibility for everything "I" do ... and for what the predators-that-be "do to me"?
You know that old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ...um um ... you can't fool me twice.
Do you realize that you defend their claim that "everything in the universe belongs to us, and everyone in the universe must obey us"?
Not only do I not realize that ... I don't agree with it. If some alien (a contextual term) shows up and breaches my defenses, my calling "foul" is not going to change the result. I must find the kryptonite.
Do you understand that?
Probably not. For darn sure I don't agree with it so I guess understanding is still potentially out there.
Because THEY MADE THAT CLAIM... endless times.
Who is "they" you are speaking of here?
And THEY DEFEND THAT CLAIM (with cops, military and endless egregious actions against those of us who create/produce the goods and goodies that we and they need to survive and life an enjoyable life).
And there are obviously chinks in their armor. The sword of Damocles.
And therefore, by YOUR meaning or "reasoning", the predators-that-be have a right to enslave and destroy each and every one of us, and take everything we have created.
Correct. And if you don't agree with that you need to serve up a better (and truer) definition of a right. I suspect you will have to inject morality (a fiction) into your definition somewhere. Right and wrong are pretty subjective things. Defense of right and wrong is less subjective. The proof is in the pudding.
Hopefully understanding this will make you think again about your meaning of property... and the consequences of holding such a meaning as valid.
"Hopefully" for whom? If I catch myself starting to agree with you honestann, I will probably have myself committed.
And so, what I have done (above, and in many messages here in ZH) is to provide 100% reality-based, 100% precise identifications and explanations of reality and the fundamental nature of reality that JUSTIFY many of the concepts you and many folks consider important.
Ayn Rand made the same claim with her incessant use of the word "epistemology". In her own mind "what is ... was". Heck, I don't think she even tried to define the word.
Because as with you, virtually NOBODY defends those concepts in a valid way.
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? If you close the refrigerator door, how do you know the light is not still on ? (Hint: there are tests that can prove it).
This not only defeats your support for good and potentially valid concepts, but often ends up with you supporting the human predators that you hope to defend yourself against.
I don't know a single human ... or even a single animal ... or even a single plant ... a single living thing ... that is not a predator. Do you? Are you not a predator honestann?
That's precisely what you did in this case, as I illustrated above... hopefully by accident.
If there's anything precisely muddy, it's your illustrations and proofs honestann. Hopefully you are not an accident. There's always that chance that what you are engaging in here is conscious "doubletalk". If so, I hope you are entertained.
But back to the assertion: A right is a defended claim.
Prove that wrong. Show where it doesn't perfectly describe real world behavior and effects. Offer up a better more objective definition if you can. To simply call it "a fiction" will not get you the Nobel prize ... oh wait, these days it probably would.
I can't have an effective conversation given that kind of reply. To understand my way of understanding the subject matter requires understanding several concepts and elements of the subject, then also understanding how they all fit together into a coherent whole.
When you take bits and pieces and make many side comments like that, it becomes impossible to follow-up with a coherent reply. I could write several paragraphs explaining each of your replies, but then you'd just splinter each of those up into a dozen side comments, making the whole even more incapable of intellectual digestion.
I'm not sure how to lead another mind (with many decades of assumptions and context already established) to comprehend these issues. I know some authors are excellent at figuring out the order material must be presented to be more effectively consumed, but probably I'm not very good at that skill. Even if I tried, I'd have to write a whole [rather huge] book, because the totality of my understanding of these issues requires my understanding of a great deal of more fundamental issues, and so forth.
I suppose this is "the trick" of learning from reality. When we learn from reality (rather than simply absorb whatever a collection of books claims), we get observations and experiences of reality in a mostly random order (except for experiments we purposely construct and run). Since most people absorb their mental contents mostly via hearing and reading what others say, they have a very different approach (and wildly different content) than I do.
But I'll answer a few questions and comments you made.
-----
Your approach amounts to "might makes right". If some pack of evil, nasty, human predators asserts "we are the authorities of earth, and everyone must do as we say", then they steal enough money from people to fund enough paid-thugs to intimidate most people to mostly comply with their demands, then they have made a claim and defended that claim.
And so, they have a "right" to do that, according to you.
I would hope most thoughtful people would find that objectionable! And, in fact, pretty much destroying the entire reason to create the concept "rights" in the first place.
-----
Yes, the "land" part of "real-estate" is not legitimate "property", because the so-called "land owner" did not create the universe, or the earth, or the rocks and dirt they claim to "own".
However, presumably they did create (and thus own) all the improvements on that parcel of land. For example, the house, the underground pipes, the furniture, the plants growing in the garden, the fence around the perimeter, and so forth. ALL these created improvements are property... because they were intentionally created by the owner (either directly, or indirectly via exchange of property).
Therefore, in practice (in an honest world), depending on the configuration of the parcel of land and the various improvements, other humans might be able to walk across the "parcel of land" without harming any improvement. In which case, they would not have harmed anyone's property, and thus not be subject to any reasonable complaints or retaliation.
-----
I have no idea why you would assume that "the land not being part of your property" means "the land does not exist". That's insane!
If that was the case, the entire universe beyond earth does not exist, because nobody owns it? What kind of wacky notion is that? Yikes!
-----
About animals. The terms "sensory" and "sentient" are not synonyms. At the very least, "sentient" requires clear, enduring, consistent self-awareness and sense of "identity", plus abstract conceptual consciousness. Those animals aren't sentient, even though they definitely do have some superior sensory abilities.
BTW, I don't want to imply (as many do), that just because animals aren't sentient, that somehow it is okay to abuse them, torture them, cause them pain. I have not addressed how non-sentient beings should be treated, so please don't assume what my position is on that issue.
-----
I should have pointed the following out above. The following doesn't really mean much from a fundamental point of view, but it should seem significant to many people given their beliefs.
To most people who believe in most notions of "god" and most religions, the reason "god" is the "absolute authority" of the entire universe is because... he is the creator of the universe.
One might notice that the "property" relationship I identified above is very much the same... the "owner" is the "creator" of the property, and is therefore the "absolute authority" over the property he created (those limited pieces of the universe).
To say "you are owner" is to say "you are creator".
That's how most folks describe the core of religion, and the core aspect of the relationship between their fictional "god" and the universe (and why man must obey what he/she says).
-----
Pascal's Wager is stupid... incredibly stupid! If god did exist (and he wasn't a complete jerk), to PRETEND you believe in god has to be the most offensive of the alternatives. To honestly believe would be okay (obviously). To honestly NOT believe would at worst be a mistake (which is simply a mistake, and therefore not in any way malicious), but to pretend you believe is completely dishonest and corrupt.
If god is indeed omniscient (which pretty much all religions claim), than surely god would know you're a dishonest creep, and save the worst fate of all just for you.
Now, I don't want to pretend I'm some kind of god, but... I'd have a very difficult time throwing honest individuals who made an honest mistake into a pit of fire for all eternity! If that was the nature of some creature, then that creature is the most vile, revolting, disgusting creature in the universe --- which goes without saying, eh?
Certainly nothing to praise! Certainly not the basis of "right" and "benevolent".
HOWEVER, what that kind of treatment perfectly describes is... what? A mean, nasty human predator of the leader/politician variety who wants absolute compliance from his slaves. Which says something about religions, and their notions of god, does it not? They are quite clearly NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with good, with honesty, with fairness, with benevolence, or with anything good. They are, in fact, precisely a pack of predators with a story to scare endless victims into submission.
To all such creatures, my answer is the same: I refuse to be governed.
-----
I chose the term "natural" above because it is the common term in such circumstances. You have read many times before that I object to the term "artificial" in the term "artificial intelligence"... with "artificial" supposedly being opposite of "natural".
So, what I'm saying is, I don't personally agree with the term "natural" and "artificial" in that conversation, but I chose it to avoid going off into a long tangent to explain that whole issue.
That's why I put the term "natural" in quotes, and why I explained briefly that the real, relevant distinction was "intentional creation" versus "all other actions". BTW, you have read huge long messages I've written previously where I've gone into depth about the fundamental bifurcation of mankind. From the time all humans were "predators" because they didn't know how to be "intentional creators"... to the time some humans "split off" (behavior wise) to become "producers" who were in fact very much self-consciously "intentional creators". So I had hoped you would understand from all the above what I was talking about.
-----
As I said before, "rights" is a fiction. Therefore, I simply have no position regarding "rights"... either "rights of the common folks" or "rights of human predators". However, that is entirely separate from whether the term "property" is a valid, legitimate concept, or is yet another fiction. And I answered that by explaining precisely what is the fundamental (causality) relationship between "a sentient being taking actions with the intention of creating something that does not now exist" and "the created entity" which follows from these actions (which we call "property").
-----
Note again. If I take actions with the intent to create something of value to me, and those actions do in fact cause something of value to exist, then that something IS my property. This is a fundamental metaphysical relationship, which one could call "causality applied to productive human actions". That is why my more clear, valid and fundamental meaning of "property" does not require a "claim", "demand" or "registration"... or any defense.
Now, in practice, I might find it appropriate or necessary to say "hey, that is mine", and I might find it appropriate or necessary to "chase someone away" or "grab it back out of someone's hands" or "recover my property from someone's back yard". But that is entirely separate from whether some piece of reality is my property or not. THAT is determined by metaphysical fundamentals... whether I am the creator of that something.
-----
You say "morality is a fiction". Not necessarily. I'm sure you've seen me state my meaning of "natural ethics" before (all other so-called "ethics" are merely baseless assertions, and thus inherently invalid).
I've written the natural ethics soundbite here in ZH a dozen times or more. It goes something like this...
Every individual should enjoy/bare/suffer 100% of the consequences of his actions, and enjoy/bare/suffer 0% of the consequences of actions taken by others.
If you look at the contents of that statement, you will find zero fictions.
What you will find is...
individual --- real, physical sentient beings (as in "humans").
consequences --- real, physical interactions caused by real actions.
actions --- real, physical actions taken by individuals (humans).
You might notice something else, related to the whole "property" discussion. That is, again we find ourselves focused on one of the most fundamental aspects of reality (causality) as applied to human actions.
Think about it. Causality AKA "cause and effect". Well, guess what? The "cause" portion is "human actions". The "effect" portion is "consequences".
And so, there you go. This is a 100% natural ethics that is also 100% real and 0% fiction.
Obviously the fact that natural ethics is 100% real and 0% fiction doesn't stop endless humans from formulating massively arbitrary fictional nonsense and calling that "ethics" (or "morality", which I take as a synonym). Which is why you seem to assume "ethics/morality must be fiction".
Well, in the case of "natural ethics" as I've describe it... that's a 100% real relationship of 100% real entities and 100% real actions, with 0% arbitrary and 0% fiction.
In other words, we simply create the term "natural ethics" to identify and refer-to a completely real, and extremely fundamental aspect of reality. Well, certainly "causality" is extremely fundamental. One might argue that since it only applies to "sentient beings", and more than 99.999999999999% of the universe is not sentient beings, that maybe this part of ethics isn't so fundamental.
Yes, one could reasonably argue that. However, within the context of "human beings" and "human existence"... natural ethics is extremely fundamental. But yes, we must also freely acknowledge that sentient beings/existence is an infinitesimal percentage of the totality of the universe. That's true. However, that doesn't render any aspect of "natural ethics" unreal or fictional. It merely informs us that it doesn't apply to the astronomically huge quantity of actions and consequences that occur in the universe with little or no influence by actions taken by any sentient being. Nonetheless, to any sentient being, "natural ethics" is a crucial relationship between sentient beings, the reality they interact with, and other sentient beings.
But "fiction"? Nope. Not "natural ethics". Which is why that's the only kind of ethics or morality I pay attention to (because all others are fiction, as you correctly stated).
-----
I don't really provide any proofs. I simply identify aspects of reality that I'm rather sure you already know about, and say "that's what I mean by xxxx (insert concept)". That's why my approach really isn't subject to error. We already agree those aspects of reality exist. Now, you might not believe those aspects I identify are ones you consider important (in some context), but they exist nonetheless.
So I really have nothing to prove. You know "reality exists". You know "reality contains actions". You know "actions have consequences". And so forth. All I do is point out that common concepts (like "ethics") should refer-to certain aspects of reality you and I and pretty much everyone already knows about.
-----
If you want to spend your life with a mental-unit labeled "right", and inside that mental-unit is "any defended claim", then you may do so. It is not for me to demand you to adopt my understanding that "right" is a fiction. If you really believe that meaning is appropriate, then keep it.
I know better. And so, I try to explain. If you don't understand my reasoning, or you disagree with my reasoning, then ignore what I say.
But this raises a fundamental issue about [conceptual] consciousness. What is the nature of mental-units and reality? What is the appropriate nature of mental-units and reality. What is the correct and appropriate contents for any given mental-unit?
At a very fundamental level, the answer is completely utilitarian. There are no inherently "correct" mental-units. Well, I suppose if you were omniscient (an inherent impossibility), then maybe there would be "correct" mental-units. But not for any real sentient being that has to acquire evidence and understanding of reality through observation and experience.
Any real, physical sentient being must struggle to find "the set of mental-units that best correspond to reality". At any given moment, that means "the set of mental-units that best correspond to that tiny subset of reality that I have observed and experienced so far". And as we must all admit, that subset is a tiny subset.
Fortunately, the universe is incredibly "regular" in some very important and fundamental ways. No matter how many billion light years we look into the universe, we see the same atoms/elements, the same molecules, and [pretty much] the same behaviors (emission, absorption, magnetism, "gravity", etc).
And so, at least we have a chance. If we stay alert, remain energetic and curious across decades of observation, experience and struggle to understand reality, we can find sets of mental-units that effectively identify, describe and sometimes even "explain" the reality we see.
As a sentient being, this means every single mental-unit (beyond raw observations and experiences) must be a "provisional mental-unit" in at least three ways.
First, does the mental-unit [as constituted] actually refer-to reality (something that exists)? If not, we should remove it, or label it one form or other of "fiction" so all further accesses of the mental-unit will not be taken as "applying to reality".
Second, does the mental-unit [as constituted] refer-to the intended aspect of reality in the most clear, concise, direct, precise and complete way possible? If not, then time and effort should be expended to figure out how to tweak the the contents of the mental-unit to make it more clear, concise, direct, precise and complete [as possible].
Third, is the mental-unit [as constituted] appropriate at all? In other words, aside from the question of "real versus fiction", does the aspect of reality this mental-unit identifies of sufficient significance to justify storing the mental-unit in the first place? If the contents are just a confused, incoherent mishmash of nonsense, which is common for mental-units formed and filled via language (as opposed to first-hand observation and experience).
Beyond this is another huge (perhaps monumental) challenge! Is the entire set of mental-units that populate your consciousness coherent? To understand reality well not only requires each mental-unit be valid, carefully formulated and carefully populated with content... but the endless relationships between mental-units must also be coherent. Remember, a great deal of the contents of mental-units are other mental-units. Yes, for simple, direct, macroscopic physical aspects of reality, simply a set of observations and experiences of the referent are quite effective and largely sufficient content. However, for more complex aspects of reality (including most relationships, processes and phenomenon), much of the content of a mental-unit is references to other mental-units.
Which means, the totality of mental-units is a MASSIVE interconnection of mental-units. Also, virtually all those interconnections are provisional inferences. Every single one is subject to removal (woops, mistake) or massive revision (given more observation, experience, understanding, modification of mental-units referred-to, etc).
At first glance, given the astronomically huge chaos of interconnection of inferences (all of which are provisional and thus subject to various degrees of modification or elimination), it seems like an impossible task to "keep consciousness coherent".
Which may help explain why most humans don't even try... they just accept whatever nonsense stories are "popular" in their part of the world.
-----
When it comes to the mental-unit you call a "right", my conclusion is... "this is an arbitrary fiction" that humans created in a misguided attempt to identify something important. While the aspect of reality they were trying to address is indeed important, they simply weren't able to find a highly coherent way to create, populate and organize their mental-units. I did better. That doesn't mean nobody will ever do better than me. To be sure, not every mental-unit in my brain is formulated and interconnected in the most appropriate manner! However, given that my focus in life is advanced consciousness, and given how incredibly important it is that we make our inorganic consciousness completely sane and coherent, we have invested a huge amount of time, effort and attention into understanding the nature of valid, coherent, effective, advanced consciousness... and implementing that.
I'd love to say, "this is easy". I'd love to say, "just make sure each mental-unit is valid and coherent... and your whole consciousness will be coherent". Unfortunately, the process in reality is not nearly so simple. While this is probably the best "first-order" approach, what is required is periodic revisits of every aspect of every mental-unit to assure internal coherence, external coherence, and effectiveness.
I know, that doesn't help much.
Too little time and space.
Your approach amounts to "might makes right".
Wrong. In fact "might" is a pretty weak defense.
And so, they have a "right" to do that, according to you.
According to me, and pure simple logic, a "right" is a "defended claim". Refute it.
I would hope most thoughtful people would find that objectionable!
Find. Make your case. What would "thoughtful people not find objectionable"?
However, presumably they did create (and thus own) all the improvements on that parcel of land.
Careful. You're going to trap yourself. If I "own" the improvements but not the land they sit on, what difference does it make? As long as my improvements are there, you don't have a "right" to replace them with your improvements do you?
other humans might be able to walk across the "parcel of land" without harming any improvement.
And if I turn my "appropriated: land into a putting green? By the way, how did I appropriate the land? First come first served?
I have no idea why you would assume that "the land not being part of your property" means "the land does not exist". That's insane!
Maybe you need to explore where you got that idea. It didn't come from me.
If that was the case, the entire universe beyond earth does not exist, because nobody owns it? What kind of wacky notion is that? Yikes!
Such notions derive from what you write? That's why I take what you write to illustrate.
About animals. The terms "sensory" and "sentient" are not synonyms. At the very least, "sentient" requires clear, enduring, consistent self-awareness and sense of "identity", plus abstract conceptual consciousness.
Oh really.
From the dictionary: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>.
Are humans the only "beings". Is that how you exclude my use and interpretation of the word? Remember, I gave you the example of my deaf friend and asked if she was less sentient. I gave the examples of my animals and asked if they were more sentient. The dictionary bails me out ... not you.
Those animals aren't sentient, even though they definitely do have some superior sensory abilities.
Prove it. From the entimology: early 17th century: from Latin sentient- ‘feeling,’ from the verb sentire . This suggests only one sense ... and that sense is wildly claimed. You "feel" things in your "heart". Really?
I have not addressed how non-sentient beings should be treated, so please don't assume what my position is on that issue.
What is your test for whether a being is sentient or not. When I'm away from my dogs for more than two feedings, they are clearly happy to see me.
To most people who believe in most notions of "god" and most religions, the reason "god" is the "absolute authority" of the entire universe is because... he is the creator of the universe.
How do you know it's a he? What raw materials did she use? If she was needed to create the universe, what was needed to create her.
the "owner" is the "creator" of the property, and is therefore the "absolute authority" over the property he created (those limited pieces of the universe).
That's cool. You've made a claim. Now enforce it. Enforcement of a claim usually begins with proof of its validity. Got any?
To say "you are owner" is to say "you are creator".
Says honestann. And a pretty absurd statement it is. I did not create this keyboard I'm typing on. But I challenge you to claim I'm not the owner. You make such ridiculous statements ... sentence after sentence after sentence. I presume what you write forms the basis for your thinking. So, if you thinking is valid, your writing must be valid too. It's not!
That's how most folks describe the core of religion, and the core aspect of the relationship between their fictional "god" and the universe (and why man must obey what he/she says).
So god is fictional? Finally, we are in agreement.
Pascal's Wager is stupid... incredibly stupid!
Agreed. Clerics tried to get Thomas Paine to make a similar statment in support of religion on his death bed. He refused. Yea Paine.
A mean, nasty human predator of the leader/politician variety who wants absolute compliance from his slaves. Which says something about religions, and their notions of god, does it not?
Religion is a tool (a form of government) invented by some clever person or persons to otain behavior and control over other persons. It's a gimic ... and 96% of the world's population buys into it. Have you read "The man who would be King" by Kipling?
I chose the term "natural" above because it is the common term in such circumstances.
Sometime you insist on precision. Sometimes you are sloppy.
why I explained briefly that the real, relevant distinction was "intentional creation" versus "all other actions".
Whatever floats your boat.
BTW, you have read huge long messages I've written previously where I've gone into depth about the fundamental bifurcation of mankind.
Actually I have not. I can find something in your writing that is disputable in the very first sentence and paragraph. Assuming it forms your premise, I challenge it right there without going on. You have never done anything but insinuate I don't have standing to challenge you. To me, that's not a valid defense. To educators and judges it is.
From the time all humans were "predators" because they didn't know how to be "intentional creators"... to the time some humans "split off" (behavior wise) to become "producers" who were in fact very much self-consciously "intentional creators".
I presume you won't eat animals. What would you do if some brilliant scientist proved plants are sentient? Copernicus had such an impact. Took 400 years for the ship to change course.
As I said before, "rights" is a fiction.
So you have no use for the concept of "rights", right?
And I answered that by explaining precisely what is the fundamental (causality) relationship between "a sentient being taking actions with the intention of creating something that does not now exist" and "the created entity" which follows from these actions (which we call "property").
There's no precision in your answer whatever. As soon as you dissect what you actually do in going about creating things, you are using things "you" did not cause.
That is why my more clear, valid and fundamental meaning of "property" does not require a "claim", "demand" or "registration"... or any defense.
Kind of a weak proof.
THAT is determined by metaphysical fundamentals... whether I am the creator of that something.
Ah. Metaphysical fundamentals. So much stronger than religion.
You say "morality is a fiction". Not necessarily. I'm sure you've seen me state my meaning of "natural ethics" before (all other so-called "ethics" are merely baseless assertions, and thus inherently invalid).
No, I have not. How do you feel about the "golden rule"?
Every individual should enjoy/bare/suffer 100% of the consequences of his actions, and enjoy/bare/suffer 0% of the consequences of actions taken by others.
Makes "employment" a pretty silly concept doesn't it.
So, if I entice you in any way at all to create a hole for me, I have no way of owning that hole. What a concept!
we find ourselves focused on one of the most fundamental aspects of reality (causality)
You find yourself focused on that. I find causality to be totally irrelevant. My hole example speaks volumes in this regard.
The "cause" portion is "human actions". The "effect" portion is "consequences".
So, by your way of thinking, you can't even lead a horse to water, let alone make him drink!
And so, there you go. This is a 100% natural ethics that is also 100% real and 0% fiction.
And so, they you go. Writing nonsense and declaring yourself the winner in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.
Which is why you seem to assume "ethics/morality must be fiction"
You have given me no tools to distinguish between perceptions that are real and perceptions that are fictions.
Well, in the case of "natural ethics" as I've describe it... that's a 100% real relationship of 100% real entities and 100% real actions, with 0% arbitrary and 0% fiction.
So, since I haven't read your soundbite (and I bet it's much bigger than a bite), I have no idea what you're talking about. I do know from personal experience that "common knowledge" is far from common, so I would expect "natural ethics" to be far from natural. I know from my own children (and their peers), they seemed to have a "natural ethic" to fight and take ... and had to be taught not to do those things. Then as they became adults, they were taught to do those things again. Go figure!
Nonetheless, to any sentient being, "natural ethics" is a crucial relationship between sentient beings, the reality they interact with, and other sentient beings.
You have a huge reliance in this "sentient being". It's really a rare case that I come across one of these so-called sentient beings that is not simultaneously self deluded. Actually, I don't think I've ever experienced such a person. I constantly test my self for this quality ... as I am doing now with you.
But "fiction"? Nope. Not "natural ethics". Which is why that's the only kind of ethics or morality I pay attention to (because all others are fiction, as you correctly stated).
I think you need to rewrite this sentence. Presumably you are sayin "natural ethics" is the only kind you pay attention to. But where is the "natural ethics" meter. Where is the litmus test?
I don't really provide any proofs. I simply identify aspects of reality that I'm rather sure you already know about, and say "that's what I mean by xxxx (insert concept)". That's why my approach really isn't subject to error.
I've given you specific after specific where you are in obvious error. This reply is at 50% such instances. How am I supposed to conclude your approach is not subject to error?
You know "reality exists".
Actually, I'm immersed in confusion in this world. Up is down. Left is right. Black is white. Sexual confusion abounds. I read what you say and you declare it convincing. Yet, I'm not only convinced, it reads as absolute doubletalk to me.
You know "reality contains actions".
I don't even know that "you" know that. For me, that's a false premise ... and unuseful one at that.
And so forth. All I do is point out that common concepts (like "ethics") should refer-to certain aspects of reality you and I and pretty much everyone already knows about.
So this sexual confusion we're immersed with these days is of no import?
I know better. And so, I try to explain. If you don't understand my reasoning, or you disagree with my reasoning, then ignore what I say.
And I shall ... until you come to me and tell me my real-estate is not "mine".
What is the correct and appropriate contents for any given mental-unit?
What is a "mental unit" and why is it needed?
There are no inherently "correct" mental-units.
Presumably this should now be common knowledge to me from reading you "soundbites" and deducing them to be obvious.
Any real, physical sentient being must struggle to find "the set of mental-units that best correspond to reality".
And presumably that would preclude the sexual confusion that abounds. And the disagreements between atheists and the god fearing. And the disagreements between the vegans and the meat eaters. And the disagreements about what money is and is not.
that tiny subset of reality that I have observed and experienced so far". And as we must all admit, that subset is a tiny subset.
And it is riddled with illusions and dillusions.
No matter how many billion light years we look into the universe, we see the same atoms/elements, the same molecules, and [pretty much] the same behaviors (emission, absorption, magnetism, "gravity", etc).
No. we see electro-magnet spectra which we think we have learned to interpret. But at the same time we have galaxies exhibiting "red shift" proving they are moving away, yet being affected by quasars which exhibit no red shift. The big bang boys won't touch that one with a fork.
As a sentient being, this means every single mental-unit (beyond raw observations and experiences) must be a "provisional mental-unit" in at least three ways.
We can't go there without a definition of a mental unit and some evidence that such a unit exists and can be measured.
Beyond this is another huge (perhaps monumental) challenge! Is the entire set of mental-units that populate your consciousness coherent? To understand reality well not only requires each mental-unit be valid, carefully formulated and carefully populated with content... but the endless relationships between mental-units must also be coherent.
How can someone claiming mastery of mental-units produce such incoherent discourse?
Remember, a great deal of the contents of mental-units are other mental-units.
Before I can "re"member, I must first member. I have not yet membered.
Yes, for simple, direct, macroscopic physical aspects of reality, simply a set of observations and experiences of the referent are quite effective and largely sufficient content.
The Earth was flat and was the center of the universe for a very very long time. The variable speed of light and refutation of the theory of relativity coming to a theater near you.
At first glance, given the astronomically huge chaos of interconnection of inferences (all of which are provisional and thus subject to various degrees of modification or elimination), it seems like an impossible task to "keep consciousness coherent".
I agree. Can't get there from here. Guess we'd better get back tos something useful, like counting all the grains of sand on all Earth's beaches.
When it comes to the mental-unit you call a "right", my conclusion is... "this is an arbitrary fiction" that humans created in a misguided attempt to identify something important.
Really? Humans, as in plural? And to think I've made it 70+ years and never run into such a human. Of course in the context of this conversation, I have no real evidence that "you" exist.
I did better. That doesn't mean nobody will ever do better than me.
Not knowing who "they" are, who's to disput it.
To be sure, not every mental-unit in my brain is formulated and interconnected in the most appropriate manner!
How did these mental-units get in your brain? Are they in my dogs' brains? How do we know they are ... or are not?
However, given that my focus in life is advanced consciousness,
Does someone under the influence of LSD have "advanced consciousness". Haven't I heard that they do?
incredibly important it is that we make our inorganic consciousness completely sane and coherent,
So consciousness is made up of atoms ... but not of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon atoms? Or are we talking about some other kind of "inorganic"?
While this is probably the best "first-order" approach, what is required is periodic revisits of every aspect of every mental-unit to assure internal coherence, external coherence, and effectiveness.
So you're still on your first iteration with this? Have any converts? Will the world be a "much" better place when we all convert?
I know, that doesn't help much. Too little time and space.
I think Maxwell originally had fourteen equations. Turned out he only needed four ... so space might not be a problem. Now time, that's another matter entirely.
Note: I have not taken the time to go back and proof read my comments and observations. I just typed them as I read each sentence you wrote and delivered my reaction. Thanks for your indulgence.
What nonsense. Have a nice life.
To both of you--I enjoyed the exchange and appreciate your efforts tapping it all out.
At an exclusive table for history's most honorable, Irwin Schiff will sit next to Socrates.
Condolences, Peter and family, and thank you for your principled endeavors.
What can we do, to get justice, but speak out. I am very sorry for your loss, Mr. Peter Schiff.
My condolences. This is not only very sad for the Schiff family but for all of America.
Words fail me to express my sorrow at the death of this great man. Unfortunately, he believed in the rule of law and the constitution. The government does not.
My condolences to you and your family, Peter.
USA--I guess this is an example of Obamacare, in so many ways
RIP Mr. Schiff.
RIP Mr Schiff. Your life and message were no spent in vain.
This simply shows how futile it has become to change the existing system which is corrupt beyond redemption. Use the dark net wisely. Fight asymmetrically. Give no quarter. We will be called upon soon. Remember the best weapons are those not seen, the best tactics not noticed. The gray man blends everywhere. God speed.
Imagine how great America could become if it was a government of the people by the people and for the people.
"We the people..." was bound to fail. Americans don't need government.
what makes nations prosperous is not capitalism or socialism or democracy or religion.
the key to prosperity of nations is FREEDOM
R.I.P. Irwin Schiff
You can't fight City Hall, I'm sorry to say.
Maybe not with the use of force. However, we should all always insert something like "the criminals who call themselves" before "US government" or references to any other central government whenever we speak or write of them. If everyone did this all the time, it would help accelerate the self destruction of these criminal gangs, so that true freedom can exist.
What are you guys waiting for? Stop paying taxes, bring down the Man!
The man doesn't actually need your tax money. He prints his own. It won't be anything but a moral stand.
R.I.P. Irwin Schiff
Government and this "democratic" and "monetary" system is completely broken.
It's time "regular" people take action, reset it and start anew....
I read The Biggest Con many years ago. I have never forgotten.
Leviathan only works for the powerful and connected. Fk the rest of us.
the us guv did more for that old fuckin libyan terrorist supposedly dieing of cancer. . . Got a hero's welcome home
Muther fuckin nazis burn in hell.
Apparently he didn't pay his taxes. Stupid.
apparently the criminal US Gov is raping, robbing, torturing and murdering it's citizens. STUPID is as stupid does.
We are often very hard on Jews on this blog. Irwinn Schiff, like von Mises, was a great and courageous man, a credit to humanity, and proof that each individual must be assessed individually. He dared to fight overwhelming odds for the cause of freedom. He has my respect, may he RIP.
So True. RIP IRWIN SCHIFF
Amen
rest in peace
A true hero of liberty from the monstrous criminal gangs who call themselves US government, the state, or any other form of centralized government that steals in the name of "taxation" with the threat of force for any who dare to not comply with their unjust demands.
We should all always insert something like "the criminals who call themselves" before "US government" or references to any other central government whenever we speak or write of them. If everyone did this all the time, it would help accelerate the self destruction of these criminal gangs, so that true freedom can exist.
Two heroes. Irwin Schiff for his patriotic stand against a tyrranical government and Peter Schiff for his courage to support his father. And the likes of Hillary, Lois and ex govenor of New Jersey run loose.
Im so sorry for your loss, Peter. May he rest is peace
Condolences to Peter and his family.
"How anyone can stop paying taxes". A very irresponsible statement. Agitating on the wrong side in the wrong manner has it's consequences.
you forget the laws of the universe....for every action, there will be a consequence. The size and weight of the criminal US government will bring about an especially large reaction. I will raise a toast the day some group of people decide the appropriate action is to unleash nature's fundamental equalizer on the District of Criminals.
Did you mean to cite Newton's third law, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."?
"I will raise a toast the day some group of people decide the appropriate action is to unleash nature's fundamental equalizer on the District of Criminals."
Americans - always leaving the laws of nature to someone else.
Which has nothing to do with my original statement.
Americans - always talking, never listening.
We listen if someone has something *worth* listening to say, not just troll-speak...
Condolences to Peter Schiff...
My condolences to The Schiff Family.
American's are in deep truble. RIP
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." Voltaire
God bless you Irwin Schiff. May you now rest in peace. Free at last, free at last, free at last.
Help stop Jew on Jew crime. End the Fed...and the IRS. It's all the same.
While I would not suggest that anyone attempt any of the arguments proposed by Mr. Schiff, what is at issue is his incarceration during his last days.
Clearly, he was no threat to anything (including the system itself) in these last months. This was an opportunity for the government to get a little revenge. Needless to say, it is not a pleasant thing to watch.
Let this be another example in the file of our exceptional American freedom. Onward Soviet!
So, first we are taxed by the IRS, then when we purchase goods and services and are taxed again, then those who received our "taxed dollars" are taxed on them (gasoline, lawn service, Walmart purchases, etc.) and this cycle continues until 98 cents on every dollar ends up in the government's pocket - man I wish I had that deal!
I've always had a great deal of respect for Peter Schiff but didn't know about his father's contribution to society until today. He was an idealist, someone who read the letter of law and did his due diligence then used his knowledge to educate others. Was he "crazy?" I don't think so... I think it's typical to demonize anyone who questions the status quo and label them as "crazy." The "problem" as I see it is not with Irwin Schiff, it's with the rest of society or the "mindless unquestioning majority of society... the sheeple." I'm sure Mr. Schiff hoped people would catch onto "United we stand, divided we fall" but the trouble is he was a lone wolf out trying to round up other wolves who he mistook for wolves but were actually chickens." I'm certain he died a disillusioned man who held contempt for the IRS but even more contempt for the majority of American's who condone, accept and feed into a system they've handed their independence over to.
Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with Irwin Schiff's ideals, what matters is he had the courage to stand up for them no matter the consequences. His biggest mistake was believing he was dealing with "law-abiding" citizens in the IRS, the FEDS who raided his office, those who shackeled him to his bed in his "golden years", etc.
Therin lies the trouble, people recognize and admire people like Irwin who stick to their convictions but very very few will join people like him because they are afraid of the consequences. Irwin was not afraid and I applaud him for that - among other things he did in his lifetime. His son Peter should be proud of his father's legacy and inversely outraged by the way his dear father was treated by "the authorities"... I know our founding fathers would be outraged to see what they built has morphed into, how Corzine et al are pardoned for crimes on a MASSIVE SCALE while the "little guys" like Irwin are locked up and "made examples of." We all hope that the punishment should fit the crime... trouble is those who hand out the punishments are more focused on pleasing the powers that be than they are with right and wrong. Right and wrong are outdated and unrealistic ideals in a world ruled by corrupt money, egos and power. Oh and don't watch too many movies where the "hero" prevails over the "bad, rich, powerful" guy(s) and believe for a second those hollywood movies are anything but a pipe dream in reality.
The evil bastards and criminals at DOJ and BOP need to be made to pay.