Slashdot Mirror
Domain: sacredcowproductions.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to sacredcowproductions.com.
Comments · 7
-
"Property Rights" a contradiction
Well, I do have some acquired material possessions, some of which are very important to me. And I admit that I have a notion that the space around me "belongs" to me, and if nasty people enter into it without my permission (especially those that try to coerce me into taking my posessions or otherwise coerce me), then I feel I am violated.
But very often you hear Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, capitalists, lawyers, etc. talking about "property rights" . I want to question what "rights" are in general, and especially "property rights".
If things can be owned, then which things? Can land be owned? (Apparently Chief Seattle didn't think so) What about dogs, cattle, or chattel (slaves)? Can a "nigger" be owned? How about a whore? How about a ward of the State (prisoner or mental patient)?
(Personally, I believe that all creatures, all "things with eyes and a brain and a beating heart" no matter how different looking from me, are all animus, posessing the animating force. All these things breath (aspire), thus possess spirit, the breath of life. All animals are born free, perfect reflections of God, and are natural "persons", and cannot, and should not be "owned" or considered "ownable". Yes I am vegetarian and try very hard to not consume the products animals)
Consider: Can the title to a man's debt be owned? Many banks and bill-collecters think so. All over the world, ownership by the many is being displaced by ownership by the powerful few: men and corporations. Can one man or corporation own the ocean, or the earth?
I believe we all have a right to live and be free, to live our lives however we wish, as long as we are non-violent. But I queston all "rights" beyond this, including "property rights", because of a basic contradiction.
A right is inherent, intrinsic, or perhaps God-given. It is axiomatic, fundamental, assumed, not provable, but seems proper. A right is enjoyed by all, thus, non-exclusive. A right cannot be forfeited, waived, stolen, or transferred. No creature has a "right" to violate someone else's life or liberty.
Can "property rights" meet this definition? No, because "property rights" are by nature exclusive . "It's MY property, NOT YOURS!" So-called "Property rights" can only exist when denied to others. "Property rights" is a paradox!
Like I said, if you follow this line of thinking, it leads you to question some fundamental principles that we were all brought up believing. Perhaps this is how the evolution of ideas works.
Peace, -
Data is bogusThe overall rate is exponential.
- World pop in 1500 =
- 1800 = 1 B (doubling took 300 years)
- 1940 = 2 B (doubling took 140 years)
- 1960 = 3 B
- 2000 = 6 B (doubling took 40 years
The only problem is, whether the rate is increasing or not, it is undeniable that world population is increasing. Our nasty Western habits of meat eating increases our ecological footprint significantly, as it takes about 20 pounds of corn to produce 1 pound of beef. IF the world switches to a vegitarian diet soon (yeah, right), then it might be possible to support that many people. Otherwise, it's gonna get real ugly.
Also, if the estimates at Jay Hanson's site are correct, guess what happens when you combine a rising pop, and a rising demand for energy, with decreasing rates of returns on fossil fuels? Sure, there will be wars and suffering in the Mid East fighting over oil, but in the long run, it will be for naught. When the oil, gas, and coal run out, suddenly, people will resort to cutting trees for fuel at rates that will make the present destruction of the rain forests look miniscule. When the trees are gone, so will follow the climate.
Can we slow down on the rutting until we figure out this whole food, air deal? -- Bill Hicks
- World pop in 1500 =
-
No mystery
Capitalism is unsustainable, and the incredible growth of homo sapiens have enjoyed over the last 200 years (From 1 billion world population in 1800 to 6 billion today) is due to "spending" a bank account that was accumulated over billions of years: fossil fuels (source Thom Hartmann: The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight). We have reached the maximum rate of extraction, and this rate will begin to decline, while demand and human population continues to grow *expontentially* (source: Jay Hanson)
If by "capital" you mean money, then follow some of these links to The Creature From Jekyll Island By G. Edward Griffin: Money is not wealth, it is debt, perpetual debt, which can never be repaid (because the interest/usary is not created whithin the system), and thus always leads to bankruptcy, forclosure, "reposessions", sherrif's sale, and military actions, which the author calls modern Alchemy, since this is how the lead bullets of war are converted into gold.
Capitalism supports slavery. Capitalism encourages unsustainable population growth, depletion of natural resources, and the creation of waste products. "Property Rights" are paradoxical, since the enjoyment of this right must deny this very same "right" to another.
Isn't it time we figure out a different economic system that is sustainable, and less violent?
Ob Bill Hicks Quote on Economy:I'm glad that psilocybin mushrooms are illegal. Because when I took them, I laid in a field of green grass, thinking "I love everything!" I realized that our true nature is spirit, and that it is only illusion that we are apart from God, and that God loves us. So, can you imagine what would happen if everybody started experiencing Universal Love? I mean, how are we gonna keep building Nuclear Weapons when we realize that we are all one? It'd fuck up the economy! -- Bill Hicks
-
Implications for search engines...
So if distributing "harmful matter" (what Jello Biafra was accused of) is criminal, or if distribiting DeCSS or other "infringing speech" is criminal, AND if creating a link to such a site is equivalent to the "crime" itself, what will become of search engines?
So, soon all the search engines will universally adopt the list of banned sites from BESS, Netnanny, etc., and then the net will be truly safe for children! Nothing controversial, no illegal speech, no forbidden speech, and we will all be using our cable modems to download live streams of Barney and Teletubbies...
QUICK! Grab all the Bill Hicksi ndex.html (be sure to check out the "Positive Drug Story", it's a Hicks classic.)
-
A little education about the law
Please see the Lawful Arrest FAQ for the defintion of "crime", "cause of action", and "probable cause". For your reference:
A crime (corpus delecti) must have:- An Injury
- A criminal cause (not an accident or act-of-god)
- A right
- An Injury
- A petition for restitution
Probable Cause requires
Look, no one is denying that forcing a child to pose for nude photos (or worse) is a crime. And let's say some sicko scans them and posts them to Usenet. And let's say that Fred O. Phile likes to look at such pictures for erotic pleasure and downloads them from his ISP.
Ok, Fred is a pervert. But did he produce an injury to the child? No. The ISP is in the business of passing bits around. Did anyone at the ISP cause an injury to a child? No.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert that not every photo of a nude child actually produces an injury! BUT: if there was an injury produced, perhaps it was the guy that took the photo, and NOT the ISP, and not the guy that pulled it from a.b.p.k-p
And as my friend Jimmy Pineapple would say, "End of fucking story" -- Bill Hicks
-
Re:With all due respect...
bill hicks remains relevant years after his death... watch this bit: The War on Drugs
requires RealPlayer .
-
Do we see a pattern here?
The media/government doesn't want to recognise the obvious pattern here. They preach that drug addiction follows money. While this is a good coincidence and while money enables one to buy more drugs, it's not as if the mystical dot-com dream boy they seem to like to trumpet so much nowadays wakes up the morning after his IPO with a million dollars and having never experimented with drugs before or used drugs, runs out to a shady coffee bar and becomes a cocaine addict. No, this "dot-commer" (god I hate that phrase) used drugs all through high school, college, his first working years and right up to the day when he went IPO. Drugs AND money follow _intelligence_. This is not a beleif.. this is not a spin to put on the situation, this is a fact. And there is nothing wrong with it! The drugs that help these programmers stay up until 6 in the morning enable them to be MUCH more productive! The drugs that these people take on the weekends at parties help these people relax and enjoy themselves much in the same way that alcohol does, and in the same way as alcohol, these drugs must be used in moderation. Sure, there will be the few cases where someone loses control, someone fucks up and takes too much due to stupidity or lack of information about the drug they are taking or through addiction, but that is the exception to the rule. These are the same people that would die 10 years later in a drunk driving accident or because their bodies fail after constant alcoholism, but since this country is so wrapped up in the War on Drugs and Barry McCaffery's holy war of Publicity, the media will take the few exceptions and trumpet them as some sort of endemic.
To quote the prophet Bill Hicks, "If you don't beleive drugs have done some good things for us, do this for me, go home tonight and take all your records, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. Because you know all of those artists who have made all of that great music that has enhanced your lives, RRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEAL fuckin high on drugs."
to get more info on Bill Hicks, check out Sacred Cow Productions
Also, check out SmokeDot, a Slash-based forum on drug information at www.smokedot.org
//Phizzy