AdamC

I agree; it's not a conscious choice during childhood. My point - and the point of posting the series of quotes above - is that it may be a 'choice' (at some adulthood-inducing choiceness level) to continue to use these defenses during adulthood. And, even if it's not entirely accurate, conceptualizing adult Social Anxiety as a choice, seems to be the more empowering perspective: It is unjust, both to myself and to others, to be afraid of people who have *not* attacked me (but I understand where that fear comes from). Yes, that fearful infliction/injection of anxiety into other people as Cheryl describes above. It was out of my concern for what I was choosing to do others that made me reconsider the idea I was the only sufferer of my Social Anxiety; others were made to suffer too. I guess the 'script' worked exactly as planned to keep me isolated.

On second thoughts, I think following your contention is far more interesting. Suppose what I wrote was and is intended to be understood as an argument: "No one is obliged to accept any argument as valid." And you reply: "Well then I am not obliged to accept that I am not obliged to accept any argument as valid." Exactly! Neither of us is obliged to accept as valid any argument – including this/that one. There may very well be consequences to our not accepting even valid arguments as valid. But even if we ourselves accept them as valid, neither of us are obliged to give any indication to the other that we have accepted the argument as valid. And the consequences of not giving an indication (taken as an agreed fact of the denial or acceptance) may be that we can't continue our communication, or can't trust each other in our dealings, or one of us (likely the one in denial or just plain misunderstanding) makes some catastrophic miscalculation about physical reality. But there isn't any obligation.And this is my point to the OP. Your friend – whether he/she agrees or not – is not obliged to perform any physical gesture and/or verbal uttering to communicate to you that he/she accepts any of your arguments as a valid. You might like some kind of indication, but there is no obligation to give it. In one moment I can deny a valid argument, and in the very next I can affirm it. But at no time am not obliged to offer denials and affirmations. You might attempt to reason with me, but I am not obliged to be reasonable! In fact, your assumed obligation may be thoroughly unreasonable given that you possess particular criteria for 'reasonably' communicating acceptance of your arguments of which I am not aware.Now, perhaps I'm wrong (and being thoroughly unreasonable). Perhaps there is some kind of positive moral obligation – above our mutual preference for it – that demands we respond in some particular way to deliver each other intersubjectively ascertainable denials or affirmations of our acceptance of the validity of arguments.Would someone care to articulate this obligation?

The block to speaking one's truth/experience is self-inflicted as a defence mechanism and as the result of using one's judgment. But necessary childhood defences can be proven maladaptive during adulthood.

Read my statement again.

Agreed. Thanks for taking the time to make it clear.

I agree he owns the modified material, but by definition, modified matter isn't "land", it's "property".

Show list: https://pinboard.in/u:fdrpodcasts/t:social-anxiety/ The above quotes speak to a paradoxical view of Social Anxiety: Social Anxiety is the result of *your* unjust infliction of *your* power of acceptance/rejection upon other people. Put simply, by fearing the rejection of (non-FOO) people, you place yourself in a Victim position and them in a "one-up" Persecutor position (see: The Drama Triangle). If they are good people, then you will and should fear their annoyance for having been typed by you as abusive, since that is unjust and thus reprehensible. And if they are bad people, then you will and should fear both them and yourself for giving them the okay to abuse you by typing yourself as Victim (i.e., by self-attacking). Fearing the rejection of FOO people might be better described as Separation Anxiety (a child's mortal fear of abandonment), which is where the adult habit of Social Anxiety (i.e., victimizing yourself by inflicting your power of acceptance/rejection upon others) comes from.

No one is obliged to accept any argument as valid.

Other than geoanarchist rent-sharing, I have not found a "right"/rule that justifies such an exclusion to unmodified natural resources. Regarding the modification of a "plot" of land... Is the entire plot modified or just a part of it (i.e. only handfuls or shovelfuls of earth)? If the entire plot *isn't* modified, why would anyone except as valid the claim that the entire plot of land is "owned" as property? Either modification of matter is the standard of verbalized property ownership claims, or it is not. If not, what is the standard? Just verbal claims? How do mere verbal claims prevent conflict?

Procrastination is: The Avoidance of Shame; Shame Follows Failure; Failure is Death; Choosing is Death; Not Choosing is Death.

I would be interested in reading this. Seems that you are a fellow perceiver (divergent thinker). From the Secret Lives of INTPs book (available at Oddly Types):

I'll just leave this here: Oddly Developed Types: INTPs and ADD

Why Geoists and Market Anarchists Can and Should Be Friends by Gil Guillory and Fred Foldvary

YouTube: The Mystery of the Left Hand Thesis: Left-handedness is due to elevated levels of testosterone in utero. 00:32:00: Left-handedness check: Height of left and right testicles.

Having been converted, I'm very interested in this topic but haven't found any research to share. Though I have no memory of it, apparently, at age 5, I was forced to write with my right hand by the teachers at school. About 10 years ago I rediscovered my original handedness via the stepping off a curb test, and after resolute practice, am now ambidextrous. Very interesting. Thanks for sharing this.

Stan Tatkin [wikipedia] [blog] studies attachment issues arising within intimate adult relationships. Some resources: Allergic to Hope: Angry Resistant Attachment and a One-Person Psychology Within a Two-Person Psychological System by Stan Tatkin (PDF) Addiction to Alone Time: Avoidant Attachment, Narcissism, and a One‐Person Psychology Within a Two‐Person Psychological System by Stan Tatkin And a podcast interview series: Stan Tatkin: Putting Your Relationship First: Lessons from Your Brain on Love: Part 1 | Part 2

What definition of "land" are you using? What do you mean by "their land"? I'm sure we can agree that he didn't create any space. He moved stuff around in space. He created property (a boat, a dock, some nets, many captured fish, and a house) by transforming physical "land". Perhaps you're asking if he deserves (in the sense of being unquestionably entitled to) "recompense" for his human action? I say, no. The Labor Theory of Value is false. He doesn't own value, he owns his property which others may value in terms of the property they are willing to exchange. He can't demand others give him their property in exchange for his just because he believes his property has value. If he wants a monetary reward, he needs to make an exchange. Nothing has value prior to an exchange; value is discovered in trade. Regarding the prosperity of the locations/exclusions... What do you mean by the word prosperity? Do you mean the property resting at those locations/exclusions that he and others have created by transforming physical "land"? Do you mean the increased value of access to those locations/exclusions as measured by the property people would be willing trade in order to secure limited or exclusive access? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the potential property that could be transformed from the "natural opportunities" available at those locations/exclusions if limited or exclusive access could be negotiated? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on their current and potential access to the labor (employers and employees) available at those locations/exclusions? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the opportunities to trade that are available at those locations/exclusions? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the social opportunities available at those locations/exclusions if limited or exclusive access could be negotiated? What would the lone fisherman be claiming with respect to this prosperity? What would all the others working at those locations/exclusions be claiming with respect to this prosperity? The amount of his labor appears to be that which was necessary to produce a boat, a dock, some nets, many captured fish, and a house.

Also: FDR 0329 Property Rights On A Desert Island (MP3)

"...develops a plot of land..." What definition of "land" are you using? (You'll notice I'm very careful to express what I mean by "land" because I'm aware of potential confusions.) What exactly is it that he's developing and how? (Please describe in visual terms so I can clearly envisage what is happening in the physical world.)

Glad you're finding what I've written useful. I have no published articles. My expressed arguments are my own, but I do want to indicate where I first encountered and then adopted certain terms and arguments: A Landlord is Really a Type of Tax Collector by Mike O'Mara: Distinguishing spatial "land" from physical "land": no person made the land (that is, spatial locations, or the natural resources there) Accepting that at ALL times, a fence is only a fence: "to claim land, mix your labor with it, such as by cultivating it, or fencing it." That principle might enable someone to own the top few inches of soil, and the fence itself. But how would it enable someone to own a mineral deposit twenty feet below the surface, or air space twenty feet above? Using the term "location value" in place of "rent" when it's not certain others understand what rent means: If a person possesses more than an equal share of land value (based on location value, not the buildings there) that person is displacing others from land, and therefore owes them a displacement rent, equal to the difference between the total location value that person possesses and the per capita location value. Titles to land would then be compatible with liberty.

Isn't that the labor theory of value? The prospector moved their body in space seeking some kind of material advantage. So where is the material of the sought advantage? Did they transform physical "land" into property? They certainly didn't transform spatial "land".

Definition: LAND: The entire material universe exclusive of people and their products. As far as I understand it, the "Homesteading Principle" isn't a moral argument, rather it is an attempt to define property. I argue the "Homesteading Principle" is internally inconsistent in its attempt to define property. That is to say, it is an argument containing two propositions that contradict each other: (1) Property is the result of human action applied to things in space - [Possible] (2) Property is the result of human action applied to space itself - [impossible] For the concept of property to be useful, it has to be the result of something possible and actual. (1) is possible. (2) is impossible. The "Homesteading Principle" is thus no principle at all. It should be called the "Homesteading Preference" - the preference to refer to "land" (spatial land, in particular) as "property" despite the fact that it is not the result of transformation by human action. If someone can demonstrate human action being applied to space (2) with an objectively verifiable result (e.g., space being relocated to another space, or more space being produced), then I'm happy to accept the "Homesteading Principle" as internally consistent. But moving things around in space (e.g., setting out a fence in an attempt to "emborder" space) is not sufficient to demonstrate (2), it only demonstrates (1). And if (2) cannot be demonstrated by BOTH reason and evidence, then why should anyone accept it as derivation of property? At best the notion of "Homesteading" is an attempt to harmonize two opposite ideas about property: (1) Property is derived from human action, and (2) Property is derived from non-human action (or property is not derived from human action but is derived by decree). The problem with asserting (2) is that (1) inevitably loses its meaning! It seems far more sensible to say there is a "Property Principle" based strictly on human action on things (1), and an "Exclusion Principle" – a manifested desire to exclude others from accessing a location/space with a commitment to respect the exclusions of others. Both of these principles are then available to proof by non-contradiction (i.e., argumentation ethics and dialogical estoppel). As I wrote earlier in the thread: When Anarcho-Capitalists claim they "own" land, they are not claiming to have transformed spatial land (which is impossible) but are claiming to have made an effort to alert others of their wish to exclude others from a location (by "embordering" that location with a fence) in order to protect the property resting there, property which is the result of their human action (e.g., a planted field, house). The role played by man in production always consists solely in combining his personal forces with the forces of Nature in such a way that the cooperation leads to some particular desired arrangement of material. No human act of production amounts to more than altering the position of things in space and leaving the rest to Nature. — Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit A farmer farms/plows/tills his soil, that is, he transforms physical "land" into fertile soil as his property which he thus owns. He then attempts to protect his property by denying others access to the location in which his property rests. But he doesn't (and never did) own "land", and hasn't appropriated "land", only soil: In the very act of appropriation, the physical "land" he grasped/relocated became his property, and what he did not grasp/relocate remained as "land" or "nature" (Mises). Transformed physical "land" is called "property". Untransformed physical "land" is called "land" and is said to be "unowned" and therefore not property since it has yet to be transformed. We "own" things as property because we have transformed them, the minimum transformation being to relocate a thing in space (e.g., to grasp and it reposition it). Basically, we own our transformations since only they are our own. When we accept that we cannot grasp space, cannot relocate space, cannot relocate a location, then we can accept that spatial "land" is not the result of human action, and therefore not available to the idea of property. Human action applied to physical "land" creates property. We can use the term "land" to refer to that which is NOT property. If we want to be specific, we can divide "land" into "physical" and "spatial" (or similar descriptors) - this fitting with our empirical observations. A skyscrapper or city or airplane is an accumulation of "things in space" (Mises), the rest being "land" or "nature" (Mises). A human body or any other legitimate from of transformed property is an accumulation of "things in space", the rest being "land" and therefore not property. To say a skyscrapper is "land" is to say that what was the result of human action has reverted back to nature i.e., it is unowned. For the purposes of common understanding, it is either a skyscrapper or it is "land". Whilst it is true that all property derives from transforming physical land, we don't call a car "land" or a human body "land". We apply linguistic labels to the things we transform in order to communicate their intended purpose. I don't accept the idea of a skyscrapper being called "land", but will gladly acknowledge that a skyscrapper is the result of transforming physical "land", and that it rests in spatial "land". Resources exist in space. Space is a resource (in the sense of being useful to humans), but space can't be produced by human action, and can't be moved or otherwise transformed by human action. Thus we distinguish transformed physical "land" (i.e., property or capital) from untransformed and untransformable spatial "land" (i.e., non-property or "land"/location). Capital occupies space; land is space. — Mason Gaffney, Land as a Distinctive Factor of Production We neither own physical nor spatial "land": We can only transform physical "land" into property (and thereby create a verifiable objective/intersubjective "ownership" of that property via our "own" transformation), and we can only use spatial "land" i.e., locate and relocate in space our bodies and other forms of legitimate transformed property. To paraphrase Mises: Property amounts to no more than altering the position of things in space. --- I could be massively wrong about all this, and fully acknowledge that I'm questioning centuries of tradition. But tradition isn't necessarily based on reason and evidence, and I can only be corrected by reason and evidence.

This conflates exclusion with "ownership". (I anticipate you won't agree that it is a conflation.) It is true that the contestor can't demand an exclusive exclusion, accepting as he does the value of excusion to them both, and also the common humanity and thus equal access to universal moral principles. Because "land" isn't property, what's going on here – morally – is this: Is the contestor willing to initiate aggression against the body (property) of the prior excluder in order to compel him to give up his exclusion? Phrased another way: There are two people standing in space trying to negotiate the location of things (their bodies) within that space. Will they peacefully negotiate or not?

Every location is a monopoly; there is no human action that creates more space! Humans have a desire to exclude, and for exclusion to have any meaning, the rest of the humanity is necessarily excluded. This is why I back away from the geoist *should* of compensation to all humanity. This should implies that if people are not currently sharing rent, then they are acting immorally, and some kind of action will be taken (by those acting morally) to compel them to start sharing rent. But people aren't already explicitly sharing geo-rent (except very minimally in places like Arden, Delware), and I lack the imagination to see how people can starting act morally – right now, this second – in accordance with the standard geoist *should*. Thus, I regard this *should* as unreasonable. I agree we should always look for mutually beneficial ways to interact with each other and not resort to violence to give only the appearance of settling disputes. Compensating members (of a proprietary community defined by a geographical area) for spatial exclusions makes sense IF you wish to live in a community without rent-seekers and where the members can appeal to an objective principle in order to settle exclusion disputes. (I think it is vital to note that these sorts of disputes will likely only arise in locations where there is superior "land" nearby. And since there's no way to anticipate in advance this superiority without a market for exclusions, we can't know that the people locating themselves there *could* or *should* share rent.) I imagine rent-sharing is only possible on a voluntary basis within small scale communities, and I anticipate that some of these communities will combine to become greater associations and thus furthering the standard geoist aim of "all humanity". I accept every human being needs access to physical and spatial "land", and also accept that to be a living human being, one must already be enjoying access to at least spatial "land" – e.g., I have access to my body (transformed physical "land"), and my body is located in space (untransformable spatial "land"). BUT – the great geoist (or "geo-classical") insight is that we don't – and can't – all have access to the same quality of "land" (market-assessed by the economic and social opportunities) and thus there exist inequalities of opportunity that predatory rent-seekers seek to capitalize on. So I completely agree that – IF the need arises – compensating others for restricting access to locations makes sense. Perhaps that sense is a kind of moral justice. I'm not sure. Convince me!

Thanks for starting this thread. I'm always fascinated by people's self-knowledge processes. I'm in a similar situation: I had to stop therapy prematurely due to financial concerns. I started regularly journaling at least a year before starting therapy. For me, given my childhood experiences (or lack of them), therapy was about experiencing an attuned and empathetic relationship rather than gathering and processing intellectual insights. The big insight (or just the recurring insight) was how much I intellectualized about the therapeutic relationship to defend myself against the relationship (and all other relationships). So, I'm somewhat cautious about journaling, recognizing that, for me, it can be an easy defense against relational experiences. Nonetheless, journaling has been – and continues to be – very useful, and these are the journaling strategies/habits that work for me: - Using dreams to gain spontaneous access to mecosystem parts/subpersonalities/schemas. I journal most (but not all) dreams using the Gestalt method [1] [2] where every object/character within the dream is given a voice and the events and relationships within the dream are explored from its point of view. I've been amazed that some of the most integrative ideas and insights have been generated from the very smallest dream fragments. - Collecting images/photos that represent mecosystem parts/subpersonalities/schemas, and arranging and relating those images to each other in a way that seems to make sense. I gave up trying to name or apply verbal labels to parts. I'm more interested in feeling their feelings and facilitating their non-verbal expression. - Collecting quotations and processing notes taken from books, articles, and FDR podcasts. The books I've found particularly rich and evocative are: Character Styles, Interpersonal Process in Therapy, and Existential Psychotherapy. Also, The Eight Domains of Integration detailed in Mindsight might be useful for creating a broader plan of self-work. - Writing pages about the "moments" I've experienced by SIFTing (Sensations, Images, Feelings, Thoughts) through them in as much detail as I can recall. I find myself going back to these pages to process and integrate the recent insights I've gained. This going back seems to relax something within me, as if an older, wiser me is back there in that moment providing real-time support and understanding to the younger me. Those are the most satisfying experiences I've had whilst journaling. - Writing diaries on days when something particularly noteworthy has occured, but mostly relying on dreams to surface and communicate anything deeper that I've missed or am too defended against acknowledging. - Writing "morning pages"/brain dumps whenever I've found myself daydreaming, ruminating, or having repetitive imaginary conversations. I'm usually surprised at what comes out once I start externalizing. I make no effort to tidy up or process these brain dumps; I like the idea of having a purely spontaneous/messy space in my journal/life where things are left unresolved and perhaps unresolvable. - Meditating to open up my awareness and lessen my distractibility. - Adding to three lists: (1) self-attacks; (2) desires/wishes; (3) fears/regrets. - Most of my journal is written as questions to avoid premature conclusions. Journaling became more of a habit after I began rephrasing my thoughts as questions, perhaps because it left issues open for other parts to add their view and thereby lessened intrapersonal conflict and resistance. - I tried sentence completion exercises and self-directed IFS convos but rebelled against the structure. - I use a TiddlyWiki as my journal.