David L

Does property exist then? Not if we are all guests. Perhaps it is impudent on our part to think we are not. Have you noticed the latent violence and fear that lurk behind attitudes of ownership? And isn't personal property the underlying attitude of statism? Maybe ownership is not as necessary as we think it is. Maybe a lighter attitude of "letting go" affords us a more free and happy life-experience than mere exclusive clinging to the things and people of this world. If we are truly interested in freedom, we can experiment to see if existence DOES provide and take care of us in surprising and delightful ways we could never contrive for ourselves through burdensome, propertied relationships which, after all, only tend to keep us at odds with one another. Maybe this earth was meant to be freely shared and celebrated together, not rigidly divided and exclusively possessed. Maybe the concept of personal property is just a fear-based defense mechanism that's no longer working and needs to be left behind. What say you?

Guests who are invited to a dinner typically do not feel they need to own anything there. Any attempts to do so would be considered bad manners indeed. Perhaps the issue of ownership has arisen because we've lost all awareness that we are just guests here on this planet, not permanent occupants.

Why not? If I establish ownership over something by creating it with my labor, wouldn't this apply to my children? Yes, children grow into adults, but is the parents who make this possible. The same principle that allows a farmer to own the yeild of his crops apparently turns children into property if we universalize it. Thanks for the perceptive insight. Here's a previously related thread on this theme for anyone interested.... http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/35703.aspx?PageIndex=1

Just an aside here... As you don't own the air you breathe, you can't reasonably own your physical body which completely depends upon it. It simply makes no sense to try to do so, except as a temporary defense mechanism against those who would claim to own your body for themselves. Thus the concept of physical self-ownership cannot stand on its own as a life principle. It is a defense mechanism only.

Good thing I bring my own re-usable bags to the store. Wouldn't want to become a "check-out" slave. Chuckles. I'm guessing you don't throw your garbage out without using a bag. Which means, instead of using the bags they offer at the check-out, you purchase them instead. If so, good for you! They're applauding your conservative, ethical, and financial intelligence. :-)

Just a comment here: Giving a choice can be a deliberate strategy to get you to assume you are free. I believe that's why the Universal Grocery Checkout began a decade or so ago imposing a choice upon you without first asking the obvious question of whether it even mattered to you or not: "Paper or Plastic"? They are trying to unconsciously pound into you on a very regular basis the illusion that you are free, forcing you to make this superficial "choice", while they are actually taking away truly meaningful freedoms every day. It's a deliberate conditioning agenda based upon the technique of reinforced hypnotic suggestion. "Republican or Democrat"? A person who believes he's free won't rebel against the fact that he is not.

Apparently most Americans are ok with being spied on and treated as untrustworthy by their "government". But if "we the people" are untrustworthy, how can the people who claim to "represent us" be trusted? By definition, they must represent our untrustworthiness. It's not only insane but truly weird that people would trust people that don't trust them.

Yes, and it tends to corrupt the parents because they know in the back of their mind that they always have an unconditional bailout coming every year from their children, so there's little incentive in earning their child's TRUE respect toward them (by way of practicing truly sensitive and authentic caregiving). How convenient for the state, which potentially gains further allegience the more the children feel unloved by their own parents. I wonder if anyone has ever done a study to see if there's a correlation between the progressive breakdown of the American family, and the advent of Parent's Day. The state decreed Mother's Day in 1914 (a year after passing the Federal Reserve Act) and Father's Day shortly thereafter. Maybe there's some connection, I wouldn't at all be surprised.

Also, we could make mention that Parent's Day is a product of the State, right? You can bet if it didn't serve the State, the State wouldn't have sanctioned it and made it a permanent fixture of the national calendar. Just another foray into the take over of our children, by destroying their authentic bond with their parents and replacing it with a government made decree. Thus, whose the real parent here?

Parent's Day (Mother's Day/Father's Day). Shouldn't our past be left behind so that we can fully grow up? Why should we be saddled with an endless debt to the past? Doesn't that bog down everybody, former parents and their offspring alike?

Mishelle, I suspect you may relate to the work of Timothy Freke...? Here's a brief taste... http://www.themysteryexperience.com/lucid-philosophy/

Does Mother's Day and Father's Day keep us from growing up? It seems like we have a debt that can never be repaid here, and it constantly forces us to remain in the role of a subordinate child until our parents finally pass on. What do you think?

Mishelle...I don't know. IMO, if they haven't accepted the appearance of darkness in some measure then they haven't begun the needed work of integration of their shadow side, along with the shadow side of society as a whole. That would make their "light" phony and fabricated at best. In my experience, being real is what gets you closer to light. Of course it's scary to be real, especially in this lying society, but it's personally worth the risk in the long run. Why? Because we don't kid anyone but ourselves in the end. In esotericism it's called "dying daily". Dying daily to our false sense of self. Dying to our ego-self, which makes room for our true self. David

Thanks for sharing the article. It just goes to show that empircal sense evidence alone is insufficient for establishing an absolute foundation for the discernment of reality, yes? The very fact that we must access another mode of knowing than sense data alone (i.e., access our logistical mental cognition in order to free ourselves of these particular illusions of sense) indicates this must be so.

The best of the radical artists of literature always hide their message within the story, "for those with eyes to see". :-) King Aragorn to the hobbits: "My friends, you bow to no one"