Phuein

Yes, Jensen does identify this specific problem the same as I do. Still, going through his books and hearing him talk, which I've forgotten that I did previously, showed me that he basically makes the case for military-fashion resistance. A sort of guerrilla war against the industries & governments. This is something I cannot support, because I don't think it is reliable nor fair. We are having this discussion, because we are not willing to sacrifice our freedom, for the sake of strangers. We are not willing to police the behavior of others, even if we must suffer their mistakes. We cannot take responsibility for, or own, the mistakes others make; and if we cannot bring them to justice fairly, then we choose to, at least, not repeat their mistakes, knowing that time heals and wisdom mends. If it were not so, then, indeed, war would be the only conclusion to reach.

As always, the philosopher in me is trying to figure out the building blocks to human existence. This time, I started thinking that "if only had I a group of trustees, which I could do things together with; then, we could probably solve just about any issue we put our minds and hands to." A sort of 'power in numbers' thing, only without becoming a mindless mass movement. Maybe the problem with human society is that our way of deciding to what extend each person and group are trust-worthy is just not correct? I'm not talking about having some centralized power deciding mechanism that declares who should be trusted with what. I mean that we just don't have the science of trust popular and based enough, so that we all could stop putting our trust in repeatedly corrupt & unreliable public representatives and misinforming media groups that broadcast, so called, news? I know that there is a lot of conversation about transparency and how it would solve this trust issue; but, I just don't see how that answers this problem. Transparency is one of those things that can mean too many things. Just because someone is being honest and transparent, doesn't mean that they should be trusted with anything. Do we need a well tested and ever-evolving scientific system of how trust can be applied successfully?

OP Summary & Followup Questions As the OP, I can only be grateful to have a protagonist in STer and antagonists in xelent, gwho and MrCapitalism. STer quite clearly represented the topic in this thread, which I strongly agree with. I'll check out the book. Great discussion, everyone. On the antagonist side, there are several strong points: - There is war even with self-reliance, such as in the case of Native American tribes. * We could dispute that there is much less war and violence in tribal society, but that's another topic to argue. - The need for importation is, indeed, a cause for cooperation. - The issue may be redundant in a stateless society, due to lack of hierarchical influence. - Mass migration out of warring cities can solve the issue. * We are aware of many ancient cities that warred and have fallen, due to mismanagement. It is a sort of answer to the problem, even if it may take a long time and look horrible. Now, that we have laid a good amount of positive and negative statements, let's summarize and try to connect the ideas into our reality. "I'd move before I tried to start a war." Reasonable people would, but most people are not reasonable, and would not move. We can see that in just about any war recorded in history (for me, as a Jew, I see evidence in the holocaust). Even, in many situations when one power is much greater than the other, we still see violent resistance and denial that ends in slaughter. "You, as an individual, moving doesn't change the game." The only way to make unpopular changes profitable (lit. seeming like a good choice) is by marketing them to enough people, so that they become popular. This is incredibly evident in our lives and history. Anyone who is willing to "pay the price" regardless, will not bother with this forum and community. I have tried it, myself, and see why, for anyone who is post-sacrifice, discussion feels painful and irrelevant. Let's move on to the practicalities, now. If it is impossible to resolve market dependency, then it doesn't matter if it is generally a wise practice or not. Is it possible to make self-reliance more popular than dependent markets? Is it possible to make dependent markets fail-proof? So, that in case of failure to trade, all sides have the opportunity to peacefully resolve their dispute, without needing to answer the threat to their livelihoods with war. I hate to admit it, but, personally, I just don't see how it's possible. People would wage war, before they'd risk their resources. It sounds silly, like saying, "I would rather kill others than risk famine," but somehow it's very popular. Especially, in modern society.

Seeing how people protest mistreatment and abuse, while pacing modern industrial cities, got me wondering... Is it our dependency on external resources that maintains the vicious cycle of war and the corruption of those in power? Any group of people that are utterly dependent on resources from others, will have the mandate to make certain that the resources keep on flowing. For example, for city folk, if food does not enter the city regularly, then many people will be harmed. That's why they will even go as far as to abandon moral behavior and force those transactions. Currently, this is achieved with farm subsidization, at least in many western countries that I know. Would there be no war if all communities and people were self-reliant? At least, for their more urgent needs. Would those who are in power, those who are more influential over the local community, be less susceptible to immoral behavior, when their community is self-reliant? I'm sorry if this topic feels overly hypothetical, but I do feel it can make for a good discussion.

I suspect that this might be relevant to the discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNHckJbHEYU Mediastan - Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks team. They go through Central Asia and see how local big news reporting companies respond to the option of publishing leaked cables that discuss their countries and regions, specifically. Finally, they check how the Western media responds to the issue of censoring the cables. Quite fascinating.

Being familiar with Zeitgeist, I just don't see how this video "debunks" it. This guy pretty much repeats what Stefan already said, previously, in his videos. I feel this guy missed the point of creating a critique. He actually just made a sort of review. I strictly support Stefan's view, and the anarchistic view in general, because I prefer freedom of choice, over anyone else's "good ideas". Still, I have yet to hear a practical answer to evident issues, such as the success of the military industrial complex, sex-slave trade and addictive drug trade, in our world. I do agree, however, that there are some interesting ideas out there - like DRO's, and that the gov' and coercion can never resolve these issues. This does not mean that current an-cap idealistic solutions are viable, nor that the Zeitgeist ideas are any less so. Just because I want my freedom, doesn't mean I am in the right. I accept that our free choice is often harmful to ourselves and to others. Anyone who is not able to accept unasked-for assistance, from time to time, ends up miserable.

While often enough parents can force their daughters into nasty situations, it is quite different from a protected market of sex trade. These criminals are protected by their local governments. Only a legal authority can protect such obviously criminal activity, such as otherwise only happens in war. This question is based on the same fallacy behind the idea that the government "doesn't let companies pollute and destroy the natural environment." Reality shows that it is exactly that same government, which encourages and protects those criminal companies.

I insisted on getting more perspectives on this issue, so I emailed Stefan with hopes for a rebuttal of sorts. I got this: My email may not be in utter accordance with the thread, although I tried to represent the thread as best as I could. So, if you're wondering, here is my email message to Stefan: http://pastebin.com/V4wNn1SM Now, I can see where Stefan is going with this. If I understand him correctly, he's basically taking this discussion into his own realm of ideas, and saying that he'd rather enforce a contract, than inflict his opinion, on another. I agree about that. Still, I'm not satisfied with the conclusions, so far. So, if you take any specific interest in the topic, please join me and comment on the following summary, here: http://www.assafkoss.com/2013/10/responsibility-vs-ownership.html

^ Dave Asprey (video above): "I take over 40 pills a day." (Nutritional stuff) I'm not going to create a proper argument against what this guy is saying, but I get a really bad vibe from him. I'm happy for him for reducing weight and keeping an eye on health; but, the idea that a person can't live very healthy and strong without "supplements" and endless experimentation is just awkward. A balanced and humble lifestyle and diet is all that we need. Like all animals. Yikes, what a Rogan experience.

I feel that the idea presented in this thread is still not properly described. Continuously thinking about this idea and the discussion we have had here, I would like to add some more detail or boundaries, here. We can't "own our actions," because these cannot be traded. If I were to kill another person, then I could not simply sell the action to another, who will have to accept the punishment on himself. We must be responsible for our actions, because the results of these may require a followup response by us, who understand them best. Otherwise, others who do not understand the actions - paired with their results, are much more likely to respond in an ignorant manner. It is my intent to debate the possibility that when conflict over ownership arises, then if we were to take a step back and review the conflict through a greater perspective, we would see that it can be easily resolved through the understanding of where responsibilities stand. Just as ownership must be socially accepted to be worthwhile its' place as an idea, so does responsibility have to be socially accepted to work. What is suggested here is that it is easier to decide if a person is responsible, rather than if that person has ownership.

I read the entirety of this thread and listened to the linked podcasts. This sort of principled conflict is exactly why I started the debate in my Responsiblity Versus Ownership thread. Making claims for ownership does not solve any conflict. The idea that a claim for ownership can be objectively or culturally justified, does not stand the test of our reality. It is always a conflict among us, just as children fight over ownership. The purpose of philosophical discussion is to solve conflict; internal or external. Expecting people to give up on their necessities (food, water, shelter), because we have rights of ownership, is neither logical nor an effective solution to this issue. This is the case, because people insist on ownership, but disregard responsibility! I am not a statist nor a communist, but neither am I a capitalist. I am a pure anarchist, in the sense that I am in the conclusion that not everything can be marked, ruled, measured and justified; nor should everything be so clearly and philosophically defined. I am a "practicalitist," mostly. We cannot live without food. We cannot have food without access to land, which produces our food. Without direct access to land, we are relying on another person, with access to the land, to sell or give us food. In other words, we are dependent on the whim and success of another person, for our livelihood. This is always true for children. This should not be the case for adults! Adults have always had the ability to try and sustain themselves. Once practical access to land is barred, then that isn't the case any longer, sadly. I strongly agree that land should not be viewed as a commodity, but not because it is the geological whore of everyone, to be owned and passed around and paid bribes for. The land cannot be a commodity, because without practical access to land, a person cannot exist! It seems to me that we will never understand our ownership rights well enough to stop these life-stealing disputes. I suspect that an actual resolution will only come from understanding our personal responsibilities. I give plenty of relevant examples in my thread, about the difference between responsibility and ownership, and the importance of the former over the latter. Lots of good reading links, by the way! It's lots of fun to go through them. Thanks.

So, you're saying that just because a person plants trees somewhere, then that means they have the right to the entire land forever? Even if the only use for the land is collecting the trees' produce in-season? It's a common mistake to look for a one-answer-to-all-problems in an ideology. Applying Ownership to everything just doesn't work. It's the reason we have conflict in modern society; people disagree about who owns what, even when there aren't actually any shortages in necessities. Just as two parents have the same level of Responsibility towards their mutual child, and neither of them independently owns the child, so does the same principle apply to land, living beings (including edibles), water, air and more. There is no clear-cut line, in this matter. Ancient and modern societies prove that, in practice. We have disputes and judgement, in order to solve the endless occasions in which it is not clear who owns what and to what extent.

I see a strong connection between what Stefan does and Anarchism with Permaculture. Myself, as a person who seeks freedom and well being, I find both ideologies very attractive to work with. Anarchism touches on society and rights, while Permaculture (which does have a social philosophy of caring for others in general) touches on non-harmful sophisticated local livelihood, in a very practical hands-on sense. So, just because there need be a name and a person who could make the conversation lively and interesting, I would suggest Paul Wheaton of permies.com. It's the biggest online Permaculture community, and he's very talkative and socially active - and has a podcast, too. Somehow, I feel that a conversation between the two, about the practicality of using good ideas in contemporary life, would result in a very fun and educating podcast. What do you think?

I seem to have disguised myself as an abstract philosopher so well that you decided I don't have an agenda! Ha! Well, I do have an agenda. I'm interested in using these ideas, as the logical basis to moving onward with modern life. I would take absolutely no interest in the whole idea of Responsibility (or Ownership), if I could see no way of using it in practice. I suspect this is all very useful, though. I'm going to assume you are referring to a recent blog post of mine, when you speak of ideology. It isn't directly discussed in this thread, so assuming that we can resolve the comment issue in my blog (private message,) then it's better left for the blog. I'm not sure if you really did miss out on a lot of important posts in this thread, or if you decided to just come at this thread from your own perspective, regardless. To be fair, I won't insist on actually reading these chunks of text, and instead try to respond directly. It is evident that Ownership and Responsibility are two different and separate terms. To summarize, I can own something but not consider myself responsible for it, and vise versa. An exceptional claim I make, in order to emphasize the importance of Responsibility, is that conflicts between people are better solved through considering Responsibility, rather than Ownership (this includes conflicts with the gov'.) I'll use this post to examine this clash of ideas from yet another angle. For example, let's say that we live in Stefan's wet dream of a NAP & DRO society. I do intend to, eventually, discuss this topic live with Stefan, by the way. So, let's now assume a conflict. A common conflict would be land rights. I definitely know that it's the first thing on my mind, being the basis for human life. In this example, I decide to homestead a small plot of land, and another person, a neighbor, claims to everyone around us that I am occupying his private property, without his permission. Now, let's map the conflict from discovery to conclusion, in both cases: Ownership The neighbor claims property rights and moves to deny my claim. We approach a DRO (Dispute Resolution Organization) that serves our locale. For the sake of the example, let's say that the neighbor previously planted and yearly collects from fruit trees in that plot. Because of those fruit trees, which all of us would agree he really does have rights to, we have a conflict about the land itself, which is more than just those trees. The solution to this depends on local custom, instead of any discussion. If it decrees that "fruit tree farming" a plot grants land ownership, then I lose. Otherwise, if it decrees that "fruit tree farming" does not decree land ownership, then I win. Regardless, I am dependent on local custom, and don't actually have a way to defend myself. It's a rather offensive scenario. Responsibility The neighbor claims property rights and moves to deny my right of occupation. We approach a DRO that serves our locale. Again, for the sake of the example, the neighbor uses his trees as evidence. The solution in this case, however, depends on if I can prove that I am willing to do whatever is necessary, in order to have him work his trees, as he had always done before. This is due to the fact that claiming duty over (the need to work) the fruit trees does not necessitate ownership of the land. So, logically, there would be no pre-defined rule or custom that enforces one way or another. The resolution would be case dependent, only. This is a very flexible and not oppressing scenario, where my opinion and will count. For those that say that I can have either solution in either case, let us examine evidence from our own lives. Do people get to use private land fairly, when it comes to a conflict in court? This, naturally, excludes all non-conflict cases, where good honest people manage other people on their land, fairly. Also, if the land is either "public" or the plaintiff has no property rights to it, then does the DRO or court or public rule in their favor? Notice how many land abuse (pollution, destruction) cases, end with those who harm neighboring communities, getting no serious penalty or relevant action against them. If we are not ideological about this, and see that people (courts etcetera) do rule according to property rights, usually regardless of who is in the wrong, just because it's easier (ownership means full rights), then we realize just how important it is to present a conflict in the most sensible or profitable or practical or least violent way, for the benefit of all. Put yourself in the shoes of either defendant or plaintiff, fairly.

Thanks for adding your input to the conversation. I'm sure it will help others relate better to the ideas here. I agree to the general perspective you guys both present, that it is indeed a fact of life that we must interact and lay claim to our environment in different ways. The idea of "Non-Ownership" is as ridiculous as it is non-existent. I also agree that what we really try to approach here is how to handle conflicts. Naturally, without conflict, ideologies and perspectives don't really matter. What I don't agree with, and try to present the case for in this thread, which I have not seen reflected yet in any response, is the idea that Ownership is a minor case of Responsibility. In other words, as long as we ignore our approach to Responsibility, we will not solve the conflict of ideologies regarding property rights and Ownership. - - - I see that my claim has come across too harshly. I do not claim that tribal peoples do not understand property rights and Ownership. They do and that is self evident. I claim that they do not see everything they interact with as Owned; neither do they see it as Shared. I suspect that just as they see themselves as entities that cannot be Owned, so do they see the land, water, and other things they consider sacred. Too sacred to be Owned, privately or shared. I give it as an example, because if we put excuses and blame aside, we can all agree that having everybody define Ownership in an equal manner - at all times, is not possible. This impossibility is exactly why people, who were made free and lived free, so often turned into slaves and slave-masters. Therefor, I suggest we take a step back and see what affects the way people choose to define Ownership. My conclusion is that Responsibility is what affects Ownership, and that arguing for a Negation of Responsibility could end this clash of ideologies. What is Negation of Responsibility? I cannot insist any positive idea on another person. Saying that someone must do something, a positive claim, is unfair and does not work. I'm sure we all agree to that, generally. However, I can claim, at least, that someone must not do something. I don't need to force myself on another person, in order to have them not do something. An example would be using a fence. With a fence I can avoid conflict with others, just by attempting to deny certain events, such as touching or seeing something that I don't want others to touch or see. It ain't perfect, but it sure does work, and that's why we use it. In other words, I am Negating the other's actions without direct conflict. In my view, people act according to their sense of Responsibility. So, as long as my effort to Negate is greater than their feeling of Responsibility, then they will not act. In this way, I avoid conflict (temporarily.) This is how I make Ownership irrelevant to conflict; by making it not worthwhile to pursue every little bit of property someone might feel they own. This is exactly what governments do to people, only they do so with violence. I suggest we do the same, because it works, only that we do it with bargaining, instead. We bargain Ownership rights. No violence included. We can settle conflicts in regard to Ownership, by simply making people consider the worth of their pursuit. The side that feels more strongly about their Responsibility, in regard to their right of Ownership in a certain case, will be the last one to give up. To conclude, "the worth of my pursuit" is exactly equal to my sense of Responsibility. This is the best definition I can summon. How is this useful? Realizing the above, we see that if we construct the "fences" that would make it not worthwhile for the aggressors (gov') to create conflict, then we win. Eventually, following this example that works, others will do the same. Eventually, there will be little room for aggressors in any society. Idealistic but practical. Let's examine a few samples of "fences" against the government that already exist: 1. Social pressure works. I come from the land of the Jews and can testify to how well it works. Extreme social pressures can create ridiculous situations, just because it works, so well. In the West, there are certain areas that are simply not worth the intervention of the gov'. I noticed that, while traveling and comparing a hub of evil like Washington D.C. to a no-where town somewhere in Arkansas. Government presence was pretty much non-existent down south in many areas. 2. Profit blinds & binds people. This includes the gov'. Bribing officials is standard method for those who wish to gain power (self ownership.) After they are bribed, they are under threat of having the truth revealed, and then cannot act without great risk to their person (ironically, the risk comes from their owners.) I recall a farmer in the US, who did some illegal construction on his land, and by having the sign "No Trespassers" on the road to his place, got all officials to back away. They were under threat of a private lawsuit for actual money by entering under that sign. 3. Predators always prey on the weakest. You don't have to be well defended, in order to be secure from the gov'. You just have to be distinctively more defended than most others, to make attacking you not worth the effort. The mafia - which I refer to as competitive governments - are the proof of concept. They have lots of lawyers and protection in place. The gov' goes after the "small fry," because of that, and even then the mafia lords often rescue those front-line people from behind the scenes, with money and lawyers. 4. It takes Liability to be responsible, legally. Public domain content, free gifts, abstract bodies (Corporations / Virtual Personas), virtual property and many other interactions that are simply not defined and so not valued, cannot be judged. Religious organizations are forever surviving and doing well, because of this simple trick. They offer their services for free: Church, Books, Conversation, Singing, Monetary support and more. And, just like modern content providers online, they use influence ("brain washing"), in order to make profit. Donation funds are the all-mighty basis for all black markets out there. Anything that is not an official signed deal, while risky, is also uncontrollable by third parties. I'm sure there are many more good tactics out there to distance us from aggressors. Please, add your own, if you follow this line of thought. If you don't, and feel that something is amiss, do share.

I feel that my point is not quite reaching through. You both speak as if Ownership is axiomatic, but I'm certain that if you honestly review your own life and behavior, you can see plenty of situations, in which you did not intuit that you had certain Ownership rights. Many cultures view Ownership as only a very limited thing. Some view women as the property of men, and all of them behave, as if it were the only thing that makes sense, until they learn of other cultures. Others, essentially small tribes, do not see the land as property at all, and cannot even begin to imagine doing so, as I quoted a couple posts back. So, again, my point is that we choose our perspective, and that Ownership is one possible choice, while Responsibility is another. It is not simply a play on words to differentiate between those perspectives, as I have demonstrated with the previous examples. They display different results, in real life. I would rather debate with more examples, but it's only possible when you allow that Ownership (your current ideal) is not axiomatic, and that different words do make a difference - otherwise, we are no better than crafty politicians (who manipulate words, such as "terrorism", and insist that you define people this way.)

Mark, how about punishment scaling (appropriateness) and relative number of arrests (in comparison to other regimes)? Got any info there?

I don't think you are wrong. I think you are assuming things that we should not assume. All these issues you raise can happen with any ideology - even Ownership. Many people can claim ownership to the same thing and go down this path. The question should not be "What's the worst that can happen?" Rather, it should be "How can people abuse this ideology?" Let's take common conflicts and apply both ideologies to them. For example, something close to heart; I want a piece of land to live on (nothing industrial), but the government, supposedly represented by its' citizens, claims ownership of all lands, and will not allow me to use any land, freely. Ownership I claim ownership of unoccupied land and so does the government representative. I, being the instigator on already claimed land, then ask: "Who really owns this piece of land? After all, nobody lives here, physically claiming it." The government's response is that they "Own all public lands, and so decide who can do what, for the good of all citizens." If I disagree, then I am "free to go to the court, and see if a judge (and jury, in some places) will agree" with my claim to the land. I cannot rally other people to my side, because nobody wants to bother for my claim of ownership. They have nothing evident to gain from me owning the land, compared to the gov' owning it, in general. Responsibility I claim responsibility for unoccupied land and so does the government rep'. In this case, I do not claim the right to live on the land! I leave that issue open for discussion, but only so far as I am recognized as a guardian of the land. So, as a result, the government are the ones to instigate the conflict. Now, I can choose to either persist - and suffer mistreatment, and eventually get sued; or, I can choose to sue them. I do not recognize their right of judgement, so I choose not to sue. If indeed I am sued and forced to bring my case to the court, then I can claim evidence of my work as a guardian - such as restoring flora and fauna and handling waste (trash) and intrusions (this can be a positive, as in hosting visitors.) Even if government rep's do the same, it does not deplenish from my own work and proof of responsibility. In this case, I can rally people to my side, because many people will support my work and the benefits they get from it (regardless of whoever else does the same.) Naturally, if I can gain right of guardianship, then I have a very strong base to (eventually) gain right of settlement. At least, this is how I see it. I try to define how people usually behave, and then apply logical routes to those situations. The idea is to bet on routes that give my claim more base. After all, when you are right, people don't usually see where you are also wrong. That's why we have corrupted politicians everywhere, pulling public attention to their "good deeds," so that people ignore their bad deeds. I do agree with you, in the abstract realm of logic and philosophy. The problem is, that when it comes to people - in general, they are mostly intuitive and emotional, rather than logical and educated! So, while truth is truth, different folks choose different strokes, and that is, indeed, fair. There is no way to actually disprove any theory (as it would take endless variations on every variable.) One can only prove his own theory as practical. So, if you can step away from being logically correct, try to see how the common (=idiot) person would behave - and then try to apply solutions.

Westley, I completely agree and don't claim otherwise. If anything I've said comes across as a negation to that, then I warrant that it is not such, and should be examined again. I feel you have missed my point in this discussion. I relate strongly to your feelings of self-ownership, but I do think that there is great importance in defining that feeling properly and realistically, instead of using a popular term, such as "self ownership." It would not be the first time that people supported a "good" ideal, but because of their choice of words, logic and faction, they were reduced to maniac murderers. This is what we see happening with the supposed just USA, in its' military campaigns, today. I will rephrase in short, in order to explain myself from another perspective. The definition we have of self-ownership or ownership, today, is not clear cut. There is a lot of disagreement about it. It seems quite obvious what most folk really want. We want to be "not forced into anything" by anyone. I feel confident that we all can agree on that ideal. What I am claiming, is that the ideal of Ownership, in practice, leads people into conflict. This is by necessity and is backed by historical accounts and contemporary events. On the other hand, I am suggesting, that the ideal of Responsibility, in practice, assists in solving conflict, while allowing for the ideal of ownership. Stefan talks a lot about aggression and the ideal of not initiating aggression. You see, the excuse for conflict, under an Ownership ideology is always Self Defense, which is often reduced into just Defense (of others.) Naturally, we don't have a solution to a conflict that arises from two sides leaning on the same ideology. They will always be "correct", logically. What we can do, is claim that the correct ideology to lean on is actually Responsibility, and then ask instead: "Who is responsible for what? In this specific conflict." I feel strongly that the answer to that question will always bring forth a better conflict resolution, than any other directing question that may be asked.

g0at, your video links are "private" and cannot be viewed, at least, for me. I just realized, after my extra-education from Libertarians, that the Zeitgeist folk actually support a strong and controlling government. What a frightening thought. While I do support their ideology of "always using the most advanced and friendly technology," instead of relying on outdated and harmful technology; it seems obvious now, that their ideas can't be achieved without forcing the "elite intellectual and scientific" community's opinions over everyone else. Yikes!

Logic and reason are useful tools, but just because we see something as reasonable or logical, doesn't make it practical. Our ideas are, more often than not, idealistic. That's why nothing should be assumed, without proper proof from real life. If no proof exists, then experimentation should take place. That's all I meant, in response to some unbased ideas here (assumptions about tribal peoples and personal values.) In case of conflict between people, like in any conflict, we assess the threat to our needs, and make sure that we leave less for chance. If I feel that my Ownership of the food is threatened, then I will have to prove or defend my ownership of it - as an ideal. But, if I feel that it is my Responsibility to supply myself food, then I take care of the food source first - being practical; and only then do I take care of the injustice enacted towards me - the ideal. If, irrelevant to any need, I learn of injustice, then it is (to a degree) my responsibility to respond to it. I feel that this deviates from the topic, though.

I apologize for my long posts. I am aware that this is not friendly towards casual readers. :-S Sorry!

I'm glad to see responses to this topic. Me too! I would like to respond to both of you in a few paragraphs, both for readability, and because I feel that you both come from a similar perspective towards this topic. First, about my own background. Like most people who are raised, either by chance or neglect, to be different enough from their family and society, most of my life I had to either obey under threat, or - when old enough - resist social pressures and pay the price for doing so. For my unique choices in life, I have been repeatedly attacked, by family and peers. I have come to realize that all the negativity thrown at me, comes directly from people oppressing other people, and they in turn passing it on to the next immediate and vulnerable person. I would not have considered myself, and others, unique, had I not seen other examples of more functional behavior. I have spent several years traveling the world and the web, in order to get the references I needed. I keep my personal history only described in general, because I don't feel that my experience should be treated as unique, nor it being unique. I would like to touch on the other points raised, before I give my short conclusion - on how this relates to Ownership and Responsibility. First, about whether I am right or wrong in my examples. Let me clarify: - Not all tribes have food stocks. - There is no guarantee for your safety or the safety of your property, even when ownership and property rights are declared. - I disagree with the claim that countries/societies with stronger Ownership rights are better off. They are not. - We do not have an "abundance of wealth" around us. Some of us only choose to think so, because they are not being particularly harassed for invading others' property rights. - People who claim right behavior do not necessarily act by their claims/opinions, nor are they always able to do so. I list these responses, because they all come down to one important understanding. Logic and reason do not reflect reality. What people say/think/believe/feel does not reflect how they will behave. Also, we are deeply immersed in our notions; and the only way to improve our bias, is by checking live examples. One example that disturbs me greatly, is how modern people view tribal peoples, even after anthropologists have spent many decades in answering how different tribes behave and interact. How do I decide if something is my responsibility or not? How do I decide if something is my property or not? There is a different between the two questions! That is, the process in which we decide either of them. I would like to approach my conclusion with this explanation. I only have to decide that something is my property, when another threatens my access to or control of that property. Conversely, I only have to decide that something is my responsibility, when it requires me to invest time/resources that I would normally invest in my prior interests. Do you see the important difference in attitude between those two options? Ownership is offensive, while Responsibility is defensive. I agree that love is, by definition, not harmful. I agree that Responsibility, when misunderstood, can cause harm. With that, I feel that there is a difference between the two approaches, and that I have explained it here, to the best of my ability. But, what about Self? What about subservience? As a young teenager, I was given the opportunity to spend several years practicing Self Defense. This, progressively, solved any issues I had with people physically aggressing towards me. However, I was still left frustrated and alone, in my world view and strong feelings. Eventually, I came across the Tao Te Ching and Buddhist scriptures, which discussed - at length and creatively - the topics that I intuited. It was the first time I ever had someone agree with how I felt; even if that someone was long dead and often considered idealistic and fanatic. I feel strongly that defining my Self as my body is utterly wrong and solves nothing. For example, the Buddhists discuss how, when we observe our breathing, we see how we do not choose to breath, but rather we choose to interfere with breathing - an action that happens unwillingly. Just as important as the Self, is the approach we have to our environment. Both traditions inspect how, in practice, those that are flexible, adapt, while those that are strict, break. They do not excuse wrong behavior - rather, they explain it, and give advice on how to manipulate yourself through conflict, to give the best results under the circumstance. I don't attest to mastering any of this, personally, which is why I find it important to continue discussion with others and their experiences.

Hey. I'm starting this debate thread, in order to clarify, for myself and other interested parties, which perspective would make more sense for anarchists to hold. Libertarianism addresses the social issue using the term Ownership, followed by the term Property. Every person owns their own body, and thus their own body is their own property. I am strongly bothered by this terminology; not as if it were an error for the dictionary. I am worried that the whole idea of property results in unnecessary violence. It seems too easy to take the damaging step from "owning myself" to "owning another." Naturally, I tackled this line of thought with examples, and quickly asked myself about children. http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp "CHILDREN AND RIGHTS" In the above article, a well-thought libertarian addresses this same issue. He does so, however, by finding weak points in the argument itself, and not by examining it, as a fact of life. In much of the modern world, people of different cultures embrace the notion that they own whatever they can put their hands on. This behavior is innate in Humans and does not disappear, even if education and morality are applied. I would like to suggest that we may want to shift our focus from Ownership and into Responsibility. Responsibility, or Duty, is an ancient value that many cultures have embraced. Not to testify on that alone, but it is apparent (from Anthropological studies) that many tribal peoples view their life and surroundings as things to "take responsibility over" instead of as property to own. A well-known example comes from an historical Indian tribe leader, that when asked to sell his land responded by asking, how could he sell his land, if he does not own it. My fear is that Ownership and Responsibility might be opposites! Owning something means that it is below me in importance, while taking responsibility for something, lets it be above me in importance. For example, if I own my children, then without social supervision, I would feel total liberty in how I treat them. On the other hand, if I take responsibility over my children, then I only do what I feel is helpful for them; excluding things that are for my own sake and may be negative to them. In itself, this may not seem very threatening. Still, we can see plenty of examples, where people who embrace the ideology of ownership, take it "too far" and harm others, for righteous causes. This happens time and time again. The abusers are always self justified, because they simply "protected their property rights" one way or another. Whether it be land, where some may fight others over the right to own that piece of land; or even social abuse, where people may attack others for their pride, thinking that owning themselves translates as having the right to define justice for themselves, and towards others. Should we not then aim for the right to take responsibility over our lives and surroundings? Even if I may have no property at all, I would still see value in taking responsibility over everything I come in contact with. Even if I am a part of the community, I would still want to contribute my ideas to others. Even if all lands are owned by a few, shouldn't those who inhabit it, still have the right to take care of their homes and lives? There is no law that can prevent the stronger from taking liberty from the weaker. There is, however, a natural law that makes us all care and want to help. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." It is impossible for a few people in power, regardless of their intentions, to take responsibility over so many others and such vast lands. Ownership is an empty term, that implies the will of any one person to control anything else. I do not own my body, because I cannot control it. I take responsibility over my body, because I am the one with the most influence over it. Am I simply being too nit-picky? Is there a fault in my logic that may not be so obvious? How do you review this issue? Thanks for reading.

Thanks. You can imagine how an atheist anarchist feel about Israel. Bad. I am aware that outsiders don't really know what is going on inside Israel. The government here is very strict and secret. Corrupt, as well. The population, on the Jew part, is composed mostly of standard capitalistic atheists and religious anarchistic (towards the state) conservatives. It's a surprise that a government can sustain itself here, at all. On a more personal note, however, I relate strongly to the more Western culture - English speaking freedom pursuing people. Amusingly, until very recently, most ethnic Jews lived in the states, and in practice, related more to that culture, as well.