Occupy TQ subject to the approval of Robert.

[SteveA]

I don't believe there's a way to make anything else free and it may be that values are acquired/recognized via. growth and potentially inherent conflict in that.

I agree that counting heads like faceless numbers in a democracy is a sad mentality and disregards the natural diversity present, but consider this:

What if there's already complete freedom? It's an interesting thought, at a minimum.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Steve.

We as humans can never be truly and completely free. The animal we exist in is tied to evolution, thus dictated by it.

Steve, by your previous posts I have come to the conclusion that you equate freedom with doings. I equate freedom with lack of doings to one. For example, the movement to bring down capitalism is a movement that totally disregards the rights of the overwhelming majority of humans who love it and thrive in it. These people are enemies to my freedom and others. They are trying to do to me, where I am not trying to do to them. If one is trying to hurt others, then they are an enemy of Freedom.

The founding fathers created a great foundation for freedom to grow, unfortunately we have built a shack upon it. The foundation must first be shored up and then build a mansion on it as one dismantles the shack that presently exists. One does not consider blowing up the foundation and building a mad house in the ruins, unless you have Madness in your mind.

I have listen to many great ideas on fixing the injustices in our system, and none of them have to do with hate. But unfortunately humans are Inherently stupid and prefer to vote in con men and women instead of people of substance.

At the core of every human problem, is a collective of stupid humans, and not a institutional name. Institutions are what humans make, and we have a long history of making dysfunctional ones.

We the people must put human stupidity on record first, before we can challenge the institutions to change.

[SteveA]

Here's the problem I see:

Q: "Do you propose doing something to others, potentially against their desires, in order to potentially remedy what may be seen as a problem?"

That's at least a possible problem with some ideals.

Realistically, I don't think there are ways to avoid that completely ... heck, even breathing could be said to indirectly affect others (and especially if someone believes CO2 is a significant issue).

So I'm certain life has some aspects in which friction could be unavoidable, but I'd assume ideally should be minimized and I'd agree that, along the lines of your distinction between a freedom to and a freedom from, the preference in a dispute should be given to the party desiring to disassociate from some undesirable form of interaction (and I think the phrase 'prior vested interest' is close to what property rights are fundamentally about).

So, the first rule of thumb that seems to give a good resolution to most disputes is to see who is whose backyard (prior vested interest) and whether or not the owner desires that (a freedom/right to disassociate) and I think that's what the phrase 'good fences make good neighbors' is about. Not all issues involving property are black and white though (multiple vested interests in something) nor are there always simple manners to disassociate influences (i.e. air or water pollution), but another good consideration is to look at who desires what and to what extent are they willing to compensation or supply manners to encourage changes in actions of others (there seem to be lots of issues caused by bypassing private/voluntary interactions to make changes and go to the simple but rather blind and destructive - get guns and police to try to make it work. For example, how safe does someone else need to be in their car when driving? Should airbags be required by law? Or if someone thinks charity works wonders and that using laws/police/guns could squeeze more 'charity' out of people, should that be a socially accepted manner of performing 'charity' or is that closer to theft? I'd say from the perspective of prior vested interest and a right to disassociate, it seems all in favor of people having a right to retain the value of their labor ... heck, even communists agree with capitalists and views in support of a Republic on that one. Communism is called a partnership or corporation under capitalism ).

Anyway, yes, I think a lot of things could be better but it's one of those things where the ends don't justify the means and if people desire to bang heads then there's really nothing to do about that. If people wanted to do something else, I'm certain there are many great ideas around, but another consideration is that whatever results there are, aren't better or worse than anything else unless the reasons why something might be considered better or worse are known ... the alternatives of what might have aren't immediately visible and so it's really all working with beliefs and even if some people have nothing but scraps of clothing and food ... if they don't have a true desire to alter than, then there's nothing to do, except potentially learn to accept that and focus on oneself instead. There's a lot of diversity in the world and that's not necessarily a problem in need of a resolution.

I'm personally in less of a rush to see things changed and I'd much rather have a large influence in my immediate vicinity than a drop in the bucket representation elsewhere and though people have said that it takes working within the system to change it, I think that approach has been tried for long enough with rather predictable results to emphasize the fact that when you're playing by everyone elses rules, then you're subject to results determined by those.

I think it's best to figuratively walk away/disassociate and let whoever wants to fight over scraps do it (of course if they get hungry later and want a piece of the action elsewhere, then it can't still be on their terms and unless it's continually being on the run (realistically, not likely even possible), then at some point it's got to be digging in and drawing a line. If you're feeling generous, neighborly and like to give others a "good fences make good neighbors" heads up, a "Private property - Keep out!" sign is always an option. Alternately, there's the option to let the place go to wherever it's gonna go ... follow or not. I think that's fundamentally how it works anyway).