#property rights

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[capitalism-is-parasitism]

Rich jerks would rather drown than share

“For a lot of people, the privacy is more important to them than the risk of destruction,” he said, referring to residents who refused to grant easements. “The solution is very easy — pay for your own risk.” Young added that many nourishment projects don’t seem to be worth the money they cost. He pointed to the Jersey Shore, where a $1 million beach nourishment project washed away in just one year.

The knowledge that beach nourishment might not be a good investment doesn’t do much to help local leaders like Flowers, the Pinellas County commissioner, who is bracing herself for a hurricane season that meteorologists predict will be one of the most active in decades.

“I’m very concerned for those homeowners out there who will be impacted because perhaps their neighbor has opted not to allow access,” she said. 

[worldlywritr]

Hubris: When a Rabbit Sees Himself as a Tiger

In a quaint lodge where life often reveals its quirks, a recent episode painted a vivid portrait of hubris, an all-too-common flaw in the tapestry of human behaviour. A young man, with an inflated sense of his own importance, found himself at odds with reality when a child, the owner’s daughter, confronted him as he cut grass on land that was not his.

This boy, blinded by his own perceived righteousness, dared to believe he had the authority to assert his will over a piece of property he neither owned nor had permission to manage. Like a rabbit puffing out its chest, imagining itself to be a formidable tiger, he misjudged his position, overestimating his rights and ignoring the simple truth of ownership and respect.

The child, in her innocence and straightforwardness, demanded he stop, a command that was as much about rightful authority as it was about teaching an unwelcome intruder a lesson. Her approach may have been brusque, but it was rooted in a fundamental understanding that respect for property and boundaries is non-negotiable.

Yet, the boy's reaction was telling. Instead of humility or acknowledgement of his overstep, he chose indignation. He clung to his misplaced sense of entitlement, convinced that his actions were justified and that the girl was in the wrong. His hubris blinded him to the reality that he was, in fact, a trespasser, someone who had overstepped his bounds both physically and morally.

This incident, while seemingly trivial, mirrors a broader human tendency. It is a stark reminder of how easily we can fall into the trap of self-deception, where we see ourselves as more significant than we are, where we inflate our rights and disregard the simple truths that govern respectful coexistence.

Hubris, the fatal flaw of many a tragic hero, manifests in everyday life in such small yet telling ways. When a rabbit sees himself as a tiger, he sets himself up for inevitable downfall, for reality is an unforgiving judge. The lesson here is clear: humility and respect for others' boundaries are not signs of weakness but of wisdom and strength. In recognising our true place in the world, we find the balance that hubris so often disrupts, ensuring that we do not fall victim to our own inflated self-perception.

[defleftist]

Do people have the right to own property?

Legally? Yeah you can own land. Morally? That’s a bit more grey. I tend to think land stewardship is a more ethical concept. I often look to my indigenous friends for guidance on this.

[hezigler]

[jtem]

Warning! Warning! Warning! Warning!

Unpopular opinion time

Yes. Call it an "Opinion." It's a truth and a dire warning but we'll call it an opinion:

The current "Squatters" problem is about to make a very ugly turn.

Imagine you come home from work one day and your key doesn't work. Your locks have been changed and people are your home! They tell you to leave, get off your property.

You persist. After all, it is your home. You've had a long day. All you want to do is get inside your own home, pour yourself a bowl of cereal and plop down in front of the TV. And here these strangers are inside your home, they changed your locks and they're telling you to get off your own property! So you break in. You break into your own home and confront these strangers.

Then they call the police.

On you.

These strangers in your home, call the police on you. They do.

The police show up.

The home invaders show the damage from where you broke in, show the police some rental agreement they made up, one or more receipts for rent they never paid..probably some bills in their name.

The police arrest you. The police arrest YOU for breaking into your home, trying to wrongfully evict these "Renters" you are victimizing.

Again, this is your home. You live there. You got up that morning, left for work, locked the door behind you and when you came home at the end of the day you found these squatters inside your home.

This is going to happen.

It's going to happen a lot.

Why wouldn't it?

When it comes to squatters, there's literally no difference between them being there for a week or them being their for hours. The police don't see a difference. The courts don't. In both cases it comes down to pieces of paper, and these squatters inside your home made sure to print out lots of authentic and properly dated pieces of paper.

Oh, you'll probably get them out. Eventually. Maybe in only six months! In the mean time you can't get inside your home and God knows what kind of damages they're doing...

It's going to happen.

They just have to pick an address, cherry pick the legal jurisdiction to give them the greatest advantages, print everything out & wait for you to leave for work in the morning.

People are going to start coming home and finding strangers inside their homes. Squatters. It will happen, if it's not happening already.

[volunteerismandanarchy]

Marxists say that property is theft. Why, in your view, is private property so central to freedom?”2 Friedman responded: Because the only way in which you can be free to bring your knowledge to bear in your particular way is by controlling your property. If you don’t control your property, if somebody else controls it, they’re going to decide what to do with it . . . there’s a lot of knowledge in this society, but, as Friedrich Hayek emphasized so strongly, that knowledge is divided. . . . How do we bring these scattered bits of knowledge back together? And how do we make it in the self-interest of individuals to use that knowledge efficiently? The key to that is private property, because if it belongs to me, you know, there’s an obvious fact. Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So, if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.

Milton Friedman, In Commanding Heights: The Battle of Ideas,

[racefortheironthrone]

Weird question, but are syllabi the private property of professors/college?

That is a weird question.

The answer seems to be that it depends on the university. At CUNY, where I work, I own my syllabi, it turns out.

Apparently, this is a matter of some controversy, because conservatives want syllabi at public universities to be considered public records so that they can submit requests for topics they would like to ban from being taught.

[curiousorigins]

So we all know about the older generation freaking out about the birth decline right? And that one of the reasons has been that they're worried about not enough people around to care for them in their old age.

(Hence one reason why supposedly there was a push to revoke Roe V. Wade because that would magically solve it. [even though lots of women died of birth related complications prior to Roe and now people are literally getting themselves sterilized to prevent that fate.])

But anyways, I have a new theory, it's about real estate. If people are truly dying faster at a significant rate than people are being born, then one, a lot of us will be inheriting property. Two, there may be an excess of real estate very soon, if birth decline trends continue.

What is one of the hardest things in a person's life to attain, property a place to live. Which has definitely been used to control people.

There's also a fact that real estate up until fairly recently was considered one of the safest ways of investing money. Most people would rather sell their home than not pay their mortgage.

What are the two ways that rich people make money without labor or control their workforce (if they're even business owners at all.)?

In interest, via people paying for their mortgages and in owning and renting property. Who's going to bother renting if there's a bunch of houses? How worthwhile will their many acres be if there's a ton of empty houses? Their land won't be gaining value just by existing in their names anymore.

If a true excess of houses happens, then the main money in real estate ventures will actually be in repairing them, maintaining them, and customizing them. All jobs that would be considered blue collar work that actually requires real labor.

The rich people paid various analysts to say that a declining birth rate would make the old people not get care (Which makes sense because the party that serves the richest also tends to be voted for via old people.) So they chose a fear that most of their voters would care about to take advantage of...

But yeah, it's about real estate and banks and not making interest anymore for doing nothing but holding onto resources. Also obviously the less people there are, the more valuable all laborers would be too. When there's more people than jobs, that's an employers market, right? They can lowball their workers and the workers have to go for it because they need a place to live and eat. Where there are more jobs than people, that's an employees market. Where the main negotiation actually favors them, because they are hopefully empowered to know that the company needs them more than they need that company.

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

In our recent podcast with Sovereign Society founder, Karl Wuckert, we discuss the differences between the European and American definition of liberty and how private property rights and the market would yield better results than gov't.

Listen Here: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/podcast/podcast-karl-wuckert-disobedience-militant-non-violence-the-path-to-a-sovereign-society

#TheFreeThoughtProjectPodcast

[bakuninbeats]

(Intellectual) Property is Theft!

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, perhaps the most important figure in the field of anarchist theory. He developed many of the most important cornerstones of the anarcho-communist ideology, the most important of which being the following principle; "Property is Theft!"

Indeed, property is theft. Specifically, private property which forms the cornerstone of our capitalist system. Yet, there is another form of property which can be just as oppressive, namely intellectual property. The ownership of ideas, of art, of symbols, intellectual property offers someone the right to sue others for using the products that originated in their mind. In itself, a seemingly noble idea as it can potentially serve to protect the livelihood of smaller artists, academics and inventors. However, these same people are often not the ones who actually manage to profit from these laws. No, it is primarily the companies who can afford the most skilled lawyers that actually manage to protect their ideas whilst those who might actually need this protection are left to fend for themselves. In fact, smaller artists usually end up being the victim of these kinds of lawsuits especially when it comes to the practice of sampling in music.

In this manner, the right to sample becomes a practice to fight for within the anarchist struggle, especially when the use of sampling serves to criticize the current systems that govern society. Thus, the subject of today's review will be one such artist known as Saint Pepsi and his 2014 music video Enjoy Yourself.

Admittedly, most Vaporwave artists do not explicitly ascribe to anarchist ideology and Saint Pepsi is no exception. In fact he barely has a public persona at all, let alone one that promotes specific political goals. However, the combination of anti-consumerist critique, diy-ethic and, as formerly established, a potent disrespect for intellectual property rights, it becomes clear that Saint Pepsi falls quite neatly in line with the means and ends of the average anarcho-communist, intentionally or not.

But how does the Saint spread our anti-capitalist message in Enjoy Yourself? It is through a process of defamiliarization, and emphasization. The song repeats slowed-down snippets from the song Off The Wall by Michael Jackson. I'm sure Michael needs no introduction, but I'd still like to clarify some things about his history. Michael Jackson had his start in Motown Records, one of the biggest titans in the music industry. Though they have platformed many great artists, they are also one of the primary culprits of the mass-commercialization of popular music. This does not necessarily make their music any worse, but it does make this song a great choice for the Saint Pepsi treatment.

It is set to clips taken from a McDonald's commercial, one of the other titans of consumerism. It features a smiling man with a moon-shaped head (who also became an alt-right symbol for some reason). He dances while playing the piano on top of a hamburger, flying through a city-scape. The city is filled with bill-boards and McDonald's' classic yellow M's. It's a bizzare picture that could only be found within the post-modern, late-capitalist regime we currently live under.

The song ends on the message "Just Enjoy Yourself!~" repeated multiple times, eventually fading out to give the impression of its infinite repetition. On the surface, this phrase gives a sense of calmth and nostalgia, it's an invitation to simply let go and have fun. However, through the constant repetition Saint Pepsi showcases the way that consumer-capitalism controls its subjects.

"Just Enjoy Yourself!~~", everything is completely fine. You have tasty food, fun music, just look at the funny moon-man and

''Just Enjoy Yourself!~~~''.

With this message the song highlights consumerism's role as a primary means to pacify the masses and manufacture its consent. If a society feels the need to constantly repeat the message that everything's fine it's a sign that it's clearly not.

But who gives a shit about what this stupid tranny has to say!?

Who gives a shit about the immorality of property right!?

Who gives a shit about achieving anarchy!?

The system is impenetrable and the world is fucked.

"Just Enjoy Yourself!~~~~"

Link to song:

[johnschneiderblog]

This shoreline was made for walking

I was talking property-rights the other day with a new owner of  Lake Huron frontage.

He conceded that Michigan law gives everybody - property owner, or not - the right to stroll Great Lakes shorelines, but argued that walkers have no legal right to stop on privately owned beaches.

Hmmmmm .... if there's a part of the law that addresses that, I haven't seen it. It would involve complicated questions:

Certainly no law would prohibit a walker from pausing 30 seconds. But how about 30 minutes ...? What about a group of four walkers ... with chairs .... and a boom box ... and a barking dog. ...?

One would hope that common sense would prevail in these cases, but we all know how that goes.

I think the issue is a long way from being settled.

[thirstyratsnake]

my freinds did a silly play so made reaction images lol

kyle isnt ok

[bartinchristchurch]

Everyone in New Zealand must be alert to the fact that when disaster happens, There will be immediate aid but the months and years following are filled with waiting for decisions and wondering whether your claim/case is sitting in the correct pile or not. This may be just a unavoidable result of larger scale events but communication is certainly often lacking. The best thing to know is that many people are working to do their best although the higher up the chain you go, the less true that is.

[pinkrangerv]

An issue with this is that all prior examples have involved physical objects, which falls under a question of property rights. Water rights are a BIG problem in the Great Basin because of that; it was common for a white farmer to buy up water rights upstream of minority and poor white farmers, then just use up all the water, or charge extra to the downstream farmers, because who's the judge gonna like better, those minorities\poors, or the Rich White Wholesome American?

Digital mediums are only physically stored in a server so long as the server continues to run. Once it's deleted, you're shit outta luck. So it's not a physical thing, so there's no rules.

One way to solve this would have been to maintain a rule that a physical copy must be created alongside any digital intellectual property. You can post whatever you want on Facebook or Tumblr, but to have any rights over a thing, you have to own a DVD, CD, floppy disk, whatever, with the information physically encoded on it. You can do whatever you want with online publication, but the physical medium is legally the same as a book or newspaper, with the same caveats--you're allowed to make 'clippings' by copying, because the physical media is what you reproduce and sell.

However, that did not happen. So not only are we losing huge chunks of TV shows and movies and whatnot...we've transitioned a fuck-ton of things like official files, military secrets, and other really important information onto computers with no backups, because no one's figured out the correlation.

This is partially rent-seeking behavior, but part of it is that electronics on this level are so new that there's implications ranging from creating an accidental Dark Ages for future historians, to actually creating national security issues for quite a lot of countries.

So yeah, pirate anything you get your hands on. But please make a physical copy, because while there's shit-all we can do about national secrets, any copies you make of newspapers might be insanely vital at some point. And when it gets there, we'll all really enjoy having some TV shows that aren't censored by the GOP.