|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 5 users and 50 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Rick on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 10:39am.
Here's a new thread to continue the discussion about Plan B. Knock yourselves out!
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Thanks Rick, the second page
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 10:47am.I am not a woman
Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 10:57am.Having said that, if it were possible for me to get pregnant, and I thought I "might" be pregnant, I would opt for Plan B if I did not desire to be pregnant. The operative word is "might". A woman going to a pharmacy to acquire Plan B "might" be pregnant. She "might" be pregnant and does not want to be actually pregnant. Plan B is for those situations. I'd venture to say that many women that have used Plan B were not actually pregnant when they took it. I'm am not certain if a pharmasist has the wisdom to determine if a woman standing before him or her, requesting Plan B, is actually pregnant and planning to murder a fetus. The pharmasists want to excercise too much judgment on this matter. What is worse is they want to excercise their concience when it is absolutely not required of them to do so. You show me a pharmasist that can determine if a woman is pregnant a few hours after intercourse and I'll give you 20 bucks and I'll kiss every war memorial statue on the capitol campus.
"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
I think I will probably
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 1:19pm.I think I will probably always be pro-choice when it comes to planB abortion, etc. but I think it's silly to think that it can, or even should, be a black and white issue. Men may have no legal recourse but they will still possibly have hurt feelings in this. I'm not saying that should give men some kind of veto option because I think that's pushing it way too far. I think we can all agree that having less people hurt over this issue is best.
Hmm, I'm not sure if I put this on the right thread....or if it even matters at this point.
Keep your god off my vagina!
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 11:07am.That's fine.Now start taking
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 11:12am.That's fine.
Now start taking the same position with private property (which I think you do).
Nice try, slick
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 11:22am.I'm sure you realize that it's not wise to generalize things in such a way. A reasonable person can look at this and say that's an orange, and look at that and say that's apple. If you call them both fruit, then you leave a lot of important details out. (I don't know if that makes any sense at all but for some reason it just popped into my head).
I do agree in the sense of private property but not from a legal or political standpoint. It's more from a do whatever you want to do, just don't hurt anyone else standpoint.
I know where this is going
Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 11:28am."I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
I will just say that
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 3:24pm.I will just say that "property" not being human, has no rights.
Just like a fetus, no? So then, just like a fetus, shouldn't we default to the owner?
With a fetus, we default to the female which is carrying. What's wrong with extending this principle to land property?
Ownership
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 12:09pm."The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
Hmmm, drunk driving
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 1:22pm.Property vs. body?
Submitted by Phil Owen on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 2:13pm.This is reminiscent of Locke. Locke's argument on the enclosure of property is as follows:
1. I own myself.
2. My labor is a part of myself, therefore I own my labor.
3. I mix my labor into something, say like land.
4. It follows that, since my labor is mixed with the land, I own the land.
(An addition to this is that labor can be enbodied in money, therefore I can buy land and it becomes mine.)
Do you agree with Locke's reasoning here?
I don't agree that labor in
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 3:27pm.I don't agree that labor in and of itself is the only determination of whether one is the owner of the land.
But yes, I believe that in general private property is simply an extension of one's self.
Could you elaborate on this?
Submitted by Phil Owen on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 3:37pm.A piece of paper with your
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 8:47pm.A piece of paper with your name on it is generally the way we determine whether one is the owner of land.
It's justified by binding contracts. In the early land grabbing days, for instance, I think a system in which it was First Come, First Served worked perfectly. With no formal owner of the property, it was essentially a free for all. Since then, formal ownership of land has been long established and is now transferred though binding contracts (buying/selling) or to the next of kin in the event of a death.
Mmm... not so much
Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 11:45am.Secondly, while there was no "formal" ownership over the land, the natives were certainly "First Come" and should have been "First Served". The land was the collective property of the people who lived on it, worked it, and hunted on it. That land was taken from them by the "free for all", as you have put it.
Now tell me, when so few people have access to capital, and when capital is necessary for stability, and when capital is THE GREATEST source of power in our nation, what justifies the institution of capital as private property?
EDIT: Your suggestion that agreements to buy and sell private property are justification for the existence of private property is a kind of circular logic. Private property is the essence of capitalism, of which buying and selling of property are components. Thus you are using a component of private property itself as justification for its existence. Follow?
I'm asking you to state why anyone should have the right to private property, and why private property should exist as a social institution.
Oh, goodness -
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 12:12pm.First Come, First Served means that you owe some native americans a lot of money. Or the trees, or the salmon. Who came first? Who's a whom?
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
Definitions
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 12:05pm.It's easy to get people who own no "private property" to agree with your assertions of sanctity of Private Property if they are fooled into thinking that it is the same as their own interest in their house or their car. But it is not.
Here's a practical analogy: We all 'own' the airwaves - the broadcast electromagnetic spectrum. Private corporations use this spectrum to broadcast commercial speech, from which they derive profits. They privatize those profits. Other corporations do this with mountains, with air, with water, with trees, with human beings. None of these things are properly privatized in the personal sense - no one today would say it is OK for TFI to own enpen as a chattel slave. No one would go along with the statement that All American Bottled Water can own ALL the water rights on the Deschutes and hold up those rights until we each pay $5 per liter. Yet that is exactly the logic of private property as santified by the freemarketeers.
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
So someone owning land just
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 1:17pm.Who you talkin' to?
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 1:24pm.Land ownership is not producive property ownership unless you're deriving income from it - such as a mine, an oil well, a farm which is producing goods for market, or rent from tenants.
The difference is huge - witness the fact that native americans used land for centuries and rarely altered the environment so badly they could not use it anymore. In the few instances where native americans terraformed they produced grasslands through fire and actually helped the land produce more than it would have without human impact. By contrast, our own culture has used that same land by draining fossil water reserves from the meltoff of the Laurentide Glacier which used to cover most of N America. And in doing so, we're turning rich farmland into a vast desert (Dustbowl Two will make the 1930's look like a sandbox tantrum).
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
So you have no problem with
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 1:27pm.to be fair
Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 2:00pm."I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
Yes, taxation is less when
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 2:24pm.Grrrrr
Submitted by OlyCop on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 2:10pm.I believe that 933 is badly written. But it was written to deal with the eminent domain issue, and government being out of control with taxation, etc. If it had been written a little better, giving more control of the land to the land owner, and keeping government in check a bit more, it would've been a good thing. But the current language is a bad deal. But it's thinking like I'm reading here that got people together to come up with 933 in the first place.
So I'm leaning towards yes on 933, or maybe it's time to read other threads and calm down.
"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.
That's the part that struck
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 2:25pm.Huh?
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 6:40pm.No, I'm not saying a farmer "has" to do anything. I'm saying that a landowner who does not derive income from their property owns PERSONAL property, and that a landowner who derives income from their property owns PRIVATE property. I'm drawing a distinction, sparked by TFI's use of the term "private property" in the context of these two being equivalent to each other.
The 933 proposal is that people put the market and its logic first, and take all governmental control out of property use decisions. It's the notion that if you have a plan which would subdivide your land and build megaplexes on it, and the bad people in gummint won't let you build megaplexes, then you can sue the gummint for the money you WOULD have made, since they curtailed your use of your land.
That notion is NOT ok with me, but it's not what I was saying here. I'm not for any human community disposing of the land in such a way that it denies the use of that land for future generations. And the human organization which has despoiled more land than any other is indeed gummint. I don't draw a false dichotomy between gummint and industry here, I have them in bed together in all my histories. They rarely even squabble. To get caught in that false dichotomy is the same as believeing that Democrass Party must be full of great guys just because the Repugnicans are so awful.
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
Thanks Rick
Submitted by OlyCop on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 1:13pm.The multi-pages were getting unruly. But your comment about knocking yourself out was a nice pun. :) , and on the money. It was fun, but I'm out.
"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.
By the way, the Biting Beaver's blog has disappeared
Submitted by jlw on Thu, 10/26/2006 - 2:05pm.