Comment: Power

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Hello... (see in situ)


"Power is different from rights."

How do you measure the power in question?

English may not suffice to be the tool required to communicate accurately at this level.

I don't know.

If you have something in mind, a "right" as you say, then this thing can be measured, or not.

Please tell me how you measure a right.

To me you will either have the power to measure a right or you won't.

If you have the power to measure a right, then you may or may not have the power to communicate to me, without error, your precise measurement of that right that you have found and you have measured, and you then communicate to me as it is, a right, and now I can measure it too.

I would also need, a must have, the power to measure the right the same way you measured it, and our involvement, by the way, would neither add to or subtract from that right, if it exists.

"Power can be used for justice or not."

I saw above how you disagree with something that you claim to be Josiah Warren's work on Equitable Commerce, so we are worlds apart in our ability to understand each other. I think it is important to recognize this condition accurately sooner rather than too late.

What do you think justice is exactly?

I think Warren does a very accurate job of communicating the precise meaning of justice, and that is one reason why I am asking for you to clarify what you mean by the word justice.

It is imprudent, in my opinion, to launch much further into discussion if we do not share the slightest understanding of rights or justice.

"Someone can obtain power to protect land or take away land with a gun."

Which power is employed by someone to obtain power?

We now have three very contentious words where English is obviously failing to work if the assumption is that we both want to communicate accurately in a discussion.

1. Power
2. Rights
3. Justice
4. Discussion

We may also have divergent understandings of the meaning of the word discussion.

I think that discussion is an effort made by people to compare viewpoints in the effort to make the viewpoint higher in quality and lower in cost.

"Assuming you believe in the idea of natural rights (not saying you have to), people have the 'right' to defend themselves with force if someone is trying to kill them."

That is not my way of viewpoint life on earth. A person may be happily going through life torturing and murdering millions of people and then one of the targeted victims, in defense, tries to kill the criminal.

"people have the 'right' to defend themselves with force if someone is trying to kill them"

So the criminal has the 'right' to defend himself as the victim being tortured is somehow turning the table and gains the power to kill the criminal instead?

"People have property 'rights' if they put time and energy into a product."

That sounds a lot like the words written in Equitable Commerce so I'm wondering what you think is wrong with Equitable Commerce.

I may never know, since our viewpoints are worlds apart, measurably, up to this point.

"The two options of 1)criminally or 2)non-criminally presupposes the existence of the state."

Now we have a very large list of words that are apparently defined differently in your viewpoint compared competitively to my viewpoint.

1. Power
2. Rights
3. Justice
4. Discussion
5. Equitable Commerce
6. Criminal
7. State

The chances of us two communicating, at all, appear to be growing exponentially more unlikely.

"If you are like me and don't believe in the authority/existence of governments."

More words added to the list:

1. Power
2. Rights
3. Justice
4. Discussion
5. Equitable Commerce
6. Criminal
7. State
8. Authority
9. Government

"1)justly or 2)non-justly. I would agree with those options. Hence I think the homestead principle is just."

I don't have a clue as to what you think "justly" is or is not.

I don't know what the homestead principle, according to you, is or not.

"The enforcement of natural law justice may be delegated to the state or not. I prefer enforcement of natural law via contract, your community or individually rather than through government."

There is no way I can see, except under duress, that I would ever think about signing a contract with you, since we apparently can't even speak the same language.