Stosh Posted June 4, 2015 Thats better. But none of it contradicts what I said. Its presenting a rationale for things being as they are. Always a safe bet, but theres exceptions. If a person inherits a chunk of land, or company or govt kills or swindles for it , do you count this as earning? Lets look at Detroit, did the ownership of those properties protect them? If oil was found on my texas ranch, have I gotten a free lunch? Luck is big factor determining financial winners and losers, can one say the lucky have earned it all more than the unlucky? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KenBrace Posted June 5, 2015 I don't want to own money, objects, this body, this mind, knowledge, or any of it. As soon as I feel this way, and I go around saying 'not mine,' 'don't want it,' etc. my spirit friends take over my body and start doing everything for me...then I just 'ride the Ox' - how wonderful!  There's just one problem with that. You are your body. Not owning yourself basically means that you don't exist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted June 5, 2015 There's just one problem with that. You are your body. Not owning yourself basically means that you don't exist. I suspect that, given the opportunity, the women currently being taken as spoils of war and sold into slavery under Shari'a would not share your opinion on this point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KenBrace Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) I suspect that, given the opportunity, the women currently being taken as spoils of war and sold into slavery under Shari'a would not share your opinion on this point. Â Just because you don't have complete control of your surroundings (is that even possible?) doesn't mean that you don't own yourself/you aren't yourself. Edited June 5, 2015 by KenBrace Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted June 5, 2015 It might be wise for you to contemplate this one a bit more. Â I won't push the point, though, because I think you have accidentally stepped onto thin ice and, despite any notions you may have of me to the contrary, I harbor no ill will towards you. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
z00se Posted June 5, 2015 I have to agree with Nungil. Anybody u shoot in a war, do they still own their lives, their land? You only own what's yours until its taken. Or stolen. Is the land still the American Indians? Some of the Aussie aboriginal children used to be their parents, then they they became children of the state and taken from their homes due to some law change. Hong Kong was chinas, then englands, then china again. Ownership is who can prove what or who has the biggest gun. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted June 5, 2015 No worry. I am willing to die for what I believe is right just as I was for twenty years in the Army.  One may kill me but one can never kill my truth.  Mmmm-hmmm . Even though I dont have land ownership officially, I still have held my patch, for over 20 years, against people that declared they would just come and take it, asked how I would stand up to a 'home invasion'  (   that guy has been friendly and respectful to me ever since I answered him ... or let's say 'demonstrated' my answer to him   ) ,  the local council, the fire inspector that insisted the grove of  turpentine  and bloodwood trees the cabin is nestled within had to be cut down ...   , a couple of lone crazies, an attempted squatter,  the 2 year Supreme Court case .....      ....  then, on a hunchy whimpanic thingo last year (or was it the year before ? )  I thought, what if I do ending up losing my home. Then I recovered, got my centre back and went 'So ? Stop being stupid!"  Did my 'thing' and got the best most amazing place dropped in my lap.  And didnt 'lose the farm'. Then I had a place up the mountain and one in the valley.  The owner of the mountain one wanted it back, so I  am back 'down' here.  And its winter, cold, overcast with rain today, and frosty this morning. I am inside with a fire going.   I am very grateful for that  .     2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted June 5, 2015 Happens all the time , I don't have to respect your property to covet my own.  Maybe, but then others might not respect your 'right to covert' your own.   Actually, I live one the border, the old fence line is mostly down and overgrown.  The neighbours property, where it abuts ours, is a part of it he doesn't use. So I started using it. Then told him. he had a look ( and no one messes with "Big M"   ) and thought it was okay. Each time I did something there ( cleared a  fire brake,  slashed with the tractor, camped, collected firewood ) I let him know, Eventually he said "I dont really care what you do there, you're allright."  ... There is a good little house site there too, with a bit of a view.  A little crack hidden between officialdoms.  Just have to  get access through this place, without a nosey dork reporting you. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Yes, I can be dismissive. Your argument had no substance.  It is historical fact that there must be restrictions else the people who visit will trash the place. If people haven't made a personal investment in property they will not care for it and in a lot of cases they will intentionally trash it. Just look at Detroit.  Same way with the public lands in the US. People trashed the parks so the government had to create the Park Service in order to stop the trashing.  Freedom means you work for what you get. There ain't no free lunches. Somebody has to pay for them.  If all one want to do is get and give nothing in return they will eventually be told to hit the road.  Too right ! I am sooo less free about campers and squatters here because people trash the place.  Its a bummer the bad stuff of the few does that for the rest,  but as time goes on, I dont see people getting better, just talking a lot more about how better they are now.    The other side of the that coin is ... who has the guns ?   As you know, this is one of my particular raves ,  so it isnt directed to you.  People in this country looked after and respected and lived in harmony with the land for over 40,000 years.  There is certainly a free lunch when you oppress people. But yes  somebody has to pay for it.  Who, here, is gonna tell whitey to hit the road ?  Why do you guys think I got it so good here, in the first place ?   ... Yep ! It was one of those wild unclaimed wilderness places, just waiting for us. Where no one lived.  No one ?  Well,  a few. They all got colds and .... stuff like that, and ummmm .... 'went away'  'somewhere else' .  Oh yeah ... there was the 'accident' with the rat poison and the flour ... and the poison beer ... and .....   Some hid , or went where they were told, or got taken there.  Now, their descendants are coming back out the wood work.  This is their place IMO, as I , and any receptive person, can feel the connection between them and the environment that they have 'come out of'.  They are a part of and a product of that environment, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.  I can not deny that, because I have felt it and understood it .    Same thing goes though, if you respect it (environment and where you live, and understand the different parts and energies of where you live) they will share, and share that above connection, so you start to feel it yourself.  You really get to 'tap in'.  But if you dont respect what others have and develop and consider all the time and effort they put in, and want to take, and demand and not ask ... then you can fuck off! Edited June 5, 2015 by Nungali 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
z00se Posted June 5, 2015  ... Yep ! It was one of those wild unclaimed wilderness places, just waiting for us. Where no one lived.  No one ?  Well,  a few. They all got colds and .... stuff like that, and ummmm .... 'went away'  'somewhere else' .  Oh yeah ... there was the 'accident' with the rat poison and the flour ... and the poison beer ... and .....   Some hid , or went where they were told, or got taken there.  Now, their descendants are coming back out the wood work.  This is their place IMO, as I , and any receptive person, can feel the connection between them and the environment that they have 'come out of'.  They are a part of and a product of that environment, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.  I can not deny that, because I have felt it and understood it .    Same thing goes though, if you respect it (environment and where you live, and understand the different parts and energies of where you live) they will share, and share that above connection, so you start to feel it yourself.  You really get to 'tap in'.   Correction.... WAS their place. You felt it, understood it, but didn't want to give it back. You're a white man  But if you dont respect what others have and develop and consider all the time and effort they put in, and want to take, and demand and not ask ... then you can fuck off!  Mmmm, psycho.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 5, 2015 ... none of it contradicts what I said. Its presenting a rationale for things being as they are. Always a safe bet, but theres exceptions. The truth will always show itself if allowed to flow freely. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted June 5, 2015 Maybe, but then others might not respect your 'right to covet' your own.   Actually, I live one the border, the old fence line is mostly down and overgrown.  The neighbours property, where it abuts ours, is a part of it he doesn't use. So I started using it. Then told him. he had a look ( and no one messes with "Big M"   ) and thought it was okay. Each time I did something there ( cleared a  fire brake,  slashed with the tractor, camped, collected firewood ) I let him know, Eventually he said "I dont really care what you do there, you're allright."  ... There is a good little house site there too, with a bit of a view.  A little crack hidden between officialdoms.  Just have to  get access through this place, without a nosey dork reporting you. True. Your situation still divides rights to property use and there are still exclusions going on. So Its not actually a case of no one owning the land.  I guess the company wants to maintain the cohesiveness of the community through the collective ownership.  In this case , its the inability to sell the property out of the collective which does that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RiverSnake Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) The material stuff is easy, have a garage sale, you label everything as free and I'm sure it will all be gone within a day....the mind, emotions and life responsibility thing....sorry your on your own there. Â IME, spiritual growth involves taking on supreme responsobility for all aspects of oneself....not surrendering ones responsibility to some foreign force which is supposedly all wise and all knowing.....no being, incarnate or dis-incarnate deserves that kind of pedestal....none, zip, zero....IMO. Â Any "spirit friend" that makes that kind of proposal....be highly suspicious. Edited June 7, 2015 by OldChi 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) Correction.... WAS their place.  Serves correction back to you ... it still is  !  You felt it, understood it, but didn't want to give it back. You're a white man  How would you know ?   And where do you get off telling me what I want or not ?  And assuming what arrangements I have made with the Gumbaynggirr and Bundjalung.  You are a  baarligen baligen !   Mmmm, psycho....  Are you suggesting the opposite of what I said isnt psycho ?  And that you go around not respecting what others have and develop and  do not consider all the time and effort they put in, and think it is okay  to take, and demand and not ask ...   if that's what you mean  .....  you the  one acting all white fellah   !   Edited June 7, 2015 by Nungali Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) True. Your situation still divides rights to property use and there are still exclusions going on. So Its not actually a case of no one owning the land.  I guess the company wants to maintain the cohesiveness of the community through the collective ownership.  In this case , its the inability to sell the property out of the collective which does that.  Yep, but the exclusions are 'naturally formed' not upheld by legislation'.  My  'personal situation ' certainly does divide rights to property use - my situation, my home, there is my perimeter < points >  .  That's one part of what I wrote about in 'repelling' others that suggested taking it by force.  My point was, where I live ( the legal land parcel of a 'Multiple Occupancy Code Development) does not have individual people holding legal title over pieces of divided land ( as most other Multiple Occupancies do ).  No one individual person  legally owns  or has land title to the land, or the part they live on.  Which for many is hard to comprehend, and occasionally people who dont comprehend it think they can get an advantage ... if you dont legally own it, then they will take it.  That's where 'natural law' comes into play (even though I DO have rights of residence under official law extended through the companies by-laws  but not ownership  ). Edited June 7, 2015 by Nungali Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
z00se Posted June 7, 2015 Serves correction back to you ... it still is  !   How would you know ?   And where do you get off telling me what I want or not ?  And assuming what arrangements I have made with the Gumbaynggirr and Bundjalung.  You are a  baarligen baligen !    Are you suggesting the opposite of what I said isnt psycho ?  And that you go around not respecting what others have and develop and  do not consider all the time and effort they put in, and think it is okay  to take, and demand and not ask ...   if that's what you mean  .....  you the  one acting all white fellah   !    Hahah  I don't know the ins and outs of american indian rights in America, but in Australia... whites are now the owners. I saw a good cartoon where it had a judge looking guy with the wig and a suit behind a desk and 2 aboriginals in their tribal gear. The white guy said 'OK, we'll have a truse, we'll occupy the best land, fish the best waters, and build cities where we want, but we'll acknowledge you guys as the original owners of the land'.  I don't know what a baarligen baligen ! is so can't comment.  Psycho was just pointed at the aggressiveness that you seemed to show. I thought we were all discussing, i thought that was uncalled for.  I am a white fella, (well kinda brown, the girls love it ), but i don't try to sugarcoat what is really happening. It has always been the way throughout time. The Take-overers get all the good stuff, the Take-overee's get what's left. Thats just the way things work and have for millenia. Shouldn't we work on the basis of what is, rather than what should-be, and work out the best possible path for those involved based on those unchangeables? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 7, 2015   if that's what you mean  .....  you the  one acting all white fellah   !   Did you know that "White" and "African-American" are both now considered "races" of the human animal by the US government?  Political correctness is strange stuff. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 7, 2015  That's where 'natural law' comes into play (even though I DO have rights of residence under official law extended through the companies by-laws  but not ownership  ). That might well have something to do with mineral rights. The resident does not have legal claim to any minerals in the earth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 7, 2015  It has always been the way throughout time. The Take-overers get all the good stuff, the Take-overee's get what's left. Thats just the way things work and have for millenia. Yep. The winners win and the losers lose. That called competition. But still, someone had to define who wins and who loses. It should be too much of a surprise that it were the winners who defined this distinction.  I legally own my property. Ownership came without the use of force. Force may be used to defend my ownership. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) Hahah  I don't know the ins and outs of american indian rights in America, but in Australia... whites are now the owners. I saw a good cartoon where it had a judge looking guy with the wig and a suit behind a desk and 2 aboriginals in their tribal gear. The white guy said 'OK, we'll have a truse, we'll occupy the best land, fish the best waters, and build cities where we want, but we'll acknowledge you guys as the original owners of the land'.  If someone steals your bike and rides around flaunting it, and falsifies a receipt so they have  'proof'  and I know about that I am  going to say, there goes your bike z00se, with the bastard on it that stole it.   But thats just me.  I might even end up sharing  my bike with you .  I know it doesnt get the bike back to you.  And that is not even addressing the issue that some land has been given back already. I have been to visited and stayed on land recently returned , that a friend who is an elder is now custodian of. It used to be their land when he was a little kid, it has a cave he used to play in and a river they used to fish in, and now they are doing that again.  I have never been anything but welcome there.  Some dickheads trashed the place and there were driven of by force and threat .... but apparently, thats psycho ?  <shrug>  whatever.  Fair enough I suppose. < shrugs again >  I have old people, single mothers with new born babies, indigenous elders, kids, dumped dogs, injured animals stay here, at times I slept outside in the cold in winter ( twice when homeless single mothers with little babies stayed in the cabin ) ....  but, come here and try to push around, disrupt, take over, hassle my guests and yeah, I will 'go psycho' on  you  ( looks over the martial arts weapons ) .... with .....   this one  !   - just remembered one amusing incident with 'Sir Percy' ( a re incarnated Knight -  who I apparently battled in the past in a joust and put his eye out ,,, and it carried over to now in the etheric plane and manifested in his name ; Percy ... pierce eye ... apparently).  He smashed his car and believed it was my fault ,so he came here to get even,  red faced and frothing, kicked my friends little dog and was rude and threatening to her, the noise woke me up from my nap (not a good idea ), I looked down from the verandah, MV ( wild feral man)  jumps out the bushes where he was napping and Pete the Greek ( ex army parachuter ) comes bolting out the cabin. Now he is surrounded by three of us  so he legged it    ... picked the wrong day to go psycho on me !  Yeah ... he probably thinks we were all psycho.  I don't know what a baarligen baligen ! is so can't comment.  A cheeky quoll    Psycho was just pointed at the aggressiveness that you seemed to show. I thought we were all discussing, i thought that was uncalled for.  yeah, we are all discussing .... do you mean this bit  " But if you dont respect what others have and develop and consider all the time and effort they put in, and want to take, and demand and not ask ... then you can fuck off! " ?  You took that personally or as if I was aiming at those in the discussion  ... no ... not unless you would come here or on to someone's patch and do that.  Or was it the 'f' word usage that indicates  psychotic behaviour .... or was there a reason you took it personally ???  I will remove 'Aussie you' then and the colloquial projective grammar  But if one does not respect what others have and develop and consider all the time and effort they put in, and want to take, and demand and not ask ... then they can fuck off !    There !  Cleaned up   I am a white fella, (well kinda brown, the girls love it ), but i don't try to sugarcoat what is really happening.  Whoa there !  Sugercoat... are you saying I am sugar coating and saying the land was never taken and they still own it in more than  in a moral and spiritual sense ?   No way.   Ahhh .... wait a minute ... now I am getting it ...you are in Melbourne, right ?  Thaaaat explains it  * (see below )  It has always been the way throughout time. The Take-overers get all the good stuff, the Take-overee's get what's left. Thats just the way things work and have for millenia. Shouldn't we work on the basis of what is, rather than what should-be, and work out the best possible path for those involved based on those unchangeables?  Certainly ....  thats what I have been doing for some time. Some people try to fuck up the process, I dont like that, I will try to stop them from trashing things.  Some people dont listen until they get a crack on the head (or a stone axe planted in it ... yes it happens ) .  If you realise the above in that last paragraph you wrote, you will realise that people fight over land and  associated rights, always have. But to fight back is 'psycho' ?  Yep, it is an age old situation, at its heart seems  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgias_%28dialogue%29#The_pitiful_tyrant   -  3.4     *  Land rights in Melbourne ... a must watch !     Dude ... 5 of them turned up here, they were welcome, stayed about 3 days, hunted goanna, shared it with me, sat around a fire at the river at night, told stories, laughed. Then I got an open invite to go and stay with them. Its been going back and forwards for near 20 years now.  They even built a humpy for me  to stay in when I visit at their place ... beautiful it is .... looks down the river, nice fire inside ...    But I dont live in Melbourne   Edited June 7, 2015 by Nungali 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted June 7, 2015 Did you know that "White" and "African-American" are both now considered "races" of the human animal by the US government?  Political correctness is strange stuff.  No I didnt.  At least here on Daobums the majority seem to think race within the human race is  a defunct and false concept.  I like our political correctness better:  " Yesterday a woman was robbed by a man of  ..............  (insert 'Middle eastern' ... 'Asian' , etc )   appearance  . "  During the race riots here ( at Cronulla) a bunch of yobs are screaming ' Kick out the Lebs go back where ya came from"  A Lebanese were shouting back " But  I was born here ! " Another shouts at the yobs:  " You guys need to go back where you came from too then , none of you are Aboriginal ! "  Then this guy comes forward and says " What about me ? I am half Lebanese and half Aboriginal  !  Where am I supposed to go back to "    Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted June 7, 2015 That might well have something to do with mineral rights. The resident does not have legal claim to any minerals in the earth.  Nah, its our deliberate set up just on this Multiple Occupancy. But you bring an interesting point. Even if I did have a parcel of land that I owned by land title, it is only the surface ( not sure how far down ).  Australian land title does not include what is underneath. It does in some countries. In France, the land beneath you is considered yours all the way to the centre of the earth.  Some get around that though.  There is no mining allowed in some places, and if there is or isn't , what's down there does not automatically belong to you.  Like big chunks of 'Tintenbar opal'    But ... for 'some reason' farmers at Tintenbar need a LOT of dams put in .  No law against that .... and if one happens to dig up something ... and not tell anyone  ( except certain dealers in the opal black market ) .....      ( psssst ... wanna buy some  ) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zerostao Posted June 8, 2015 That might well have something to do with mineral rights. The resident does not have legal claim to any minerals in the earth. in kentucky the deed holder 'owns' the mineral rights and could sell those mineral rights if they choose. when the first person in kentucky drilled a well for water that established 'ownership' for what lay beneath the surface Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 8, 2015 Yeah, different countries, different US states have different laws about that. Â I drilled for water here at my place and couldn't even get any of that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 8, 2015  But I dont live in Melbourne   Well, what the hell. A cup of tea is better than palming dirty water out of the ground. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
