Re: META: What did I do wrong?

Michael S. Lorrey (
Fri, 21 May 1999 18:19:44 -0400

Joshua Clingenpeel wrote:

> wrote:
> > Please provide quotes of what evil things I have spewed here. You
> > continue to assert that what I have written contradicts the viewpoints of
> > others on this list, yet you do not back up your statements with any
> > facts. What have I actually written that you are in such disagreement
> > with?
> Then, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> "As in my prior reply, your contention that property rights are a 'fictional
> concept'. Property is a concept of Natural Law, and trying to fictionalize
> something as real as that is just another meme that the totalitarian forces
> use to destroy the rights of the individual. It is evil in every sense of
> the word."
> Property rights are not fictional, but I don't think they could rightly be
> called a concept of Natural Law. I offer the Native Americans as an
> example, whose egalitarian lifestyle was indicative of the lack of property
> rights. Communism, although a pipe dream, attempted to destroy property
> rights, but capitalists are, in my experience, greedy and materialistic. So
> although david_musik was incorrect about property rights being fictitious,
> you were also incorrect assuming the extreme opposite, in that property
> rights are made necessary by Natural Law.

The idea that Native Americans were devoid of the concept of property rights is a complete and utter falsehood perpetrated by socialist sociologists of the early 20th century (much like the scams about there being no Oedipal complex in Samoan children, and the Maya's being a peaceful communal society that knew how to live with nature). The fact that every treaty that was signed between europeans and native tribes dealt with the disposition of ownership of land indicates that they understood about real estate property rights. Native Americans treated real estate property generall as owned by the tribe, although those that actively cultivated corn did subdivide land by families. Examples such as the famous trade of Manhattan for beads indicates an understanding of the concept of property (although its also a convoluted concept of the value of property, which is not at issue here). Beyond real estate property, natives very definitely had recognized personal property , from the brave owni ng captured people from other tribes as slaves, to horses (the main measure of wealth and success in native society), as well as hunting tools, 'camping equipment' etc.

> "How have I done that? I did observe that if you practice your rude,
> obnoxious, condescending ways of poking people's buttons in real life, I
> wouldn't be surprised if you got your nose broken at least once for your
> actions. That is not to imply that it would be me doing it. I consider
> myself a rather non-violent and non-confrontational person, but I am rather
> adamant about defending my own rights. I will not ever shy away from that.
> The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Live free or die, death is not
> the worst of evils. No one who values the freedom of the individual need
> fear me. Those that don't, do, though.
> "If anyone is using straw man tactics, it is you."
> Okay, this has got to stop. I'm talking about the mudslinging, gentlemen.
> I would suggest you read Irvine Welsh's "The Acid House," for one story in
> particular, although the title elludes me currently. I do believe it's
> called "Philosophers" or something. Reminds me of the controlled anger I'm
> reading here. "I wouldn't be surprised if you got your nose broken at least
> once," "I and others know now to avoid you for our own safety." You sound
> like animals who understand diplomacy and are just saying enough not to
> start a war but to stir each other's blood. Shake hands, back off, do
> whatever you have to do, but stop whining and finger-pointing, and remember
> that everyone's opinion matters; maybe not to you, but to at least one
> person, they do. That's all that matters. For a list touting enlightenment
> and tolerance and the advancement of the species, this seems slightly
> detrimental to the process and degrading on the whole. Any problems?

I was simply taking his argument to an absurdum ad nauseum to illustrate its irrationality. He was making personal aspersions. Ok, so I was getting a little ad hominem, but it was simply illustrating my point that he seems to like to do these things because he enjoys the abuse he receives back... very masochistic.

Mike Lorrey