I don’t. Territorialism seems rather primitive and unsophisticated to me. What’s the point in borders if you don’t enforce them? Exactly. Real community is based upon relationships, not acquisition. Borders negotiated between people in their daily lives are more real than fighting over territory.
Public property is not for private use, it is for public use. But feeling a need to sort between “any yokel” and “not just any yokel” is the foundation of classism. In doing so, you undermine a significant aspect of democracy.
Because I don’t believe in property. I think it’s delusional. I find it more efficient to simply maintain a pool of resources which anyone can use, rather than each having separate and redundant sets of “private property”.
There are public schools, am I allowed to live in them? Should I be?
How about courthouses? Jails? They’re public property - so the doors and keys must be publicly owned too, why couldn’t I walk in and open my cell doors with my keys?
Would you be living there publically? Or privately? And “allowed” by whom? If you use public resources privately, you would be taking them away from the pool of public resources.
That is a huge point of contention. Something I have been trying to figure out in my town is forcing it to replace all keys and restricted access systems with a publically-controlled system. Each townsperson gets an access card, and each access point can have a log of who uses it. This could go some ways towards increasing accountability of elected officials and reducing corruption, as it allows for direct oversight.
Sometimes, facilitating all of the public means that there need to be restrictions. The government isn’t there facilitate you, personally. It’s there to facilitate the community you’re part of.
When the public entrusts a government agency with taxpayer-funded resources and equipment there is an implicit or explicit understanding that THOSE RESOURCES ARE TO BE USED FOR THEIR STATED PURPOSE, by the PEOPLE WE’VE ENTRUSTED TO DO SO.
I agree. But, paradoxically, it is only the members of the public who can define what communities they are a part of. Government have no place in recognizing or validating these.
And what do you do when you are a strict collectivist and your government requires you to have a personal identity, personal property, and personal problems?
Why are you asking if that’s what I mean? Could you more precisely formulate a question?
I don’t know what Safeway is. What precisely makes any given trip “personal”? How is driving an (arguably) public vehicle upon a public road theft, if it is still in public?
The same question cuts the other way. Should goverment personnel be allowed by the public to park their vehicles upon private property, for unaccountable reasons? I have questioned local officials about parking municipal vehicles at a local strip mall while on their business, they were quite evasive about specifics, but hastily suggested that it was a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
“Trust” is an amazingly loaded term. I agree in the abstract with what you are saying. But trust is not automatic, and cannot be compelled. Trust requires far more accountability for some than presently exists.
In part, but individuals don’t get the final say about whether they’re part of a community (at least, without taking measures to isolate themselves). Communities, by their very definition, are defined by interactions between multiple individuals, not by what a single individual decides.
Of course, because that’s backwards: governments are formed by the communities.
Go play hermit, or go find or create some other community of like-minded people if you don’t fancy surviving by yourself? You have no place trying to force the rest of a community you’re part of (through your interactions with them) to cooperate with notions held only by yourself, though you’re of course free to try to convince them that your way is better.
Safeway is a US grocery store chain, which was pretty clear from the context in the post.
You introduced the idea that private use takes from the public pool and would be wrong. It now seems that “private use” has some definition unique to you. I would certainly consider using public resources to go grocery shopping for my wingnut club private use.
Not that any of that matters. Because despite how you’d like property to function, it doesn’t work that way and this is, in fact, a crime.
Their big beef with the Feds is that they don’t get to exploit publicly owned resources however they wish, so you guys think alike. At the same time, I’m extremely glad things don’t actually work that way.
Not really. I just strive to not have a personal/private life. I think that all activity is group activity, whether people are aware of it or not.
Is membership of their club private or public?
How about the counter example I gave of public officials parking municipal vehicles at local private stores? Isn’t that taking them out of the public pool also? Are they going to cooperate if I arrest them for shopping which isn’t part of their office? Or are they going to go out of their way to insist it as somehow vaguely legitimate?
Of course it matters. You and I are just as able to decide how property functions as readily anyone else does. Consensus requires communication. That’s what we do here.
You’re telling me how I think? No, what you are describing is not at all how I think. I think that both parties are wrong, As I mentioned in the topic I forked off with daneel, I am pushing for large-scale publicization, rather than privitization.
The numptie was already out on bail on previous charges of trying to seize a national park as his personal possession (and trying to protect his stolen property with lethal boobytraps). Needless to say, he is a self-taught Constitutional Scholar with his own version of the US Constitution. His bail condition was “Don’t occupy any more federal property”.
So he was busted for bail violation; the whole truck-stealing business is just icing on the cake.
These people are not the sharpest hammers in the sack.
I am not being duplicitous–I dont believe in consensus. I believe it can exist, i wont deny that. However. The idea of consensus is a blight. Only through struggle, argument, and ultimately violence is progress for a community made.
I am also dubious about normalized communication. I support protocols, but self organizing communication is often more trouble than it is worth.
If you’ve ever read Confederacy of Dunces, I am a nicer, more comely version of Ignatius Reilly. Consensus can feck off, feudalism is where its at.
