Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

Has someone suggested that ownership is "absolute?" I don't know where such an idea would come from. You cannot observe something and deduce its owner (certainly inscriptions are possible, but ownership doesn't necessarily follow from that).

This is from a text by historian Orlando Patterson, entitled Slavery and Social Death:

The prevailing view of ownership, which persists as a fundamental legal concept in continental civil law and is now universally employed as a social concept even in countries such as Britain and America in spite of its irrelevance to common law, is the Roman view that it is a set of absolute rights in rem - things, usually tangibles, sometimes also intangibles.

If you wanted a perfection of traced paths of ownership this is impossible. Even if it were possible, the chain of "rightful ownership" has been broken by war and other thefts a number of times probably beyond count. We don't have a clear tracing of descendants either.

Of course, we could theoretically somehow trace all that, and then what? Do you owe me an ox your grandfather^76 stole from my great uncle^77? But then I owe you in return for the half acre of prime mountain grazing stolen by some other relative from some other relative? If all ownership becomes illegitimate then none of it becomes illegitimate, as we are all simply new first owners. Back we come to possession.

Does ownership extend to plants? To dirt? rock? planets? Solar systems?

Lots to talk about here.

For starters, you seem to be saying that, theoretically, first ownership could be traced; but this raises some important questions. Who was the first owner; the first human? But who was the first human? You've insinuated that animals, plants, rocks, etc. cannot own things; but how do we distinguish exactly when human subjects capable of ownership evolved into existence? Did the first owning human need to say: "This is mine!" But if that's the case, then ownership is a fiction - in other words, it's something that must be discursively constructed.

You also say that if all ownership is illegitimate then this somehow legitimizes all ownership; but this doesn't add up either, or at least does nothing to underscore the existence of ownership. Arbitrarily deciding on a point to mark as the origin of ownership undermines the logic of ownership; ownership simply ceases to exist. There's nothing to substantiate any claim to own something. Anyone can swoop in and take what is "yours" and you have no rational argument to resist this, since the thief can now simply declare his possession to be the new origin of ownership.

 

[Dak]

First of all, my rhetorical question (and other discussions at other times) should make clear that I find talk of ownership, rights, etc., among the living and non-living forms on this planet other than humans to be ridiculous and a non-starter (not that this excuses wanton destruction, there are other reasons for not taking a slash and burn approach to the environment).

Ultimately ownership is going to boil down to an ability to hold. Whether we do that directly via walls and locks and weapons, or indirectly by mutual agreement in a legal and social system. The "justification" as it were is the means to settle disagreement over ownership where one or both parties would wish to avoid dying over it, etc. The idea of ownership (mine!) as well as the ability to recognize when one has been defrauded (theft) is seen in studies of children at an age where they either can't speak or barely can do so. The logic or rationality behind "just" or "rightful" ownership that extends beyond what I hold in my hand at any given time is illusory in the sense that I am said to possess it without holding it in my hand. But it's not "unsubstantiated", and isn't purely a social construct (obviously it is a human construct).

 

[Einherjar86]

First of all, my rhetorical question (and other discussions at other times) should make clear that I find talk of ownership, rights, etc., among the living and non-living forms on this planet other than humans to be ridiculous and a non-starter (not that this excuses wanton destruction, there are other reasons for not taking a slash and burn approach to the environment).

Well, I'm not trying to argue that animals are property-holding subjects; I was merely pointing out that concepts of property and ownership (as described by Patterson) must either be admitted as fictions, or be capable of extension to nonhuman subjects. If the ownership of one's body is absolute, for instance, it would seem to me that an animal also has absolute ownership of its body. If the response to this claim is then that humans have the ability to conceive of themselves as owners, then we depart from any notion of inherent, or innate ownership, and enter into the realm of ownership as a set of discursive relations (i.e. fictional, or constructed).

Ultimately ownership is going to boil down to an ability to hold. Whether we do that directly via walls and locks and weapons, or indirectly by mutual agreement in a legal and social system. The "justification" as it were is the means to settle disagreement over ownership where one or both parties would wish to avoid dying over it, etc. The idea of ownership (mine!) as well as the ability to recognize when one has been defrauded (theft) is seen in studies of children at an age where they either can't speak or barely can do so. The logic or rationality behind "just" or "rightful" ownership that extends beyond what I hold in my hand at any given time is illusory in the sense that I am said to possess it without holding it in my hand. But it's not "unsubstantiated", and isn't purely a social construct (obviously it is a human construct).

I actually don't think we're on opposite sides here, I just think you expected us to be . Ownership is unsubstantiated if any individual, at any time, can take someone else's property and declare a new phase of ownership. In such a scenario, ownership ceases to be what it is, which is a right to something beyond one's immediate tactile possession of it (i.e. holding it in your hand).

I'm not trying to say that ownership doesn't exist and that it's a free-for-all. I'm saying that, just as we shouldn't need to justify economic success, or accumulation, by appealing to the free market, we also shouldn't need to justify ownership by appealing to abstract notions of absolute rights in a thing. Rather, we should acknowledge that all property and ownership is the result of necessary violence; but the current cultural mythology of property precludes this.

I'm not saying that you or anyone else is necessarily swayed by this cultural mythology, I'm simply calling attention to it because I wanted to parse it out. To be honest, your response was more rational than I'd expected (also, not implying that you're usually irrational).

I think it's pretty clear that if ownership does simply boil down to what someone can hold on to, then legal and social discourses don't go along with this (which is what Patterson is getting at, partially). Ideological conceptions of property invest a great deal of abstract, absolute rights in objects. "Things are mine because they're mine; yes, I bought them, or yes, I made them - but this has brought about an inherent right to these things that cannot be taken away..." etc. etc.

Ownership is definitely a human construct; but often the explanation for property, or ownership, makes contradictory appeals to something inherent and/or absolute that would automatically include other forms of life, and perhaps even things. So I'm just trying to tease out these complications.

 

[Dak]

Ownership is unsubstantiated if any individual, at any time, can take someone else's property and declare a new phase of ownership. In such a scenario, ownership ceases to be what it is, which is a right to something beyond one's immediate tactile possession of it (i.e. holding it in your hand).

Maybe we have different ideas of what "unsubstantiated" means. Of course a thief thinks of a stolen thing as "his", at a bare minimum in relation between himself and anyone other than the "real" owner.

On a similar note, Land recently had a couple of links on "steel anarchism" (essentially anarchocapitalism) and a response, in which the response suggested that anarchocapitalism should not lay claim to the anarchic label because hierarchies of a voluntary sort are still accepted, thereofore is is still "Archic" as it were. Instead the response suggested "Aristocratic Egalitarianism", which I think is way off the mark, but maybe the initial critique has a point of sorts

 

[Einherjar86]

I think that calling it "aristocratic" at least exhibits a degree of self-awareness.

The instantly immediate problem is that of descriptivism versus prescriptivism; in other words, when hierarchies form organically (never really possible, in my opinion - those on top always have an interest in getting/staying there) they reflect certain material dynamics that are value-less (that is, they're descriptive of material elements). But once hierarchies are in place they are all too easily seen as being prescriptive of the way that things should be. There's no such thing as hierarchies that include the possibility of their dissolution as a constitutive component of their structure. All hierarchies are power structures that have an interest in maintaining that structure.

 

[Dak]

The instantly immediate problem is that of descriptivism versus prescriptivism; in other words, when hierarchies form organically (never really possible, in my opinion - those on top always have an interest in getting/staying there) they reflect certain material dynamics that are value-less (that is, they're descriptive of material elements). But once hierarchies are in place they are all too easily seen as being prescriptive of the way that things should be. There's no such thing as hierarchies that include the possibility of their dissolution as a constitutive component of their structure. All hierarchies are power structures that have an interest in maintaining that structure.

Well I agree that organizations period (which includes the hierarchies within) do not have the possibility of dissolution as a constitutive component of their structure. This is where Exit comes in.

It's all about exposure.

And police brutality goes hand in hand with racial discrimination and targeting; I cannot begin to understand why you choose to ignore the racial aspect.

Maybe it's because you haven't been around a lot of those who really "belong" to the Praetorian class. Merely having been in the military doesn't necessarily qualify someone. There is a certain kind of person who functions as a Praetorian. They often gravitate to Military Police and then to regular police once out of the military. Extreme us v them mentality, although by degree depending on other things. I don't ignore the racial aspect, but it simply isn't the only factor. In fact, it isn't the primary factor in the majority of police v "civilian" altercations, from the perspective of the officer. That the laws themselves are often aimed at minorities is a separate matter.

No knock raids don't look different for a Jamal compared to one for a Patrick.

EDIT: I'm more than happy to take this over into the Batshit thread, but I want to talk about the blanket criticism: "No one, regardless of race, gender, sex, age, etc. should be subject to reckless and excessive state violence."

I agree completely with this statement; but I think it's important to see how there is more to the issue than that. In other words, simply solving the problem posed by that statement does not address the racist implications of state violence. To put it even more bluntly: addressing the issue purely on the basis of state violence solves the problem for the dominant racial class (i.e. whites) and no one else.

The unspoken and unrealized element of the deracialized comment above (that "no one, regardless of race, should be subject to state violence") is that its very phrasing is actually racially motivated.

Well of course it is dealing with race. It has to specify for clarity. Otherwise the statement is prone to the same historical contextual issue surrounding "All (white, land owning) men are created equal." May as well also mention the other qualifiers are age-ally/sexually/etc "motivated".

My main issue, probably predictably, is with this though:

To put it even more bluntly: addressing the issue purely on the basis of state violence solves the problem for the dominant racial class (i.e. whites) and no one else.

That doesn't necessarily follow.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well I agree that organizations period (which includes the hierarchies within) do not have the possibility of dissolution as a constitutive component of their structure. This is where Exit comes in.

Exit is an illusion. Like freedom.

There are good points below that I don't agree with, but I'm not going to bother looking up stats or anything else. I'm merely going to present a different perspective on the same scenarios that, even if it isn't necessarily always true, is certainly plausible and true most of the time.

Maybe it's because you haven't been around a lot of those who really "belong" to the Praetorian class. Merely having been in the military doesn't necessarily qualify someone. There is a certain kind of person who functions as a Praetorian. They often gravitate to Military Police and then to regular police once out of the military. Extreme us v them mentality, although by degree depending on other things. I don't ignore the racial aspect, but it simply isn't the only factor. In fact, it isn't the primary factor in the majority of police v "civilian" altercations, from the perspective of the officer. That the laws themselves are often aimed at minorities is a separate matter.

No knock raids don't look different for a Jamal compared to one for a Patrick.

There are far more knock raids for a Jamal than for a Patrick though. And if we dial it back and simply discuss unplanned interactions between police officers and individuals, there is a very different dynamic that affects situations involving blacks than that which involves whites.

I was pulled over once, in my pajamas, in my parents' suburban neighborhood. I didn't have my license on me. The officer did nothing, let me go, and apologized to me because I was in my pajamas. The evidence suggests, overwhelmingly, that this would not have happened had I been a young black man, with no license, in my pajamas and in a suburban neighborhood.

Well of course it is dealing with race. It has to specify for clarity. Otherwise the statement is prone to the same historical contextual issue surrounding "All (white, land owning) men are created equal." May as well also mention the other qualifiers are age-ally/sexually/etc "motivated".

It isn't dealing with race; that's the ideological trick. It suspends the possibility of discerning differing qualities of treatment by the state among different racial groups. It merely assembles all racial groups into a single category and says: "No one should be hassled by the state." Well, that's fine and dandy; but if you fix the issues regarding the state, you've still completed ignored the racialized factors that caused the state to focus more intently on certain racial groups in the first place. Which leads me to this comment:

My main issue, probably predictably, is with this though:

That doesn't necessarily follow.

No, not necessarily; but it does in this case, which is what I'm trying to get you to notice.

If you admit that the state targets blacks - and maybe this isn't strictly because they are black, but because more crime occurs in black neighborhoods - then you must concede that my comment has at least a significant degree of merit in this situation.

If the state targets blacks, then there is some socioeconomic reason underlying this fact - blacks inhabit poorer neighborhoods and thus commit more petty crime, for instance. So, we could tackle the issue at the level of the state; but this completely ignores the underlying reasons why the state targets blacks. This is why phrasing the criticism in the above manner ("No one, regardless of race, etc...) services primarily white interests.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Ya know I try to argue for and against a variety of topics and take any position on any matter (although I'm not very good at it). I think being able to argue any point is the basis of persuasion and learning. You guys provide some gold here, just sayin'.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sorry for resorting to name-calling in the other thread. I am emotionally affected by what's been happening in this country; and I still firmly believe that race plays a larger role than many people are willing to acknowledge, which gets frustrating. I don't have much of a reconciliation to offer other than an apology. Can't promise it won't happen again...

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

No no if anything I welcome it. I provoked that kind of reaction. It's a fair reaction. I'm schizo here so you kinda have to take what I say with a grain of salt. Regardless I liked what I heard from you and Dak and some others.

 

[Dak]

Exit is an illusion. Like freedom.

I don't think Exit and freedom suffer from the same issues. Exit is a relatively simple concept, at least in terms of geography. But "freedom" is relative after a fashion.

I was pulled over once, in my pajamas, in my parents' suburban neighborhood. I didn't have my license on me. The officer did nothing, let me go, and apologized to me because I was in my pajamas. The evidence suggests, overwhelmingly, that this would not have happened had I been a young black man, with no license, in my pajamas and in a suburban neighborhood.

You bring up an excellent scenario where the situation would be expected to go "south" depending on color, but I want to offer a couple of scenarios:

Cop pulls over a black guy in a situation in which everything about the entire scenario is identical to yours. Same car, clothes, greeting from you, tone, behaviors etc. But the guy is black.

Cop pulls over a 79 Cadillac with rimz and thumping bass. White guy is in "pajamas", has to be asked to turn the music down, fumbles for the missing ID with attitude, etc etc.

Now: Who winds up getting hassled?

If the state targets blacks, then there is some socioeconomic reason underlying this fact - blacks inhabit poorer neighborhoods and thus commit more petty crime, for instance. So, we could tackle the issue at the level of the state; but this completely ignores the underlying reasons why the state targets blacks. This is why phrasing the criticism in the above manner ("No one, regardless of race, etc...) services primarily white interests.

Well I think there are definitely a confluence of reasons, and there is certainly some racist reasoning behind some of the laws themselves. But it isn't absolutely so, and socioeconomic woes are not always "someone else's" fault either. There is plenty of "trash" out there from all races, and merely trying to upgrade their environments doesn't work the majority of the time. "You can take the person out of the ghetto/trailer park but you can't take the ghetto/trailer park out of the person." The person has to want to improve their lot productively.

If you want to argue that low time preference is a "white interest", good luck.

Edit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/05/dont-support-laws-you-are-not-willing-to-kill-to-enforce/?postshare=9431417815900846

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think Exit and freedom suffer from the same issues. Exit is a relatively simple concept, at least in terms of geography. But "freedom" is relative after a fashion.

I would venture that Exit entails certain cognitive factors that make any absolute exit impossible.

You bring up an excellent scenario where the situation would be expected to go "south" depending on color, but I want to offer a couple of scenarios:

Cop pulls over a black guy in a situation in which everything about the entire scenario is identical to yours. Same car, clothes, greeting from you, tone, behaviors etc. But the guy is black.

Cop pulls over a 79 Cadillac with rimz and thumping bass. White guy is in "pajamas", has to be asked to turn the music down, fumbles for the missing ID with attitude, etc etc.

Now: Who winds up getting hassled?

I think that, as the situation progresses, an officer's perception will inevitably change; but at the start, I think that skin color has an undeniably powerful effect.

Well I think there are definitely a confluence of reasons, and there is certainly some racist reasoning behind some of the laws themselves. But it isn't absolutely so, and socioeconomic woes are not always "someone else's" fault either. There is plenty of "trash" out there from all races, and merely trying to upgrade their environments doesn't work the majority of the time. "You can take the person out of the ghetto/trailer park but you can't take the ghetto/trailer park out of the person." The person has to want to improve their lot productively.

If you want to argue that low time preference is a "white interest", good luck.

Edit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/05/dont-support-laws-you-are-not-willing-to-kill-to-enforce/?postshare=9431417815900846

I get the time preference categories mixed up all the time. To be honest, it isn't really on my radar; I think it's a misdirection in light of the larger picture.

I agree with the WP article; I've said in previous posts that we ask police officers to perform an impossible job - a job necessitated by the institution of law enforcement. That being said... if we want to send a message, then maybe it starts with indicting a damn police officer.

 

[Dak]

I would venture that Exit entails certain cognitive factors that make any absolute exit impossible.

Well, there's definitely some psychological factors that make Exit more difficult for the less autistic.

I think that, as the situation progresses, an officer's perception will inevitably change; but at the start, I think that skin color has an undeniably powerful effect.

But is that because of attitude? Police officers generally have a fuckin ego, and generally expect attitude. Especially from certain blacks, especially if white. Of course, there are some fuckin straight racists that love the protection of the badge to be damn dickheads. And then there are just general dickheads that love the badge for the same reason.

I get the time preference categories mixed up all the time. To be honest, it isn't really on my radar; I think it's a misdirection in light of the larger picture.

I agree with the WP article; I've said in previous posts that we ask police officers to perform an impossible job - a job necessitated by the institution of law enforcement. That being said... if we want to send a message, then maybe it starts with indicting a damn police officer.

High time preference = microwave mentality. I want it now!
Low time preference = good things come to those who wait


And I agree about an indictment. For pretty much every cop in all the scenarios. But not because of "racism!"

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, there's definitely some psychological factors that make Exit more difficult for the less autistic.

I don't know if I'd call them psychological, or just ingrained elements of social conditioning.

But is that because of attitude? Police officers generally have a fuckin ego, and generally expect attitude. Especially from certain blacks, especially if white. Of course, there are some fuckin straight racists that love the protection of the badge to be damn dickheads. And then there are just general dickheads that love the badge for the same reason.

If police officers expect certain behavior from blacks, then we have just illuminated a problem of racism; and that goes beyond the individual mentality or actions of specific officers.

High time preference = microwave mentality. I want it now!
Low time preference = good things come to those who wait

Thanks.

And I agree about an indictment. For pretty much every cop in all the scenarios. But not because of "racism!"

But the "racism!" is indissociable from the context. It sounds less to me like you're arguing against racism than simply choosing to ignore the racism that is clearly there...

 

[Einherjar86]

New blog post. Literally.

http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/2014/12/literally-zombies.html

 

[Dak]

I literally hate that word.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's what makes it so interesting. It's created quite a stir.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I kinda really loved that post. I literally can't even

 

[Einherjar86]

Thanks. Language man; I can't get enough.

Part of my broader interests, and part of the methodology that guides my research, is in the observation of a kind of feedback between the literal and the figurative, or matter and meaning. There is a circuitry within language that guides and governs language, and it has little to do with what speakers intend when they speak (this is only one node in a larger network, we might say). Several recent theorists have begun fixing on these matters, but it's still a very recent approach (mid-90s at the earliest).

 

[Dak]

I'm extremely skeptical of anything surrounding the spoken having little to do with what intent of the speakers. That is different from saying what is spoken is literally what the speakers meant. This is where context/body language comes in.

Maybe at best the argument can be made that speakers who are ignorant of context/body language can have difficulty with correct word selection, but this has almost nothing to do with words/language in terms of the words/language spoken and rather involves come measure of cognitive ability. There is circuitry involved, but not "within language".

I think any sort of literal/figurative feedback would be contingent on the speakers/hearers, which renders independent investigation almost impossible due to immediate confirmation bias on whatever part the investigator plays. For example: If a simpleton picks up an average rock and holds it up to you and says simply "rock", anything beyond the "concrete label" of the concrete thing is merely kicking up dust and complaining about being unable to see (this is, of course, figurative). There is, of course, context and body language to read here. A tripartite network to perhaps put it in your language. But for some reason I don't believe you are including context or body language in your talk of "feedback between the literal and the figurative".