[Noisebridge-discuss] [intellectual claptrap] Toward a theory of utilization

[ryan rawson]

I rarely use my car, and it has sentimental value to me. Now what?

I feel like the philosophical issues here and legal theory kind of screw it all up

Sent from your iPhone

On Feb 17, 2013, at 2:03 AM, Tony Longshanks LeTigre <anthonyletigre at gmail.com> wrote:

> We hold as a precept that the Law of Use trumps property (w)rights. The Law of Use states that things (resources, space, useful objects of all sorts) should be utilized, rather than hoarded or sitting useless gathering dust. It furthermore states that things hoarded & gathering dust may be seized & used for legitimate reasons by those who need them, without any violent act of aggression being committed. This would of course not apply, or would apply less, to items of primarily sentimental (personal) value & especially to items that ARE currently being used legitimately by their owners or current possessors. If this seems like common sense, we agree with you; we only wish Common Sense were more common these days.
> 
> A l'il excerpt from something I've been working on. The word 'law' is problematic, but we haven't figured out what to replace it with yet. 'Rule' is just as bad...? We could reverse it to waL or Wal. Or coin the new word "lawk," pronounced the same as lock. Or "theorel" (theoretical + law). Or "lege" (pronounced the same as liege) as a sort of back-formation from the adjective 'legal." I kind of like lege, as a noun for a rule of behavior that is not a law as it exists (theoretically) in an anarcho-pacifist culture without a state or criminal justice system in the form we now know it. The adjective form of lege might be 'legic.' Something that did not follow could be termed 'alegic' (as opposed to 'illegal' in current mainstream reality). Makes it more like an allergy than a crime, which seems like a promising direction—toward compassion rather than punishment.
> 
> Tangential:
> <I have zero tolerance for people with no compassion.>
> < > = irony quotes
> Is satire a subset of irony? What about sarcasm? Venn diagrams, algebraic equations, to elucidate, please. A numberpoem to preserve in amber our brave new (embryonic, pre-owned, gently used) wisdom. Send for the court mathpoet....
> 
> +11+
> 
> Things change so quickly—& not nearly enough; I have no time to feel sad about what never happened.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130217/5c7d3975/attachment-0003.html>