this critical evaluation of everyones land
from our valued lurker deserwest
arrived in my mailbox recently while i was afield
my comments are added at the end
--- DeserWest <
deserwest@...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia
> kallos
> <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > my dear dears lowell len & probably others
> >
> >
> > when you think only countries & not people are
> > sovereign
> > you forget the most important thing
> >
> > your personal sovereignty
> >
> >
> > you may even thus overlook your divinity in this
> >
> >
> >
> > countries are there ok
> > & are sovereign
> > & even divine if you wish
> > but they are merely optional truths & beauties
> > & in the eye & mind of the beholder as it were
> >
> > cosmic law & order states that everyone is a law
> unto
> > themselves
> > & equally divine in the world
> >
> >
> > countries may & indeed can be there for you
> >
> > but they certainly arent there for everyone
> >
> >
> > & they arent there for everyone because
> > among other things
> > they arent there for everyone
> >
> >
> > & it is everyone we are talking about
> >
> >
> > in everyones land
> > of which bp is a part
> > & which is the true state of nature as well
> > everyone is presumed sovereign & indeed divine
> unless
> > they object
> >
> >
> > & even then they are still humored & entertained
> >
> >
> > is that clear
> >
> >
> > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> >
> > > I've got to agree with the philosophy and the
> logic.
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@c...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 10:04 PM
> > > Subject: everyones land was Re: [BoundaryPoint]
> Re:
> > > Cyprus - SBA Maritime
> > > Boundaries
> > >
> > >
> > > > Everyone's?
> > > > How about landlocked countries? What
> sovereign
> > > interest in the high
> > > > seas could have accrued to them over time?
> The
> > > high seas would have
> > > > to be an area of no sovereignty if you believe
> > > sovereignty is
> > > > indivisible.
> > > > Can sovereignty be shared between all entities
> on
> > > earth at the same
> > > > time without having been divided amongst them?
> > > > I think the high seas are no ones' - a ship on
> the
> > > seas carries
> > > > sovereignty along with its movement - there is
> no
> > > sovereign right for
> > > > Cuna, for example, to prevent the Swiss Navy
> from
> > > plying the high
> > > > seas. If it tried to do so from one of it's
> ships
> > > on the high seas,
> > > > it would be illegally extending its sovereign
> > > powers beyond the ship's
> > > > railing to impinge upon another. If, for
> example,
> > > the Cuban's shared
> > > > sovereignty with the rest of the world on the
> high
> > > seas, then it could
> > > > legally exercize whatever portion of those
> > > sovereign rights it felt
> > > > possessed to be an agressor and protect them
> (or
> > > take whatever share
> > > > of that sovereignty the Swiss possessed in an
> act
> > > of conquest).
> > > >
> > > > If the high seas are "everyone's", we have
> chaos.
> > > Only if it's no
> > > > one's, a regime where denial of any legal
> rights
> > > pervades do we have
> > > > arm's length distances, clarity and a system
> where
> > > a violation of the
> > > > peace is always an impermissible action that
> > > cannot be justified by
> > > > any assertion of rights whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't philosophy neat? Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > LN
> > >
> > Two extreme positions... neither of them useful.
> Len, consider
> the case of an oil derrick on the high seas, which
> is for intents a
> stationary ship which by the mere act of it's
> positioning claims a
> defacto right to exist on that one spot. Your lack
> of law then
> evolves into a law of "squaters rights", which is no
> sound basis to
> conduct and assure efficient endeavors. This was
> tried in the
> American West, to the eventual near extinction of
> the native american
> population.
>
> As for "cosmic law" stating that every person is a
> law unto them
> selves, this indeed is worthless because of the lack
> of a uniform
> accountability of the infinity of laws in the
> universe. Unfettered
> freedom is contrary to your altrusitic point of
> view, dispersive,
> divisive, and unorganized. The end product are
> selfish, irresponsible
> people constantly trying to obtain all they can by
> advantage lay hold
> of.
>
> The common error in both your thinking is that you
> think in terms of
> freedome "from" this or that. I challange you both
> to think in terms
> of freedome "for" some purpose, and then regulate
> your freedom and
> liberty to that end.
thanx very much for your useful analysis
some of it i can agree with
& all of it i can allow
so there is no question of accepting your challenge
but i must tell you there is also under universal law
no lack of anything
indeed i find a complete lack of lack in the universe
at large
contrary to your indications
for everyone is equally divine
whether they realize it or not
& the world is equally free for all
yes
everyone is already totally free
even to become slaves
& in fact many are slaves to their own self defeating
thought before they are ever defeated or enslaved
outwardly
also
please note
the selfish people are the ones who are truly
responsible
you have this part completely backwards
everyone naturally tries to do as well for themselves
as they can
moreover
there are no victims except of their own ignorance of
cosmic law
everything that happens to everyone is self induced
but what altruistic point of view do you imagine i
have
& frankly i was thinking not in terms of free from
anything
nor even free for anything
but rather just free to be do have etc whatever one
wishes
for this we all are
our desire
& our allowance of it
are our only regulation
& thus everything & everywhere is really everyones
land already
& not just the areas that have been traditionally or
lately thought of as
no mans lands
such as the high seas & antarctica
which are the de jure human heritage areas
& which we here at bp have identified & earmarked for
further development as everyones land as such
& properly so called
all this is thanx especially to our multipointing
pursuits & perceptions
thru which we have identified
progressively
multipoints as many peoples or everyones points
& multiareas as many peoples or everyones lands
& finally
everyones land as a whole phenomenon
& with it
everyonese
or just plain human
as a nationality waiting to happen
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com