Archives for category: Mutual Respect

#BlackLivesMatter

January 26, 2016 //

“A day after Leela moved in, she came home visibly upset. I asked what happened. Apparently, the doorman had blocked her from entering the building, refusing to believe that the keys she was carrying were legitimately hers. She had to convince him to check the approved tenants list before he allowed her to go to her own home.The incidents piled up. Things that may seem small to someone who doesn’t endure these experiences, but that in aggregate soured her daily life. The cabs that wouldn’t stop when she tried to hail them but hit the brakes and backed up when they saw she was with me. The clerks asking her to verify her ID every time she presented a credit card. The smiles at me from neighbors and barely concealed scowls at her when I turned away. The usual catcalls and crude comments when she walked alone. It quickly became clear that although we shared the same day to day life, her existence was profoundly different from mine.

The event that brought it to a head was when she pressed ‘PH’ in the elevator and the other occupant, a white male, asked which penthouse apartment she was going to clean. The idea that she lived there didn’t occur to him. When I heard about it, my indignation was palpable. It was the indignation and disrespect she lived with every day and that was alien to me.”
….
“What I didn’t realize was that we are stuck in our own heads far more than we can appreciate and that empathy has limitations. As a white male, I can convince myself that I understand racism and sexism, but it’s far more intellectual than visceral. My point of view is distorted by the culture I exist in.”
Peter Daou, “My Rude Awakening on White Males, Brown Females and #BlackLivesMatter“

Now consider this:

Mothers usually have a ‘disproportionate’ influence over their (small) children.

This translates into the psychological well being of the mothers having a huge influence on the general behavior of the next generation.

In a so called ‘normal’ family – composed of a father and a mother – whatever ‘bad moments’ that happen to the mother can, and sometimes even are, mitigated by the father.

But the sad reality is that there are a lot more Afro-American single mothers than white single mothers – relative to the demographic composition of the population.

And we still wonder about how come the Afro-American teenagers and young adults are the cause of so many unpleasant incidents – relative to the demographic composition of the population, of course…

Tags #BlackLivesMatter, Peter Daou, single mothers

Categories altruism, Choices we make, collective identity, Frames of mind, gender roles, human rights, limited rationality, Mutual Respect, Psychology, Social justice, The kind of world we live in

“The boiling frog theory”.

January 19, 2016 //

First things first. Click on the picture and read the article.
It is interesting enough, even if it doesn’t say anything you didn’t already know – or at least presumed. That if enough people pee in the pool, the mixture of uric acid and chlorine, which produces some nasty chemicals, could become ‘powerful’ enough to affect a susceptible person.
The really interesting part being the fact that the scientists who have studied the matter do not seem to agree on how dangerous it is and what exactly, if anything, should be done about it.

But do we really need a scientist to tell us that we simply shouldn’t pee in the pool?
Regardless of whether the issuing chemicals would be powerful enough to harm us or not?

Then why do we hide behind slogans like ‘Global Warming is the New Religion’ when we discuss the subject of carbon dioxide being spewed into the atmosphere by the tens of billions of tonnes each year?

OK, I can understand that some of us are not convinced by the data put forward by the ‘alarmists’, specially after some of the scientists studying the matter have changed tack and have become ‘skeptical’ about the whole thing.
“I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.”

“So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable.” Ivar Giaever, 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics, speaking in July 2015.

So. Cutting down the tropical jungle to make room for palm trees grown for their oil and burning during the last two centuries fossil fuels that have been accumulated during God only knows how many millennia is ‘sustainable’! Yeah, right.

Do you remember the smog that used to hang over Los Angeles until some of us wised up to the matter?

Is it a matter of politics?!?
And money?!?
And what’s new about that? Or is it that some of those who have to gain from us continuing to burn fossil fuels, indiscriminately, have not understood, yet, that we are all together in this? That the atmosphere is nothing but the huge ‘pool’ where we all live?
And breathe…

To me it doesn’t really matter what ‘science’ has to say about this. In fact ‘science’ cannot speak, it’s the scientists who speak on its behalf.
Now, since they don’t seem to agree on this subject we’d better realize that ‘This is too important a matter to be left to the scientists’ and remember the Hippocratic principle which teaches us ‘primum non nocere’: ‘Above all, do no harm!’

If ‘it’s a matter of politics’ how about us telling the politicians how we wanted it solved instead of letting them scheme on it?
And then let the business people take care of the money part?

One other thing and I’ll wrap it up.
I can already see my libertarian friends frowning:
‘He had jumped on the big government bandwagon’.
Not so fast.
In fact this is not a decision that should be made by the government, be it big or small.

We are the ones who should make up our minds about this matter.
We are the ones who should close the faucets, use more efficient cars, collect the trash selectively, etc, etc, etc… and maybe even walk a little.
We are the ones who should instruct the governments we have elected to use some of our tax money to finance some honest research into renewable power sources instead of allowing them to transform the whole issue into another ‘pork barrel bonanza’…

Tags Global Warming in the new Religion, Gory details, Ivar Giaver, Pee in the Pool, The boiling frog theory, Wumo

Categories Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, democracy, Frames of mind, limited rationality, man induced fragility, Money as goal, Mutual Respect

C’est de plus en plus difficile d’etre Charlie.

January 18, 2016 //

‘J’ai etait Charlie’ when the barbarians tried to silence it.
Not because I agreed with everything that was published there but because I believe that it’s unacceptable to try to kill somebody – unless that somebody tries to murder you, of course.

Having said that I must confess that I find it harder and harder to understand what’s going on in Charlie’s mind.

“Charlie doit être là où les autres n’osent pas aller. Pour cette couverture, je voulais dépasser telle ou telle religion et toucher à des choses plus fondamentales. (…) En affirmant les choses clairement, ça fait réfléchir. Il faut bousculer un peu les gens, sinon ils restent sur leurs rails”

(Charlie must go where others do not dare to. For that I’m willing to leave behind specific religious ideas and reach deeper levels. … By speaking frankly (about a subject) one can convince the others to take the matter into consideration. Sometime you need to jolt people (outside their comfort zone) otherwise they’ll stay put on their tracks).

OK, I can agree with that. Even if I think that some of the ‘jolts’ are distasteful, to say the least, the principle is correct.
But there is a small problem here. If the jolt is too powerful the target will not get just outside its comfort zone – and into the ‘thinking mode’ – but directly into a full-fledged rage. A state of mind which rejects reason and sends the brain into a frenzy, looking for arguments with which to annihilate the original message.

This, for instance, might be considered rude but it’s impersonal enough to prod some individuals into considering whether following blindly into someone’s steps – just because that someone pretends to have God’s blessing – might be a wise thing to do.
In fact this message works precisely because it offers food for thought. Each of the viewers might interpret it according to their own ‘Weltanschauung’ but the ultimate responsibility for the interpretation lies with the viewer, not with the cartoonist.

This is why I can’t agree with the cartoon about Aylan.
There is no option there. The message is clear. Aylan would have grown up to be a sex-molester, no doubt about that – at least in the eyes of the cartoonist.

And this just isn’t fair.
Because killing hope is a lot worse than actual murder.

Yes, we need to take great care about how we help the migrants to find a place among us. No doubt about that.
The point being that corralling them into a ghetto won’t solve anything. On the contrary.

“When it comes to assimilating new arrivals, Europe could learn a thing or two from America, which has a better record in this regard. It is not “culturally imperialist” to teach migrants that they must respect both the law and local norms such as tolerance and sexual equality. And it is essential to make it as easy as possible for them to work. This serves an economic purpose: young foreign workers more than pay their way and can help solve the problem of an ageing Europe. It also serves a cultural one: immigrants who work assimilate far more quickly than those who are forced to sit around in ghettos. In the long run most children of migrants will adopt core European values, but the short run matters too.” (The Economist, Migrant Men and European Women, Jan 16th, 2016)

Tags ', Aylan, Charlie Hebdo, Je suis Charlie, Migrants, The Economist, Tripoteur de Fesses en Allemagne

Categories altruism, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, effective communication, Frames of mind, human rights, limited rationality, Mutual Respect, Psychology, religion, The kind of world we live in, Trust

“An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic”

January 16, 2016 //

Enter a caption

Our nation did not become great because our form of government was created as a socialist, communist, or any form of democracy; it was specifically created as a constitutional republic.

I’ve been trying for some time now to figure out the origin of this huge confusion.

Yesterday, during an exchange on this subject, a FB friend of mine used this link to prove her argument:

“An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic“

And there it was, laying in plain sight, THE explanation I was too blind to find it by myself.

“It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government.“

Come again?!?

Since when democracy has become a “form” of government?
If you want to discuss about forms of government you have basically two: republican and monarchic. In a republic the head of state is changed from time to time, sometimes in a more or less democratic manner, while in a monarchy it is customary for that head of state to be replaced only after his death and by a person which has already been known for quite a while.

That was not what you had in mind? You meant what kind of interaction exists between the governed and the government?
‘Cause only in this realm we may speak about the difference between democracy – where the population has a say about its fate – and dictatorship – where the rulers don’t give a damn about the wishes of those who allow themselves to be ruled from above.

Don’t believe me?
Then please consider the British Empire. It is headed – nominally – by a monarch who has had no power for the last two hundred years or so and has NO – absolutely NO – constitution. Yet its democratic traditions can be traced down to the Magna Carta – a ‘compact’ signed in 1215 between the King (John of England) and his ‘free subjects’.

I used ‘ ‘ around ‘free subjects’ to highlight the fact that this is an oxymoron AND that the basic function of Magna Carta was to solve that oxymoron.
It actually doesn’t matter much what was written in that compact. The very fact that the King – erstwhile considered an almost divine person who until then had absolute power over his subjects and the land under his control – sat down at the same table with some of his erstwhile subjects and by his own signature conceded that they were “free” (‘all free men have a right to justice and a fair trial‘) signifies the dawn of a new kind of interaction between those at the no longer opposed ends of the society.

OK, things didn’t evolve smoothly. The Magna Carta wasn’t enforced in earnest until a lot later but still, the bird was out of the cage.

My point being that until we understand that the difference between ‘republic’ and ‘democracy’ is the same as the one between apples and oranges – and that we should stop comparing them – we are stuck.

So, am I somewhat implying that John Adams was wrong?

Not at all. All I’m saying is that he used a poetic license and that the quote is not only incomplete but also used in a misleading way.

“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”

OK, he made the same confusion between ‘forms’ of government and social relationships between the people and those in power, only this is an understandable mistake. But, to his merit, he made it amply clear that it is the very “passions” of the people that “when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty”!

This is precisely the job that every constitution – not only the republican ones – is called to fulfill. Or a powerful enough tradition – please remember that the British ‘Empire’ has no constitution to this day.

Coming back to the notion of democracy I must add that it might not work properly, no matter how well written the constitution that presides over the process, unless the people who uses this form of collective decision making entertains the proper mental and moral attitude.
If the entire society isn’t permeated by enough mutual respect among its members then what Adams had warned us against is about to happen – regardless of any constitution. Or even under the cloak of the existing one.

You see, proper democracy works because it creates a frame where all those interested in the matter – all stake-holders – have the opportunity to express their grievances. This way the society is able to find out what doesn’t work properly and to take the appropriate measures.
But if there is not enough mutual respect going on around, things may become ugly, eventually. Just as Adams told us. When mutual respect weans out we stop caring about anything else but our own personae and ‘passions’ are no longer ‘checked’.
Society no longer acts like an organism and people become divided into smaller ‘mobs’ whose leaders fight each-other – sometimes under a democratic disguise – for followers.

That’s when democracy ceases to be a venue for a civilized debate about ideas and become an arena for the bloodiest sport of them all. Politician-ism.

That’s when some people start thinking like this.

Or even like this:

Let me tell you something.
I’ve been living under a republican regime for all my life. Only for the first 30 years that republic was a communist one. It even had a constitution – and at the first glance it wasn’t such a bad one. But believe me, you don’t want to experience that kind of republic.

What you really want is true democracy, the one where people respect each-other. It doesn’t matter if that happens in a republic or in a kingdom. It is enough that it works, and for that to happen it is enough for the people to ‘check their passions’.

And mind you! Whenever 51% of the voters band together to confiscate the bikes that the others have acquired through honest means, that’s no longer democracy but mob rule. Something that could very easily degenerate into communism. That’s what you want to avoid, not bona fide democracy.

Tags 51%, Forms of government, Franklin, John Adams, Magna Carta, Majority rule, mob rule, Republic versus democracy, This is a republic not a democracy let's keep it that way

Categories authoritarianism, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, corruption, democracy, effective communication, Frames of mind, human rights, limited rationality, Mutual Respect, politics, Psychology, Rule of Law, Social justice, The kind of world we live in, Transparency, Trust

“Future Shock”

January 13, 2016 //

Some 30 years ago Herbie Hancock published an album which proved to be uncanningly prescient. The future we have been building since is indeed shocking.

Breastfeeding in public is considered unbecoming by too many of us:

“Weren’t you breastfed when you were little? – We had formula in those times!”

while almost none of us freaks out, for the right reasons, when seeing something like this:

I’m afraid that if we don’t get our act together the future we are currently building for our kids will be even more gruesome than some of our pranks.

Tags Breasfeeding, Devil Baby Prank, Future Shock, Herbie Hancock, Infant Formula

Categories Choices we make, collective identity, Frames of mind, Mutual Respect, physics, Psychology, The kind of world we live in, Trust

The law of the (not so) unintended (unforseeable) consequences

January 11, 2016 //

Somebody shared a video – where two senior citizens swing their golf clubs at some rather idiotic pranksters – on FB

and captioned it “Don’t mess with old dudes and their balls…”

This made me wonder ‘what on Earth are we doing to ourselves?’ As a species, I mean.

OK, those kids did a rather stupid thing, indeed.

But let’s not forget that they have been raised by people not so very different from those golf players – statistically speaking, of course.

And where is the difference between what those two kids have done and the ‘practical jokes’ that are aired ad nauseam by most TV stations? Owned and run by individuals very much like those two annoyed ‘senior citizens. Who were enraged enough to swing their ‘irons’ at the pranksters, risking serious injuries…

How much lower can we get?

PS.
Somebody pointed me to this. You might say there is no connection between these two private-jet loving ministers and the pranksters but don’t think they all display the same level of callousness towards the rest of the people?

Tags 'reality' TV, Devil Baby attack, Golf game prank gone bad, Kenneth Copland Jesse Duplantis defending their jets, practical jokes, Remote controled RV golf course, the law of unintended consequences

Categories altruism, authoritarianism, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, forgiveness, Frames of mind, limited rationality, Mutual Respect, Psychology, Social justice, The kind of world we live in

What if Obama’s tears were genuine?

January 6, 2016 //

” But when you look closer at the picture, when the illusion of power gives way tot the reality of pain the world at which this woman sits, our world, that is a world which is torn by war, destroyed by hate, devastated by despair and devastated by distrust. The world on which she sits is on the very brink of destruction. Famine ravishes millions of the inhabitants of this world in one hemisphere while feasting and gluttony are enjoyed by inhabitants of another hemisphere. A time bomb ticking is the world on which she sits with apartheid in one hemisphere and apathy in the other hemisphere and enough nuclear warhead scientists tell us to wipe out all forms of life except for cockroaches and that is the world on which this woman sits. A world which cares about more bombs for the enemy than it does about bread for the hungry. A world that is still more concerned about the color of skin than it is about the content of character. A world more finicky about the texture of hair or what is on the outside of your head than it is about the quality of education or what is on the inside of one’s head. That is the world on which this woman sits. You and I think of being on top of the world as being in heaven, but when you look at the woman on Watt’s painting a little closer what you discover is that this woman is in Hell. And that artist Watt dares to entitled the painting “Hope.”
“with her clothes in rags, her body scarred and bruised and bleeding, her harp all but destroyed and with only one string left, she had the audacity to make music and praise God … To take the one string you have left and to have the audacity to hope… that’s the real word God will have us hear from this passage and from Watt’s painting.” (Jeremiah Wright, The Audacity To Hope)

What happened during his tenure that made him change his attitude so drastically as to resort to administrative measures in order to effect the ‘change we can believe in’?

I still remember the joy I felt when he was elected. I hardly knew anything about him, of course, but the way he talked made me hope he was going to behave differently than the one before him.
Even more important than his personality was that I had seen his election as an about-face of the American political scene. I presumed that by electing Obama to the Oval Office the American People was sending a powerful signal.
That they wanted to tell everybody, politicians included, that they had understood how much damage had been done by the constant bickering and extreme mutual distrust that was plaguing the political establishment. And that they had enough of it.

Could it be that Obama’s tears of yesterday were shed for the fact that he didn’t really deliver? That from the height of his position he had got an even clearer picture about the State of the Union than he one he had before becoming President yet he wasn’t able to do anything meaningful about it? Precisely because the Union is even more divided than before?

About almost everything?

Why have we allowed our respective ideologies separate us to the tune of making us see two different realities where there is only one?

Why do we have to get down to a ‘single string left on our harp’ before understanding that?

Tags Barack Obama, George Frederic Watts, Jeremiah Wright, The Audacity of Hope

Categories Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, democracy, effective communication, Frames of mind, Mutual Respect, politics, Psychology, The kind of world we live in, Trust

“In dubious battle”.

January 4, 2016 //

There is undeniable truth in here but there is also a considerable amount of confusion.

Whenever truth is hidden behind the words instead of being openly discussed among those who deal information pertaining to a particular situation all those involved will eventually suffer the consequences of their deceptions.
This is something that has been common knowledge for sometime now yet there still are too many individuals who think they can ‘beat the market’ on this.

This is the true part.

What makes me wonder is how come a nation may become afraid of its own people? Isn’t this an oxymoron of sorts?
Or is it that only some members of that nation have become afraid that their deceptions will become apparent to the rest of the people?

“ I have used a small strike in an orchard valley as the symbol of man’s eternal, bitter warfare with himself.” (John Steinbeck, in a letter to George Albee)

Why on Earth had Kennedy chosen to beat around the bush instead of speaking out in plain English? It didn’t much good for him anyway, isn’t it?

Why are so many of us still following this policy?
Why are so many nations that allow this to happen?

Tags a nation afraid of its people, In dubious battle, John F. Kennedy, John Steinbeck, The oxymoron that wasn't

Categories altruism, Choices we make, collective identity, democracy, Frames of mind, limited rationality, man induced fragility, Mutual Respect, Psychology, Social justice, The kind of world we live in

“Property”.

January 1, 2016 //

For some time now I’ve been wondering how come so many people who define themselves as being Christians – “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.“, Matt 19:24 – are so passionately defending the very concept of (private)”property”.

Could it be that Marx was right after all: “Private property is the result of alienated labor.” ?!? And so many of us have been wrong for so long?

“The right to private property is the social-political principle that adult human beings may not be prohibited or prevented by anyone from acquiring, holding and trading (with willing parties) valued items not already owned by others. Such a right is, thus, unalienable and, if in fact justified, is supposed to enjoy respect and legal protection in a just human community.”

Trying to understand the source of this dichotomy I adopted a two pronged strategy. First I looked up the word itself and then I tried to deepen my understanding of the entire concept.

It’s absolutely obvious that ‘property’ comes from ‘proper’.
‘Proper’, in its turn, has two basic meanings: ‘fit for use‘ and ‘pertaining to one individual‘. The first one has evolved into ‘propriety’, “the state or quality of being correct and proper” while the second has become ‘property’, “thing owned“.

So, do all these etymological arguments make it any easier for us to accept that respecting each others’ right to private property is what introduced a certain degree of functionality in the human society?

‘But aren’t you contradicting yourself?
At the beginning of your post you suggested that ‘property’ might not be as good as advertised and now you say that the ‘right to private property’ is ‘good for you’?
Will you make up your mind, for Christ’s sake?’

Now, that I’ve reached the conceptual stage of my analyses, I must bring to your attention the fact that a right is nothing but an opportunity while each (piece of) property is a thing – even those which are not of a ‘substantial’ nature. ‘Intellectual property’, for instance, is a ‘measurable thing’ even if you cannot put your finger on it while the ‘right to intellectual (or any other kind of) property’ is (an infinite) something which patiently waits for (a rightful) somebody to make (proper) use of it.

Maybe this is what Christ tried to tell us in the first place. That it’s not property itself that stands between us and our salvation but our (improper) attitude towards it. That it’s not the object of our property that is the problem but how we make use of our right to private property.
After all Christ told the “young rich man” “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (Matt 19:21). ‘Go sell, give and THEN follow me’, not ‘come help me ABOLISH the very right to private property’, as Marx used to preach to his followers.

To understand the difference between what Christ and Marx said about this subject let’s see how these two relate to the notion of ‘Man’.

In Christ’s book God took a lump of dirt and ‘made Man in His own image’ while in Marx’s narrow materialistic vision “it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness.”

Basically both of them start with the same ‘materiel’ – the mundane ‘star dust’ that Mendeleev distributed throughout his table – but what a difference at the end of the ‘assembly line’!

Being made ‘in His Own image’ not only means that all Men (and Women) are created equal but also that each of them shares in His Divine Nature. Hence the origin of our free will, of our ability (‘right’, opportunity) to be saved. Compare this to how Marx described the human society:

“The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.”

As somebody who has lived for 30 years under communist rule let me translate this from ‘Newspeak‘ into plain English:
‘History suggests that those who figure out the inner workings of this world have, from time to time, the opportunity to take over the show. Now is one of those moments. The ‘fat cats’ have been so greedy lately that the regular people are growling under the very heavy yoke that has been placed on their shoulders. That’s why we have the opportunity to unsettle the ‘old’ from their positions and to plant our fat asses in their comfortable chairs.
And the first thing we must do in order to achieve that goal is to abolish the right to private property. People are so fed up with what was going on lately that they’ll go along. They have grown to hate so much the ‘greedy plutocrats’ that most of them won’t notice that in the (revolutionary) process they’ll lose the very last shrouds of personal autonomy they still have. Without the right to dispose of the results of their own labor they’ll be at our mercy’.

Who was right between the two?

Well… Both, unfortunately.

The communists did run the show, at least for a while. And we all know to which results.
On the other hand it seems that in the longer run miss-using the right to private property is indeed a powerful drawback. The already too long sequence of economic crises caused, ultimately, by nothing else but our own greed has indeed given birth to a generalized state of psychological malaise.

I don’t know about what’s gonna happen in the next world – or if it exists at all – but I’m sure that if we don’t learn, fast, how to use, properly, the right to private property things will become too hot for our own good in this one.

The only one we are sure about.

Further reading.
During my research for this post I found this very interesting take on the same subject:

“Zwolinksi argues that libertarians are right to support private property, but also that private property is more complicated than we sometimes think.”