A Platonic Dialogue
Err: Every one knows that the call of “Dibs” is the law of the land, and must be respected. We need look no further then the 2004 world series ball, which might have rightfully belonged to the World Series Champion Boston Red Sox. However, first baseman Doug Mencezich called Dibs on the little leather fella, and the rest is history. But how do we know when you can call Dibs in an every day situation? Must we draw a line to demarcate what can and can not be Dibs-ed?
Ignignokt: True! And clearly, Dibs has a powerful natural pull, one that can be traced back to Locke. He tells us of the importance of property as fundamental to ownership.
Thus calling Dibs on something is owning something; by claiming it as yours and working on it you establish natural right.
Err: Clearly, it is the only law that many abide by. But how far does the call of Dibs go? Is it a universal truth? Are there times when the Dibs law does not apply?
Ignignokt: The initial basic Question arises: What can be Dibs-ed?
Err: Any reasonable person immediately answers: Everything.
Ignignokt: Everything indeed. However, a call of “Dibs Everything” is both impossible to maintain and also basically impossible to enforce or take possession of. You can only Dibs things that you can enforce or take possession of is the first Indubitable law of Dibs-ing. For without the ability to actively posses and work on an object, what right do we have to Dibs anything at all? Also, calling dibs on everything is stupid and totally lame. But can someone call Dibs on something that you already have in your possession and are about to use? If you have already eaten a bag of Doritos, is there any possible way that someone else can call dibs on it?
Err: Clearly, this can not be the case. We need a corollary that states that once something is completely in someone’s control and used up, it is no longer usable under the law of dibs.
Ignignokt: and this corollary, which we will call for the moment the “retroactive Dibs”, can it be allowed in any reasonable society?
Err: No, clearly it can not. A man can not be expected to give up something that has already been made his own and exhausted.
Ignignokt: Now that we have that Corollary, let us examine the laws of Dibs back through the course of history. Ancient kings have held the right of Dibs since time immemorial, and Europeans essentially divided up the rest of the world through a series of Dibs calls. Let us, for a moment, unpack the Americas. Were the Indians in possession of the land when the white Europeans arrived?
Err: Yes, they were the only people who had lived on the Land for over 10’000 years.
Ignignokt: So we can say that they were the defacto owners of the land. But when the Europeans arrived, what did they do?
Err: They introduced disease, raped, slaughtered and pillaged a civilization that did not understand the extent of the threat against them.
Ignignokt: So, in a manner of speaking, the Europeans Dibs-ified the Americas away from someone who already owned them?
Err: Yes
Ignignokt: But can we say that this is “Retroactive Dibs”, and therefore outside the lines of human decency?
Alan: Sure looks that way from where I am sitting.
Ignignokt: Lets return, for a moment, to the food example. Imagine that someone has just purchased a burrito. In today’s modern capitalist society, they have exchanged their money for a good, in this case a delicious meat, bean and cheese concoction. Can we not say that this event essentially gives them Dibs on what they have just purchased?
Err: I would say that they clearly have called Dibs by buying the burrito, yes.
Ignignokt: But, if you were to find a third a Burrito in the refrigerator, would you be allowed to then call Dibs on it and eat it yourself?
Err: Clearly. Someone else left it there, and its now up for grabs.
Ignignokt: But has something changed in the nature of the Burrito? Is there a statue of limitations on the length of a dibs call? Is it not still the same object that you someone purchased at a previous date?
Err: It is still the same Burrito, its essential nature has not changed at all!
Ignignokt: yet, we are both in agreement that you are allowed to Dibs the leftovers. This must mean that something has been altered in the world around the burrito, that something has changed in the status quo to make an object dibs-able that before was off limits. So we are agreed that we should eat the Burrito?
Err: Clearly.
Ignignokt: But what happens, then, I have just purchased a Burrito, but pause in eating it for a moment to answer the phone? Can you call Dibs at that moment?
Err: No, your original Dibs call has not lapsed at that point
Ignignokt: So we can agree that there is another sort of Dibs called, that can result in a changing of previously held Dibs status? A “Gank Dibs” if you will, that in some situations, like that of leftovers in the fridge, can change the nature of a previously held Dibs call?
Err: It would appear that way, but let us remember that Retroactive Dibs is still frowned upon by everything that makes up human nature and is clearly outside the bounds of human decency.
Ignignokt: Quite right! Then, can we say that in calling gank dibs you are implying an opening for a change of precedent which somebody could challenge? Then, can we say, that the burden of proof shifts to the caller of the Dibs?
Err: Then for a Gank Dibs situation to occur, we must say that the caller of Dibs must be able to prove a change in the status quo, an altering of the laws that governed a previously held Dibs. But let us return to the Dibs-ifying of America by the Europeans? How will we decide if such a challenge is valid?
Ignignokt: Clearly, right minded people must weigh the things that we have discussed here. If the Dibs is called, or acknowledged to be called because someone has done work to make it their own, then it is the law of the land. You can not take that Dibs away from someone who has it already established by the natural order of things, unless a specific incident changes in the status quo that right minded people would agree weakens the previous Dibs call and re-opens it to the public. However, if the word Dibs is not used at the appropriate time, then the status quo remains and the previous Dibs is sacrosanct.
Did the Indians ever call Dibs?
Err: No. It was not in their cultural understanding to claim something as ubiquitous as the land the lived on.
Ignignokt: so what your saying is that they never called dibs, and when individual events, like, say, many of them dying of the plague, occurred, then you could make an argument for a change in the status quo?
Err: If you’re a sick bastard, yes.
Ignignokt: Please, your version of morality need not weigh in on this situation. The goal is to establish the natural law of things, free from the grasping hand of human emotion. Let us examine another situation. Suppose I bring home a beautiful woman.
Err: Right.
Ignignokt: Clearly by the very action of talking to her and bringing her home, I have established a male precedent of Dibs much like the purchasing of a burrito.
Err: Does roofies count as Dibs?
Ignignokt: Let us not be absurd. The Dibs call has been established, so no one can call Dibs on the woman simply because they are becoming aware of her existence. However, let us suppose she makes it known, in a general way to the room, that she is interested in retiring to the bedroom. Could a Dibs call happen then?
Err: By the logic professed before, yes, because she would then be introducing a new element, namely sex, to the previous status quo. If she had indeed addressed it to the entire room, a Dibs call would hold up.
Ignignokt: So we have again established a situation where “Gank Dibs” makes sense within the realm of society. Let us pause there for a moment, and resume this question tomorrow, for I feel that we must still discover some things about the soul and its relationship to the calling of Dibs.
