Does the concept of ”self-ownership” make any sense? Can the ego ”own” the physical body?
Self ownership doesn't make sense specifically because ownership itself is a social construct. Ownership is not something physical. There is certainly "self control" but an ought cannot be made from an is. If you're using self control and self ownership synonymously then of course one can can control oneself.
what Neodoxy said. Many disagree with this definition, even some anarchocapitalists here, but it's consistent both logically and empirically.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
We can control ourselves, but we cannot "own" ourselves... Interesting. Can we "own" an external object?
Once again that relies upon what you mean when you say "own"
In theory this depends upon your personal definition.
In practice this depends upon what those around you believe.
This applies to all kinds of ownership, both internal and external.
In modern society you can own external objects, but inherently you cannot as it means nothing outside of society. You can of course control external objects, and as Stirner would argue this constitutes ownership in which case one would always own himself, and when one was forced to things by another he would have to logically forego partial ownership, but so long as ones mind was free one would always retain some semblance of ownership.
OK, I think I'm with you now. The entire concept of ownership is a mass delusion, a social myth of legitimized control. Or not?
I believe that myth is a strange word to use. Simply because something is subjective does not make it a "myth". The idea of a friendship or society is subjective, but this does not make it a myth per se. The idea of objective or inherent ownership is a myth, the idea of ownership insofar as it is actually practiced is not a myth any more than an agreement is a myth. It's a general mutual understanding.
Jackson LaRose: The entire concept of ownership is a mass delusion, a social myth of legitimized control. Or not?
The entire concept of ownership is a mass delusion, a social myth of legitimized control. Or not?
"Don't take other people's stuff", is a "mass delusion" just like "don't eat poisonous mushrooms", or "don't sh*t on someone else's head" are. More often then not, you'd get punched in the face (or worse) if you take what's not yours, just like more often than not you'd get bad stomach-ache (or worse) if you eat the mushrooms. Thankfully, from a socio-evolutionary perspective, there's simply not enough defiers of these "delusions" left among us to endanger the flourishing of most societies with their alternative (contrary) "delusions".
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/74983/title/Kids_own_up_to_ownership
People are born understanding the concept of ownership.the idea of Dominion over inanimate objects is part of our psyche. People must be indoctrinated into a worldview thats rejects this native axiom. It doesnt happen by itself.
Ownership, like storytelling and the manufacture of tools is one of those things that defines humanity. In this way, collectivism is arguably objectively wrong for eudaimonists.
Whatever the "I" is, whatever it is that makes you send electrical impulses to your joints to move your limbs and whatever it is that deliberates and makes choices is what "owns" your body, at least that's how I've always read Rothbard and other libertarians. If you don't exercise control over your body, who should? I think Rothbard's popular argument works as a reductio ad absurdum.
The other way to define self-ownership is saying, that you and only you have a legitimate control over your body and you can do with it whatever you want. Can someone debunk this, please? Or does it make any sense at all?
This is basically my definition of "self-ownership". If "ownership" is taken to mean "legitimate possession, use, and/or other form of control", then the concept of self-ownership simply means that possessing, using, and otherwise controlling one's body is legitimate.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Right. And I find it hard to understand why left libertarians disagree with it.
@neodoxy,
If ownership as concept is taken as a matter of faith (criteria X, Y, and Z are satisfied, rendering possession legitimate), then would not that mass belief equate to a myth?
@z1235,
I don't really understand your analogy. Are you simply taking a utilitarian stance on ownership? If I was confident of no negative reprocussion resulting from appropriation, would it then be reasonable to do so?
@Malachi,
All of the children in that article have an understanding of ownership, and they also speak English. Since you seem rather confident that having a concept of ownership at age 4 or 5 proves that the concept of ownership is innate, would it be safe to assume that you also think that the ability to speak English is also innate?
@ Eric080, MaikU, Autolykos,
Before we go any further, could you please define "body", as you are using it?
z1235:"Don't take other people's stuff", is a "mass delusion"
How the hell is a maxim a "delusion"?
MaikU:The other way to define self-ownership is saying, that you and only you have a legitimate control over your body and you can do with it whatever you want. Can someone debunk this, please? Or does it make any sense at all?
This is actually something that Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics holds up to (before it gets to the part where people say it breaks down). You have control over your thoughts, and it is impossible to relinquish that control to someone else. Your thoughts are what controls your body. You can claim to be someone's servant, but ultimately you are still choosing to do what they say, and could change your mind at any moment. As Rothbard pointed out, this is where the concept of "inalieanable rights" comes from.
...there are certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man, are inalienable, i.e., they cannot in fact be alienated, even voluntarily.
Specifically, a person cannot alienate his will, more particularly his control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own will and person, and he is, if you wish, "stuck" with that inherent and inalienable ownership. Since his will and control over his own person are inalienable, then so also are his rights to control that person and will. That is the ground for the famous position of the Declaration of Independence that man's natural rights are inalienable; that is, they cannot be surrendered, even if the person wishes to do so.
And even if that weren't the case...even if you want to argue that you somehow could alienate your own will, and "sell your body", you're still selling your body. The whole reason it's called "yours" is because (a) you cannot be alienated from it, but also (b) you have a better claim to it than anyone else.
You can try to argue that that is only a "de facto" ownership, but it's ownership by any understood means, nonetheless. Not only that, but this whole time everyone has been using all the "your's" that directly imply a claim over something. They imply an individual consciousness outside of everything else, and they recognize it as such. To claim that "your idea of 'ownership' is a delusion" is a self-contradiction...along the same lines as what Hoppe's argumentation concept points out. (Of course, he draws conclusions from that that haven't been sufficiently explained to me, but in the specific case of making the point that your act of arguing proves you are an independent conscious mind in yourself, is basically undeniable as far as I can see.)
See here for a list of resources on the concept of self-ownership.
John James,
How does sleeping factor into you position? How are you defining "body"? Just the bare physical hardware necessary for the continuation of the "mind" (ego)? Where do you draw the line between "self" (ego) and "body"?
Jackson LaRose: Before we go any further, could you please define "body", as you are using it?
To me it's anything except the mind, which is in fact a manifestation of brain function. So yeah, every body physical parts.
Does someone have proof that the mind (sense of self) exists outside the body? Please share.
@ MaikU,
Is there any sort of temporal aspect to this? That is, do I own dead skin cells, or old hair, too? Or since they are now divorced from my corpus, they do not count as my "body"? What of the non-living (cellular) material? The carbon dioxide I resperate, the lymph I sweat, etc.? What of the sybiotic bacteria in my gut? They are certainly independant lifeforms, but they reside in my GI tract.
@ K. C. Farmer,
That depends on what you consider "proof".
@ Jackson LaRose
For the purposes of this forum, scientific or philosophical proof.
Pfft, that's an easy one!
Jackson LaRose: @ MaikU, Is there any sort of temporal aspect to this? That is, do I own dead skin cells, or old hair, too? Or since they are now divorced from my corpus, they do not count as my "body"? What of the non-living (cellular) material? The carbon dioxide I resperate, the lymph I sweat, etc.? What of the sybiotic bacteria in my gut? They are certainly independant lifeforms, but they reside in my GI tract.
sounds like red herring. I am more interested about how you would deny the premise that only you have legitimate control over your body.
Jackson LaRose:How does sleeping factor into you position?
Was that a conscious effort to avoid saying "your"? And I'm not sure what you're asking. How does sleeping all of a sudden mean someone else has a better claim to "your corpus" than you?
How are you defining "body"?
Corpus?
Where do you draw the line between "self" (ego) and "body"?
a) I would have to assume one exists in the physical world, one doesn't.
b) Why is that even relevant?
@MaikU, mostly because (and you'll see this back at the thread over on the dark side) while we all agree that 'ownership' is subjective, most definitions of self-ownership require a pretty hard line to be drawn between body and mind that, most likely, just isn't there.
John Edward... seriously?
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/john_edward_hustling_the_bereaved/
So you offer no philosophical or scientific proof of any kind.
Since the mind/body are inseparable, except for maybe death where the body ceases to function and what happens with consciousness thereafter is unknown and unprovable, I assert a person has self-ownership whether they are conscious or not. Unconsciousness being the status where the mind is either at rest or disabled temporarily. Just because a person isn't actively thinking (sleeping or unconscious), does not give another person the right to seize possession of that person's body. Seizing the body would be equivalent to seizing the mind, and is illegitimate.
Self-ownership manifests when there's competition for resources, which implies a social function. That doesn't mean self-ownership doesn't exist outside of society. Ownership most typically relates to physical objects. Owning a mind, i.e. mind control, is something that while attempted by the most perverse individuals, has been largely unsuccessful. Lots of fiction on that subject. So when libertarians speak of ownership, they are speaking of ownership of physical property. There's a subset who hold onto the notion of intellectual property, but I believe such ownership to be illegitimate.
Self-ownership after death is pretty moot. Or does your John Edward defense suggest you hold self-ownership to exist post-mortem?
I am not denying your premise. I'm trying to understand that position. No red herring intended, just curious how one who advocates this position is even talking about when they say things such as "body", or "ownership", or "mind".
I think that this premise, albeit logically bulletproof, is built upon the wet sand of presuppositions and dubious distinctions. The transitory nature of the "body" is what is failing to be considered here. Or rather, I am failing to grasp how your stance considers this.
@ John James,
No, I meant "your". I'll try to proofread better next time.
I'm sorry to disappoint, but I don't think my position was ever that "Someone has a better claim to my corpus than me". Was that a conscious effort at a strawman?
Corpus. How elucidating.
a)One what? Ego?
b) It may not be. Who decides that?
@ K.C. Farmer,
LOL, take it easy, man! I was kidding with the John Edward thing! All of your assertions are based on the presupposition that your methods of validation are themselves valid. Do you have any evidence of that?
Jackson LaRose:I'm sorry to disappoint, but I don't think my position was ever that "Someone has a better claim to my corpus than me".
Well then you're going to have to share what your position was then, because based on the title and OP of this thread, I'm not sure what else you could be talking about.
Well, it was the word you used. I don't understand how you could ask people what is meant by a word, and then just substitute a different word in place of it when you want to talk about the exact same object...it seems like you have a pretty good idea what people are talking about when they use that word.
Jackson LaRose:Where do you draw the line between "self" (ego) and "body"?
John James:I would have to assume one exists in the physical world, one doesn't.
Jackson LaRose:One what? Ego?
You asked about the difference between two things. My answer is, the difference between those two things is that one of those things exists in the physical world, and one of those things does not exist in the physical world.
It may not be. Who decides that?
I'm really beginning to wonder if this is just a trolling expedition for you.
"I'm really beginning to wonder if this is just a trolling expedition for you."
A tap dancing troll expedition.
I haven't yet determined my position. Not enough information.
Yes, I use the words "body", and "corpus" interchangeably. In the future, I'll be sure to avoid any synonyms. I wanted to know how you define either "body" or "corpus", your choice.
Are you saying that the "body" actually exists, and the "mind" does not?
And I'm really beginning to wonder if you just visit this site to assure yourself that your opinions are correct, and any sort of deviation, or questioning of those opinions is threatening to you, causing the knee-jerk "troll alarm" to be sounded. Have I used any ad hominems? Have I been rude, or lude? Have I done anything besides discuss the topic at hand? Until now, no.
Proper classification would be "Concern Troll".
Offering up questions while being elusive on your own positions doesn't contribute to anyone here.
K.C. Farmer,
How am I being elusive? Have I not answered all that has been asked?
Also, if I'm a "concern troll", at least I'm in good company,
Zen Koan
Socratic Questioning
Jackson LaRose:Yes, I use the words "body", and "corpus" interchangeably. In the future, I'll be sure to avoid any synonyms. I wanted to know how you define either "body" or "corpus", your choice.
Then I find it curious as to why you would go out of your way to use such an obscure synonym, when "body" would suffice. My guess is you did it to avoid using the very word you were asking others to define, so as not to be so obvious in your incompatible questioning.
How about you define what you meant by it?
Did you miss the words "in the physical world"? I repeated them at least 3 times. And you wonder why people might think you're trolling?
First of all, believe me, I do not find you threatening in the slightest. Second, you haven't questioned any opinions of mine...certainly not sufficient enough for me to feel like any positions I may or may not hold are in jeopardy. Third, as you yourself freely admitted, others developed the same assessment of you...so much so that you were "almost booted off the forums" for it. To claim that it is I who is jumping to some irrational conclusion out of some shortcoming in my own resolve seems at the very least quite ironic. I presume the others who wished for your banishment were also just scared sheep, frightened by your adroit questioning of their inchoate beliefs, such that they needed you to be silenced at all costs?
And you may actually wish to look up the definition of the action you are repeatedly being accused of. It may provide some insight as to why so many other people define your behavior that way and you can't seem to figure out how it fits.
Trolling:
The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn't count as trolling; it's just flaming, and isn't funny. Spam isn't trolling either; it pisses people off, but it's lame. The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help. Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn't involve decieving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccesful troll.
Sounds exactly like what was going throughout the thread at this link, and it's beginning to sound like the two threads you're active in now, and I'd be willing to bet, the threads you were active in in the past.
I think I am 100% with neodoxy on this one.
Things I want to state just in case they haven't been stated.
"Ownership" is a legal/ customary term; it requires the assumption that human beings are social animals. In the end a form / concept of "ownership" may be inevitable - however in the end there will always be some custom that determines how you calculate your expectations against such a thing (something that weilds some "power" - like a court of law or a bigger stick, etc)
The only thing that can calculate, recognize things, or hold expectations, would be "Der Einzge" , this is also the only thing we can talk about when trying to get the "logic" of how the forces of the world move. This should not be confused with "Self Ownership", as I think some people tend to confuse the two (one is a legal term - one is a form of radical ontological empiricism) - but ontology really is that important - and the biggest mistake of much of social science and philisophical academia.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
JJ,
You know, I think trolls derive pleasure from toying with their victims. I am certainly not experiencing that emotion right now. In fact, I'm very pissed off, and frustrated. Vexed even.
Oops, there I go again with my "obscure" words. I'm probably trying to trick you there, be careful.
Speaking of which, let's rewind and run that sentence again, as if I used "body", instead of corpus,
"Or since they are now divorced from my body, they do not count as my "body"?"
Wow, that was a good trick. I didn't want the sentence to sound too repetitive with two instances of the word "body", so I used a synonym to make the sentence less repetative. Caught me red-handed masking my shitty sentence structure, and probably trying to sound smart, too. Well done.
I'm merely asking you which one (the "body" or the "mind") you consider to be "in the physical world", and which one is not "in the physical world". You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I don't see how this is trolling.
Whew, I'm glad I'm not threatening. Maybe we can be friends some day. OK, so everyone is pissed that I'm asking questions, yet I'm not questioning you? Are you sure you aren't trolling? Maybe more than one person at a time can jump to irrational conclusions... I'm not really sure how that is my responsibility. Last time, the mods sided with me, and one of my most ardent (shit there I go again, stupid 10th grade vocab tests!) adversaries was booted instead (I miss you, ERO!). Attempting to silence my voice is the only conclusion I could come up with, not that I think my questions are all that powerful or insightful.
"Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn't involve decieving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid."
Maybe I'm just stupid. I'm not deceiving anyone here. Please read my past posts, threads, etc. I'm rather consistent, and truly passionate (typically in an aggressive fashion). Yeah, I've got a sense of humor (see the John Edward link), but I don't think my goofy personality qualifies me as one who intentionally lies and deceives people for my amusement.
I am more interested about how you would deny the premise that only you have legitimate control over your body.
That's easy. You say "no you don't.' They're both just assertions with no real meaningful basis; that's why you have to throw in that arbitrary caveat of "legitimate" just like in the NAP you have to insert "legitimate force" rather than just force.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Ah yes, Ontology... leave it to an Egoist to know what the hell I'm talking about here. You effin troll! Lao tzu del Zinn! what's up buddy. The cavalry has arrived! Joy... Please explain that I'm not a troll.
Jackson LaRose:"Or since they are now divorced from my body, they do not count as my "body"?"
What's wrong with that? That actually is much clearer in the context of what you're asking. You're asking if something remains "part of your body" even after it's divorced from it. When you use different words, it implies that you're talking about two different things (even if only slightly different).
Again, it sounds like the only reason you elected to use an obscure synonym was to avoid using the very word you were asking others to define, so as not to be so obvious in your incompatible questioning...not only in the sense that you're perfectly fine talking about and using a term for something you are implying you aren't clear what it means, but also in the sense of how essentially absurd your question was—Asking if something is still part of something, even after it's "divorced" (noun: total separation; disunion) from it.
(I mean, I suppose if one really wanted to be difficult one could make the argument that if a shark bites off your arm, and swims away, it's still technically your "body part", as in "part of your body" that just happens to be off in the ocean while you're lying in a hospital, but I think everyone's pretty clear, in terms of ownership, that arm essentially isn't yours anymore.)
Read the post again. I never implied your use of the almost completely dead word "corpus" was intended to "trick" anyone...just that it was your way of avoiding having to stare your obviously absurd question in its face.
Jackson LaRose:I'm merely asking you which one (the "body" or the "mind") you consider to be "in the physical world", and which one is not "in the physical world". You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I don't see how this is trolling.
That isn't what you said. You removed the important qualifying words, changing the entire context of the statement. I stated one exists in the physical world, and one does not exist in the physical world. I never even implied that either one did not exist (period). But your question implied I did, and to answer it in the way it was asked (as a "yes, or no") would be to concede a notion that was never asserted.
Perhaps this is just your lazy way of conversing, but one would have to admit, intentionally ignoring clauses like that so as to indirectly put words in someone's mouth is the kind of thing a troll would do.
OK, so everyone is pissed that I'm asking questions, yet I'm not questioning you?
Everyone is pissed that you're asking questions?
Maybe more than one person at a time can jump to irrational conclusions...
Of course they can. I'm just pointing out that when enough people come to the same conclusion about you, and yet your conclusion is always the same—that they're all just knee-jerk sheep who are being irrational, and you're just perfectly dandy—it gets to a point at which it might be wise to actually consider the possiblity that all those other people aren't the ones being irrational...as it's much more probable for one person to do so than "more than one person."
I'm not really sure how that is my responsibility.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
one of my most ardent (shit there I go again, stupid 10th grade vocab tests!)
This is another form of trolling, bordering on flaming. Again, you might really want to look these things up.
Jackson LaRose:not that I think my questions are all that powerful or insightful.
And yet you still somehow think others are threatened by them. You said it, not me.
"Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn't involve decieving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid." Maybe I'm just stupid.
Maybe I'm just stupid.
That's entirely possible. I haven't ruled it out. I've been at this stage since a little before I mentioned it.
Yeah, I've got a sense of humor (see the John Edward link), but I don't think my goofy personality qualifies me as one who intentionally lies and deceives people for my amusement.
See this is the kind of thing that supports the claim. I never implied that link is what seemed like trolling, nor did anyone imply anything about you being "goofy". Yet you pretend as if they did so as to make it sound like the claims that have been made are without merit. It's like when someone is accused of racism and his defense ends up being something like "Do I love my country? Yes. Do I get a little personally effected when someone doesn't respect my country? Yes. But if I'm guilty of anything it's only for loving my country too much. And if that's wrong...well...I don't want to be right. I don't see how that qualifies me as a racist."
>>>>All of the children in that article have an understanding of ownership, and they also speak English. Since you seem rather confident that having a concept of ownership at age 4 or 5 proves that the concept of ownership is innate, would it be safe to assume that you also think that the ability to speak English is also innate?>>>>
I am fairly confident I didnt say anything about "proof." I also think you are reaching quite a bit. Wouldnt it make more sense to say
<<<<<All of the children in that article have an understanding of ownership, and they also have an understanding of communication. Since you seem rather confident that having a concept of ownership at age 4 or 5 proves that the concept of ownership is innate, would it be safe to assume that you also think that the concept of communication is also innate?<<<<<
If I were claiming that the children in the study innately knew whose crayon it was, it might be appropriate to question whether I thought they innately knew a language. furthermore, it could be said that children innately have the ability to speak all languages, they simply do not know the vocabulary or the grammar. Just like someone is able to understand ownership without owning anything (consider a slave).
Honestly, I used "corpus" to spice up a bad sentence. It was not to mask an absurd question. I was using "body" how MaikU defined it,
"To me it's anything except the mind, which is in fact a manifestation of brain function. So yeah, every body physical parts."
OK, so working off of that definition is how that question was framed.
I was asking, essentially,
"If one of my physical parts gets removed from a big lump of my physical parts responsible for consciousness, is it still one of "my" physical parts (i.e., do I still "own" it)"
If it sounds absurd, it's probably because it is. But again, I don't see how that's my fault. I was handed the premise.
Sorry if my sarcasm is bugging you, but I get a little defensive when I'm being acosted, especially for the same crap over and over again!
If you folks aren't mad at me for flaming (at least initially), and you aren't mad at me for asking questions, then what are you mad at me for (or, why are you accusing me of trolling)? Is it because I don't have enough confidence in my opinions and aesthetic preferences to tout them as "facts", or "truth", or "a position"? What is it, besides "you're being a troll"?
Malachai,
Touche, the analogy was crappy. What I was driving at was the fact that they know English must shed doubt on your conclusion that the concept of ownership is innate to the human psyche. It's was essentially a "nature vs. nurture" issue.
I would also disagree with equating "possession" with "ownership" I got into a huge discussion with filc and Wilderness about this here. It would probably be incredibly boring to a third party (lots of bickering over minutae).