What we need are institutions that are neither statist nor capitalist. Both of these involve hierarchy, subordination, and the centralization of power and decision-making authority in the hands of a small few; which is then wielded against the many.
We need institutions that are entirely 1) voluntary, 2) cooperative, and 3) participatory
Touche Wheylous, touche.
Papirius:My position is that all laborers can as a matter of fact alienate their labor services. Being that labor is a part of self and that self-ownership is inalienable, employment is illegitimate as much as slavery.
Being that labor is a part of self and that self-ownership is inalienable, employment is illegitimate as much as slavery.
Listen, because you're very confused.
You can only think this way because you are not strictly defining the meanings of the words you're using and not thinking through the philsophic implications in the real world.
What does it mean in real terms for self-ownership to be inalienable? It means, in physical terms, that you cannot take your own brain out of your body and let someone else's brain inhabit your body. It is to say that you cannot divide your will from your body.
Why?
Because your body produces your mind as a consequence of the physical atoms inside your body and their unique arrangement, and your mind produces your will. To divorce body and brain is to die, and a dead person has zero property rights.
It is a facet of reality that you cannot separate body and mind. Thus, they are inalienable. And thus one owns themselves inalienably. This is a facet of metaphysical reality.
Now, I said it is indeed possible to alienate, that is to give away, your labor-service.
In phsyical terms this means you would do something, any action, for someone else, to their gain instead of your own. It's perfectly possible for any person to walk into a factory and do a job that doesn't interest them at all, like stacking boxes.
So, it is perfectly clear that a person can in fact alienate their labor-service. It is allowed by reality. There is no contradiction anywhere. We call this employment.
For employment to be illegitimate then, there would have to be an immoral component, and since ethics only makes sense when viewed in terms of property rights, there would have to be some kind of aggressive coercion involved.
However, employment is explicitly a voluntary contract that can be walked away from at any time.
Nothing you say to an employee can cause them to walk away, because they are certainly not being defrauded. Fraud requires an information imbalance such that if the truth were revealed one party would realize they're being materially injured. Since this is not true of employees, it is utterly ridiculous for you to claim employment is illegitimate.
Especially by trying to claim it on the basis of unalienability of labor-service, which is perfectly easily shown with a moments thought to be easily alienable.
In fact, if labor-services were not alienable, no one would be alive, because it would be impossible to do anything for your children. You couldn't help them move, eat, or even suckle. They'd die on the floor soon after they were born.
But reality doesn't work that way. You can indeed do something for someone else, both freely and for a wage, which is what it means in reality to say that labor-service is alienable. Doing something for someone else instead of for yourself. Don't you see that?
If you continue to claim that labor-service is inalienable, you will have to make a metaphysical case for that assertion, but, as I said, even a moment's reflection proves to everyone that labor-services are EASILY alienable, at will, at the slightest desire of the individual.
That is, they can sell their labor voluntarily, such as one cannot sell their body because the will is not alienable from the body because the result would be death. But there is no such factor stopping one from selling their labor!
If workers are entering into employment contracts willingly, it is by-definition legitimate. The whole point of libertarianism is to create societies of voluntary association. That's the dividing line of legitimacy! If you genuinely think fraud involved in employment, you'd better make a case for what that fraud is, but it has absolutely nothing to do with inalienability of labor-service, which is beyond being merely a ridiculous claim, it make you look stupid. Like saying your hair is inalienable from your body. Really? You never had a haircut? Psh.
Maybe it is "just as bad", the problem is it is a fact, as opposed to anything you can come up with outside of some asocial fantasy world
"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
kylio27:What we need are institutions that are neither statist nor capitalist. Both of these involve hierarchy
There's nothing innately wrong with hierarchy. It's only where hierarchy turns into aggression that there's a problem.
kylio27:subordination, and the centralization of power and decision-making authority in the hands of a small few; which is then wielded against the many.
Right, that's the central flaw of democracy, that it is based on a communalist ethic which makes aggression appear more legitimate against citizens when it forces its laws on them.
kylio27: We need institutions that are entirely 1) voluntary, 2) cooperative, and 3) participatory
I suggest autarchy. It's a concept I'm working on elaborating into a full-scale system. It takes the individual as the basic unit of society rather than the community. Because of this, the individual takes on the law-making function. Each person can adopt malum prohibitum for himself or herself (voluntary), and then group together along those lines (cooperative & participatory) for all association needs.
It's a concept that is only possible after the invention of the internet. I plan to run prohibitum as something like a GIT repository that individuals can add to or fork at will, creating an easy way for people to simply immediately adopt new law for themselves, or adopt packages of law others have built.
There'd be a social element from there allowing people whom accept similar laws to find each other, allowing them to group together and form communities and the like.
This allows law creation and adoption on an individual basis without the need for a representative, nor a vote, nor even a congress or even a single politician!
With that in place, you'd simply look for police and court services within the free market, like anything else.
@Anenome: I think you're conflating law and policy. Policy is a rule regarding the disposition of one's property. Law emerges from conflict-resolution and has little, if anything, to do with the policies of individuals. You seem to think that law emerges from "like-minded policies" but I think this is mistaken. Conflicts can arise no matter how like-minded people are (look at the recent spate of Amish beard-cuttings performed by an "Amish gang"... lol).
Clayton -
Clayton:nothing wrong with serpentis's logic. "If it's raining, then the ground is wet. The ground is not wet therefore it is not raining."
While there is nothing wrong with serpentis' logic, there is with yours, Clayton. Modus Tollens' form states that if a conditional statement ("if p then q") is accepted and the consequent does not hold ( not-q), then the negation of the antecedent ( not-p) can be inferred. The question must always first be "do we accept the conditional statement?"
"If x then y
Not y"
It does not necessarily follow "then not x" if we do not explicitly accept the x then y statement in all cases.
For example, if I cheat on my test, I will make a 100%. I did not make a 100%, therefore I didn't cheat on my test.
But making a 100% on a test is not purely contingent on cheating. I could have studied. Therefore it would be foolish to accept the statement "if I cheat on my test, I will make a 100%. I did not make a 100%, therefore I didn't cheat on my test."
The conditional statement should be clarified "If and only if I cheat on my test, then I will make a 100%." This is why modus tollens can be difficult to apply to the real world. We might accept that if I cheat on my test, I will make a 100%. but if I don't make a 100%, it does not always negate the antecedant.
To use Clayton's example, "if it's raining then the ground is wet. The ground is not wet, therefore it is not raining."
I understand what clayton means (he is assuming there is no roof), but the statement in and of itself, without clarification, is still not correct. The ground could be dry while it is raining (from being under a roof).
Just because the ground is not wet, does not mean that it is not raining.
@Papiris - your argument is pure sophistry. It is similar to the "Can an omnipotent God create a object so heavy he cannot lift it?"
Your argument makes grammatical sense, but has no intelligible meaning, hence Serpentis' modus tollens of your assertion that "If self-ownership then a person can do whatever they want with their body and labor.You assert that a person can't do what they want with their body and labor.Therefore not self-ownership." Yet, you still maintain not only that you can own yourself, but you have absolutely no choice but to own yourself.
When talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it", or talking about owning one's self so much that they cannot sell it is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle"; it is not logically coherent in terms of ownership to think that one can own something so much that he cannot sell it (or rent it). So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" or "can one own himself so much that he cannot sell himself" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" You caveat that selling your body is different than selling a car does not follow.
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
Texas,
Your analysis is flawed. Clayton has it right. The conditional does not have to changed to "if and only if".
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Is it that Texas is on to something? Again, forgive me if I'm wrong. I need to brush up on logic again.
Is it true that "if and only if" is needed on something like:
If it is raining, then the ground is wet
OR
If I got a 100% on the test, then I cheated
??
That is, the "if and only if is merely needed if one does not accept the original premise as true. However, if one did not accept the original premise as true, I se no reason to accept it with the addition of "and only if."
Now, Texas, ultimately, the logical argument is sound how Serpentis and Clayton showed it. That is, if the premise is true, the the conclusion is true.
Ultimately, do you accept the premise:
If one is free to do what one chooses to with one's body and labor, then self-ownership?
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
I guess I should elaborate on what I see as the flaw in Tex's reasoning.
He makes two points. First that "A implies B, not B, therefor not A" is only valid if indeed A implies B.
For example, if we consider the following:
"Going to Vegas implies you will be a millionaire. I am not a millionaire, therefore I did not go to Vegas" is false because the first part is not valid. Going to Vegas does not make you a millionaire.Tex is right about this one.
But he then moves on to a second point, where he claims that "A implies B, not B, therefore not A" is not valid even if A implies B is true.
He asserts that the correct version is "A if and only if B, not B, therefor not A".
Now this version is certainly correct, assuming all the premises. But the first version is also correct, assuming all the premises.
Smiling Dave:"Going to Vegas implies you will be a millionaire. I am not a millionaire, therefore I did not go to Vegas" is false because the first part is not valid. Going to Vegas does not make you a millionaire.Tex is right about this one.
I think we all agree, but wouldn't it have to be "If I go to vegas then I will be a millionaire." Not "going to vegas implies I will become a millionaire." Does that change anything? Implies seems to, well, imply something different than an if/then statement.
Anyway, I accept modus tollens, but for it to be truly logical the conditional statement must be valid, or else the entire phrase falls apart. Perhaps this is what is meant when it is said that a statement can be false yet logical, right? If one takes logical to mean internally consistent.
Tex,
I was using the word "implies" in the technical sense it is used by logicians. In that restricted sense, "A implies B" and "if A then B" are two ways of saying the same thing. Both are symbolized by A -> B.
Your last paragraph is pointing out one of the subtleties of logic. When reasoning something out, one has to consider two things. Do I have my facts straight, and do I have my rules of reasoning straight.
The rules of reasoning always have an implicit preliminary sentence, which is "If you have your facts straight, then I can tell you what you can conclude from those facts."
So that "A implies B, and not B, therefore not A" would read in full:
Assuming you have your facts right, that A implies B, and you also have your facts right that B is false. Then you can be certain that A is false.
Cool, that is what I thought.
I think we needed to add that bit about facts being straight as well as the logic being straight to come full circle.
Clayton: @Anenome: I think you're conflating law and policy. Policy is a rule regarding the disposition of one's property. Law emerges from conflict-resolution and has little, if anything, to do with the policies of individuals. You seem to think that law emerges from "like-minded policies" but I think this is mistaken. Conflicts can arise no matter how like-minded people are (look at the recent spate of Amish beard-cuttings performed by an "Amish gang"... lol). Clayton -
Good point. I need to achieve greater clarity on that particular distinction within the bounds of my proposal, and that does help. I'd been using the in se / prohibitum distinction until now, but your cut does make sense. Even 'policy' though does have legal connotations. I didn't like the word 'rule' that I another had proposed using. Hmm. Maybe policy is best then.
The discussion has become basically irrelevant to me now, being that I am rejecting the notion of self-ownership. I had some discussion with some people who like rationality about a couple of points. First is about selfownership validate organ donation but not slavery. Being that I have a starting preference to liberty and not to property, I've used slavery as something of a lackmus test of ethical ideas, being that what Hoppe call "self-ownership" is so obvious, and it's self-refuting to try and justify people owning other people being it is an apriori of argumentation to accept the opposite, and something can be justified only by argumentation. Self-ownership is obvious when pointed to the question of whether someone has the right to take your organs without your permisson with the answer "Of course not, you own yourself". But if I can transfer the title (sell, give as a gift) to pieces of my body (implied to be the self) like blood, semen, eggs, organs, it is consistent with that that I can transfer the title to my entire body to someone and that contract to be eforceable. That kind of theory that justifies slavery hardly deserves a name connected to liberty.
The point is in a second consideration about why is the apriori norm of argumentation of "respecting other people's exclusive use of their body" taken to imply property; which we discussed. In the light of some thoughts about homesteading principle being an unjustified addition to the labor theory of property (which I mentioned in the beggining of this post) recognising self-ownership of other people does not follow from the APoA of respecting their exclusive use of their bodies, recognising their "self-possession". This poses a question of whether if any property can be justified to exist, on which I have to ponder some more, and talk about with my friends..
Papirius:Self-ownership is obvious when pointed to the question of whether someone has the right to take your organs without your permisson with the answer "Of course not, you own yourself". But if I can transfer the title (sell, give as a gift) to pieces of my body (implied to be the self) like blood, semen, eggs, organs, it is consistent with that that I can transfer the title to my entire body to someone and that contract to be eforceable. That kind of theory that justifies slavery hardly deserves a name connected to liberty.
Murray Rothbard argued, "The concept of 'voluntary slavery' is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master's will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary.
The reason you cannot transfer title to your entire body is because the decision-making agent that transfers title would have to go with that body. You can sell organs because they can be separated from your will. An organ cannot decide it wants to be free and is not free by nature, thus it can be sold legitimately.
Abandoning the concept of self-ownership is a contradiction in fact. Self-ownership denotes control. If you do not self-own, you do not self-control. And the fact of each individual's ability to control their body is self-evident. No one can move your arm for you. No one can make you do anything you don't want to do.
Try again.
Rather I think it's obvious that you never accepted self-ownership before, you were simply trying to use it as a philosophical bludgeon to attack employment, and you've seen now how that fell through and was contradictory.
Now you're rejecting self-ownership because you think it legitimates slavery, which is also false.
I suggest you read through Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard.