nirgrahamUK: i suppose you will qualify that to live body ownership is not something that can be exchanged, as dead body ownership can obviously be exchanged. is will part of the body, if will is part of the mind, which is merely genereated by the body, as the body generates heat into the air around it then its no big deal. you can own my body, but you dont necessarily own the heat emenating out, or the ideas in the mind etc.
i suppose you will qualify that to live body ownership is not something that can be exchanged, as dead body ownership can obviously be exchanged.
is will part of the body, if will is part of the mind, which is merely genereated by the body, as the body generates heat into the air around it then its no big deal. you can own my body, but you dont necessarily own the heat emenating out, or the ideas in the mind etc.
See, this is a philosophical trap that lead Descartes to absurdity, it leads to solipsism/brain-in-a-vat stuff. The fact is that you are both your mind and your body. You are a coherant whole. Without the mind, the body is useless. In turn, the mind is dependant on the organic functions of the body. It is impossible for me to own you as a coherant whole unless I can separate your mind from your body, which is impossible. A claim to own someone else is, in effect, a claim that you can control whatever that person does against their consent. This is slavery. It cannot be reconciled with personal sovereignty because personal sovereignty means that the individual has independance from the control of others.
if its possible for me to enter into a contract that if i should dare to press the big red button in your house, i will be put to death by your sword. and if this could be a legitimate contract, then so too can a voluntary body transfer, or servitude contact, with a cancellation clause allowing the 'slaveowner' the right to kill. so the contract could be broken as you say, in a legal sense, and penalty for that exacted; but this is just proof that its a valid contract when its coined, and when its enforced, and when its penalty is exacted.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: if its possible for me to enter into a contract that if i should dare to press the big red button in your house, i will be put to death by your sword. and if this could be a legitimate contract, then so too can a voluntary body transfer, or servitude contact, with a cancellation clause allowing the 'slaveowner' the right to kill. so the contract could be broken as you say, in a legal sense, and penalty for that exacted; but this is just proof that its a valid contract when its coined, and when its enforced, and when its penalty is exacted.
I'm sorry, but you cannot contract away the right to life and liberty. In libertarian social theory, these are inalienable.
Brainpolice: It is impossible for me to own you as a coherant whole unless I can separate your mind from your body, which is impossible.
you are begging the question, by insisting slavery mean own every attribute of person X, and not merely subset of concrete real physical propoperties of person Y.
i.e. you decide what they do, and what they materially endure, but not what they think etc.
Brainpolice:I'm sorry, but you cannot contract away the right to life and liberty. In libertarian social theory, these are inalienable.
nirgrahamUK: Brainpolice:I'm sorry, but you cannot contract away the right to life and liberty. In libertarian social theory, these are inalienable.so you are opposed to assisted suicide.
That is a non-sequitor.
are you allowed to contract away the possibility of life and liberty? i.e. are voluntarily playing russian roullete, or flying experimental aircraft, impermissable acts?
nirgrahamUK: Brainpolice: It is impossible for me to own you as a coherant whole unless I can separate your mind from your body, which is impossible. you are begging the question, by insisting slavery mean own every attribute of person X, and not merely subset of concrete real physical propoperties of person Y. i.e. you decide what they do, and what they materially endure, but not what they think etc.
I'm sorry, but you're simply making bad philosophical arguments for chattel slavery.
You cannot contract away someone's capability to consent or not consent.
Brainpolice: nirgrahamUK: Brainpolice:I'm sorry, but you cannot contract away the right to life and liberty. In libertarian social theory, these are inalienable.so you are opposed to assisted suicide. That is a non-sequitor.
if by non-sequitor you mean a true statement of the logical consequences of your doctrine then yes,. otherwise no
Brainpolice:I'm sorry, but you're simply making bad philosophical arguments for chattel slavery.
and what does the word chattel add to our word of the day 'slavery'?
and you arent sorry.
You cannot contract away someone's capability to consent or not consent. This is absurd. I've already demolished this in great detail, and over the course of this debate I've added even more philosophical detail as to why this is absurd.
is consent a physical act or a mental one? if the latter it is not necessary to be part of the property title and has no place in this thread.
if the former then it is perfectly alienable, just like i can refrain from walking to aprticular room.
nirgrahamUK: is consent a physical act or a mental one? if the latter it is not necessary to be part of the property title and has no place in this thread. if the former then it is perfectly alienable, just like i can refrain from walking to aprticular room.
Your questions and argument relies on the very mind/body dichotomy that I have already demolished.
i didnt notice any demolishing.
either; consent is a physical act, or a mental one, or is some mix of both, or neither, what is it?
When you epistemologically and metaphysically break it down, the answer is both. The explicit expression of consent is physical in nature, it's a matter of action. Consent is not merely a matter of thoughts, it's a matter of human action. If you make a statement, and my thought process agrees, this isn't "consent", its "agreement" in a more purely mental sense of the term.
ok, now we bypass the problem of continous consent, bercause we say
a) we dont care about the mental aspect.
b) in so far as the 'slave' wants to physically express the withdrawal of his consent he is contractually obligated to hold back from physically expressing (i.e. make known) his inward rejective thought.
c) if and when he acts physically so as to obviously withdraw consent to the continued operation of the contract (assuming as you insist that is a continoius process, though i think that is heavily debateable), the Master party will have the legitimate right to extract the stated penalty.
the penalty could even by an act of violence. as acts of violence can be agreed to voluntarily. and when agreed to do not violate NAP.
Unless one is a masochist, it cannot be said that an act of violence can be consented to. An act of violence inherently is not consented to by the person who the violence is being used against.
Your argument is bunk and you've helped me better flesh out the details of the case against voluntary slavery and a dualistic definition of self-ownership, so I must thank you in this regaurd.
so i cant consent to a surgeon cutting me open . thanks Brain
(or if i do, im a masochist)
nirgrahamUK: so i cant consent to a surgeon cutting me open . thanks Brain (or if i do, im a masochist)
That's a non-sequitor from my argument, not a legitimate reductio.
you keep claiming things are non-sequitors without justification. its really annoying
nirgrahamUK: you keep claiming things are non-sequitors without justification. its really annoying
Anyone honestyl reviewing the debate over the past few pages will see that it is a non-sequitor.
i certainly hope they post and provide explanations belo.
it seems clear that you deny that people can contract away their lives and liberties, in general, and then when you are brought to account to specific instances thereof, you claim foul.
Brainpolice, What if every right that you say a person cannot alienate, he consents to pretend to alienate? Can you consent to pretend things? And what if every bit of evidence that you claim as proof of this person wanting out of the contract is accounted for as being part of the act?
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
pairunoyd: Brainpolice, What if every right that you say a person cannot alienate, he consents to pretend to alienate? Can you consent to pretend things? And what if every bit of evidence that you claim as proof of this person wanting out of the contract is accounted for as being part of the act?
I'm not sure if I understand your question. He consents to *pretend* to alienate? What does that even mean?
I think he pretends to consent to alienate.
scineram: I think he pretends to consent to alienate.
Ah. I still dont get the question, and it seems like a really weird question to ask. I don't see what they're trying to get at. What does it mean to pretend to consent to alienate? My point was that it is impossible to alienate the will from the body. So "to consent to alienate" is a phrase I don't understand. I cannot "consent" to alienate my will because it is impossible to alienate the will. Confusing matters further, how can I "pretend" to "consent" to "alienate"? This is incredibly weird language and the question seems logically incoherant in and of itself.
why do you think the issue of whether the 'will' is alienable relevant to the question of whether someone can be the absolute servant of another, and whether this outcome could be arrived at by voluntary agrement.?
who has what will isn't in the question.
Brainpolice:Unless one is a masochist, it cannot be said that an act of violence can be consented to. An act of violence inherently is not consented to by the person who the violence is being used against.
Guess UFC is done for in a libertarian society.
Or boxing for that matter.
or medical surgery, or anything that involves bodily risk/danger
These are nonsequiturs, guys.
scineram: These are nonsequiturs, guys.
Only because boxers and UFC wrestlers are masochists I would presume.
scineram:These are nonsequiturs, guys.
Mind explaining why? He said that unless you are a masochist you cannot consent to an act of violence. A boxing match is a consent to an act of violence, unless I am missing something somewhere (which is entirely possible).
AndrewKemendo:Only because boxers and UFC wrestlers are masochists I would presume.
You definitely can't assume everyone who gets in a ring is hoping to get hurt.
non-sequitur back at ya.
You say someone can't alienate certain rights. You say people can't consent to slavery. I'm asking, Can I consent to pretend to be a slave? If I consent to pretend to be a slave then at what point do you know I'm not pretending? How do you know what I want or don't want?
If you say, "Aha, he wishes to break the contract. See, he's begging someone to help him out of his slavery."
And I say, "Au contraire. His protestations are a part of his act. I have contracted with him to pretend to be my slave and that's what he's doing - pretending."
Also, can't contracts be transferred, ie bought and sold? If you wish to free someone from their contract isn't it incumbent upon you to pay the cost of such a contract?
Pretend Slavery: "I, Jeffrey Tucker, consent to playing the role of Brainpolice's slave. Any and all actions forthcoming shall be construed as part of this role playing."
Are you saying we can't delve into the fine arts?
There seems to be some bollocks floating around here, but maybe I have misunderstood the concept of ownership. I was under the impression that owning something implied the right to divulge one's self of said object should one be so disposed. Thus, if there is a "self" which owns the body, then, yes, certainly, ownership of the body could be transferred. However, this brings in the question of mind/body dualism. I think BP's two blog posts on the subject dealt with this fairly well.
Viewing the body and mind (/soul) as one is firstly more coherent, and secondly allows us a less cloudy vision of what it means to own. With this idea in place, there are clear logical problems with transferring ownership of one's person. Who is doing the selling? Moreover, seeing as one's person instantly the property of the new owner, equally, the money paid for the transferral of ownership would fall instantly into the new owner's hands; the new owner has paid nothing.
My biggest problem with the argument I have just made, is the fact that one can clearly rent one's person (e.g. labour, prostitution).
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
I'm beginning to suspect this thread is a retard fest. I'm not pissing on anyone's beliefs. I'm saying that there's waaaaay too much trolling going on right now, keeping this from being a constructive conversation.
Now, if slavery is the ownership of one person over another, and if self-ownership is axiomatic, then how can there be "voluntary" slavery?
Political Atheists Blog
im not trolling. Ive asked this question for over a year and get no answer.
krazy kaju:Now, if slavery is the ownership of one person over another, and if self-ownership is axiomatic, then how can there be "voluntary" slavery?
Simple. If you agree to sell your all your rights to someone in exchange for x or y indefinitely, then that is a particular case.