wilderness: zefreak: Property ownership implies not just deterministic usage of our bodies but moral exclusivity. Hence, to state Self Ownership as justification of property ownership is merely question begging. I am not me? So you are not zefreak? Who are you then? All these posts directed towards you, one of Anarchist Cain two pages back, and you have no explanations for your own contradictions - I say it's due to some lack of explanatory power that your using.
zefreak: Property ownership implies not just deterministic usage of our bodies but moral exclusivity. Hence, to state Self Ownership as justification of property ownership is merely question begging.
Property ownership implies not just deterministic usage of our bodies but moral exclusivity. Hence, to state Self Ownership as justification of property ownership is merely question begging.
I am not me? So you are not zefreak? Who are you then? All these posts directed towards you, one of Anarchist Cain two pages back, and you have no explanations for your own contradictions - I say it's due to some lack of explanatory power that your using.
I think perhaps we are breaking Aristotle's Law of Identity. If I am not me [therefore the determined user] then who am I? Can I in fact even call myself I? By doing such am I not making a claim over my thoughts, mind & body? Can a body actually be inclusive? I think it is a contradiction to claim to be Anarchist Cain and not Anarchist Cain or to claim I am me and also Zefreak.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
wilderness: Harry Felker: ivanfoofoo:I think we should all get rid of the "natural rights" approach to libertarianism. Natural Rights gives us the authority to be individuals.... ivanfoofoo:Given that, we can focus on the consequences of our proposed system, that is, private property, economic progress and individual liberty for everyone, but our end is never that of egalitarianism. Natural law is a nice thought exercise, but I don't think that is is subjetivity-free. We can't build an objective system from our knowledge. Self Ownership (therefore Property Ownership) is the objective system..... Excellent!
Harry Felker: ivanfoofoo:I think we should all get rid of the "natural rights" approach to libertarianism. Natural Rights gives us the authority to be individuals.... ivanfoofoo:Given that, we can focus on the consequences of our proposed system, that is, private property, economic progress and individual liberty for everyone, but our end is never that of egalitarianism. Natural law is a nice thought exercise, but I don't think that is is subjetivity-free. We can't build an objective system from our knowledge. Self Ownership (therefore Property Ownership) is the objective system.....
ivanfoofoo:I think we should all get rid of the "natural rights" approach to libertarianism.
Natural Rights gives us the authority to be individuals....
ivanfoofoo:Given that, we can focus on the consequences of our proposed system, that is, private property, economic progress and individual liberty for everyone, but our end is never that of egalitarianism. Natural law is a nice thought exercise, but I don't think that is is subjetivity-free. We can't build an objective system from our knowledge.
Self Ownership (therefore Property Ownership) is the objective system.....
Excellent!
I just don't get how you can get to private property of stuff from self-ownership, which is the only objective statement of natural rights.
zefreak:I determine my movement and action. That is a fact. Admitting such does nothing to justify a system of ethics. Do you know what property rights are? Legitimate exclusion. By admitting the ontological fact that I control my actions does not logically presuppose exclusivity.
Well is someone telepathically controlling your movements? Or are you in fact refering to a mystical deity? Who besides you determines thoughts and actions? If no one then I think you have just implied a case for legitimate exclusion.
ivanfoofoo:I just don't get how you can get to private property of stuff from self-ownership, which is the only objective statement of natural rights.
Mixing your labor with the commons of nature. I think Locke uses this example. If you pick up an acorn from the ground, when does it legitimatly become yours? When it is in your stomach? In your mouth? What claim does anyone have after homesteading it that could be justified as the beginning of ownership?
Anarchist Cain:Mixing your labor with the commons of nature. I think Locke uses this example. If you pick up an acorn from the ground, when does it legitimatly become yours? When it is in your stomach? In your mouth? What claim does anyone have after homesteading it that could be justified as the beginning of ownership?
When you make the action to harvest the Acorn...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker:When you make the action to harvest the Acorn..
Also called Homesteading That was the point I was trying to provide. If homesteading doesn't result in the acquiring of property then what point after that can be used to justify property?
Anarchist Cain: zefreak:I determine my movement and action. That is a fact. Admitting such does nothing to justify a system of ethics. Do you know what property rights are? Legitimate exclusion. By admitting the ontological fact that I control my actions does not logically presuppose exclusivity. Well is someone telepathically controlling your movements? Or are you in fact refering to a mystical deity? Who besides you determines thoughts and actions? If no one then I think you have just implied a case for legitimate exclusion.
Irrelevant. I am the sole determinant of my thoughts and actions. This does not justify property, which is an ethical construct pertaining to legitimate exclusivity.
You can make the case that self-ownership is functional. Rothbard states that an ethic derived from the first principle of self-ownership is the only functional one, that doesn't lead to absurdity. I tend to agree, but then again I subjectively value functionality :)
Justification in epistemology is much more rigorous than appealing to functionality or intuition.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
You own yourself... now lets logically go through this
You own you, therefore all actions you do produce property that is yours, hence, you own property...
zefreak:Irrelevant. I am the sole determinant of my thoughts and actions. This does not justify property, which is an ethical construct pertaining to legitimate exclusivity.
Well I was bringing up the point of self-ownership to start a 'praxeological' argument starting from scratch. So we both agree that Self-ownership is a property right? It involves exlcusivity and is legitimate through logical deduction.
Anarchist Cain:Also called Homesteading That was the point I was trying to provide. If homesteading doesn't result in the acquiring of property then what point after that can be used to justify property?
Well I think Ivan's issue is he does not understand that homesteading and acting are synonymous, and how it relates to self ownership....
zefreak: Irrelevant. I am the sole determinant of my thoughts and actions.
Irrelevant. I am the sole determinant of my thoughts and actions.
The natural right of life (person) and thus an ethical statement. For it would be good to be you, in other words, it is good to follow your nature. You once again contradict yourself by overriding a previous statement of yours with another statement of yours for the umpteenth time.
"'the good' is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The 'bad' is whatever injures such an entity's life or prosperity."
You guys might want to look at this.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Anarchist Cain: zefreak:Irrelevant. I am the sole determinant of my thoughts and actions. This does not justify property, which is an ethical construct pertaining to legitimate exclusivity. Well I was bringing up the point of self-ownership to start a 'praxeological' argument starting from scratch. So we both agree that Self-ownership is a property right? It involves exlcusivity and is legitimate through logical deduction.
But it is not self-evident. It is a good first principle.
Conflating self-determination with property in the ethical sense is the most fundamental issue I see within the libertarian "natural rights" camp. And, apparantly, no matter how much we debate this amongst ourselves, some newcomer will pop in with a lack of comprehension and start spouting "You own yourself, therefore"..
It is terribly disheartening.
wilderness: zefreak: Irrelevant. I am the sole determinant of my thoughts and actions. The natural right of life (person) and thus an ethical statement. For it would be good to be you, in other words, it is good to follow your nature. You once again contradict yourself by overriding a previous statement of yours with another statement of yours for the umpteenth time. "'the good' is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The 'bad' is whatever injures such an entity's life or prosperity."
What are you on about? Determination has nothing to do with ethics. I can kick a ball on the ground because of the laws of physics. I can move my arm because of neural networks in my brain and the corresponding muscles in my body. None of these involve ethics.
zefreak:But it is not self-evident. It is a good first principle.
What do you mean by this statement?
zefreak:Conflating self-determination with property in the ethical sense is the most fundamental issue I see within the libertarian "natural rights" camp. And, apparantly, no matter how much we debate this amongst ourselves, some newcomer will pop in with a lack of comprehension and start spouting "You own yourself, therefore"..
Well does not one imprint one's self onto the commons 'item' when homesteading it? Therefore a commons becomes an implied part of you in the metaphorical sense. In being apart of you, through the basis of self-ownership you can logically subsume your will onto it.
zefreak: wilderness: zefreak: Irrelevant. I am the sole determinant of my thoughts and actions. The natural right of life (person) and thus an ethical statement. For it would be good to be you, in other words, it is good to follow your nature. You once again contradict yourself by overriding a previous statement of yours with another statement of yours for the umpteenth time. "'the good' is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The 'bad' is whatever injures such an entity's life or prosperity." What are you on about? Determination has nothing to do with ethics. I can kick a ball on the ground because of the laws of physics. I can move my arm because of neural networks in my brain and the corresponding muscles in my body. None of these involve ethics.
Of course kicking a ball is physics. Moving your arm neural networks in my brain, etc... According to natural law of human nature as a human, moving your arms is good, meaning, it is of your nature. What about a handicap? Are they less human? Yes that's why we call them handicapped.
Harry Felker:You own yourself...
Where is the proof of this?
Harry Felker:You own you, therefore all actions you do produce property that is yours, hence, you own property...
Non sequitur.
scineram:Where is the proof of this?
Logical deduction. If you are not owned by you then who are you owned by?
scineram:Non sequitur
Actually it does follow but I do agree there should be more detail behind it. I'm sure he will present some if you merely ask.
scineram: Harry Felker:You own yourself... Where is the proof of this?
Where is the proof that the sky is blue? lol
ignore button enacted.... now.
wilderness:What about a handicap? Are they less human? Yes that's why we call them handicapped.
I like Rothbard's explaination of this event as the unrealization of certain actions.
Anarchist Cain: wilderness:What about a handicap? Are they less human? Yes that's why we call them handicapped. I like Rothbard's explaination of this event as the unrealization of certain actions.
Interesting...
The fact is Scineram, if you wish to reject self ownership, that is fine, tell me who your master is....
scineram: Harry Felker:You own you, therefore all actions you do produce property that is yours, hence, you own property... Non sequitur.
What exactly is the problem with my logic? Aside from of couse you do not agree that you own yourself...
Anarchist Cain: Logical deduction. If you are not owned by you then who are you owned by?
Question begging. You are using ownership to mean legitimate exlusivity, which cannot be logically derived from the fact that I determine my actions. Now that I think about it, is there a difference in essence between "myself" controlling my body via my neural/muscular/skeletal structure and a third party controlling my body? If you look at the body as its component parts, and not a singular entity, there is no meaningful difference. Not exactly important to the topic at hand.
Harry Felker: The fact is Scineram, if you wish to reject self ownership, that is fine, tell me who your master is....
False dichotomy.
zefreak: Anarchist Cain: Logical deduction. If you are not owned by you then who are you owned by? Question begging. You are using ownership to mean legitimate exlusivity, which cannot be logically derived from the fact that I determine my actions. Now that I think about it, is there a difference in essence between "myself" controlling my body via my neural/muscular/skeletal structure and a third party controlling my body? If you look at the body as its component parts, and not a singular entity, there is no meaningful difference. Not exactly important to the topic at hand.
Yes that must be it... the cell in my arm is the liberty lover and that cell fights it out with my knee cell cause it's more tyrannic. Some people call it arthritis, but hey they can't prove it's not cells in my body battling. And what of those alien cells such as pollen, my stomach muscles will sit down and have a vote on that tomorrow.
lol... a little humor
zefreak: Harry Felker: The fact is Scineram, if you wish to reject self ownership, that is fine, tell me who your master is.... False dichotomy.
Nothing false about the statement that I can see.
wilderness: zefreak: Harry Felker: The fact is Scineram, if you wish to reject self ownership, that is fine, tell me who your master is.... False dichotomy. Nothing false about the statement that I can see.
He is presupposing legitimate ownership. In that case, scineram rejecting self ownership would logically necessitate a third party having ownership. Of course, such an assumption is unfounded.
Anarchist Cain:Logical deduction. If you are not owned by you then who are you owned by?
Juan. He owns my sorry ass.
zefreak: wilderness: zefreak: Harry Felker: The fact is Scineram, if you wish to reject self ownership, that is fine, tell me who your master is.... False dichotomy. Nothing false about the statement that I can see. He is presupposing legitimate ownership. In that case, scineram rejecting self ownership would logically necessitate a third party having ownership. Of course, such an assumption is unfounded.
I didn't understand why you said false dichotomy. I know what Harry is saying. And I know the absurdities scineram says everyday and night here.
Harry Felker:What exactly is the problem with my logic? Aside from of couse you do not agree that you own yourself...
You could own yourself without owning everything you produce.
scineram: Harry Felker:What exactly is the problem with my logic? Aside from of couse you do not agree that you own yourself... You could own yourself without owning everything you produce.
Of course. But I'll put this in terms my four year old niece would understand: Is that good or bad?
look at my signature and decide...
wilderness: zefreak: wilderness: zefreak: Harry Felker: The fact is Scineram, if you wish to reject self ownership, that is fine, tell me who your master is.... False dichotomy. Nothing false about the statement that I can see. He is presupposing legitimate ownership. In that case, scineram rejecting self ownership would logically necessitate a third party having ownership. Of course, such an assumption is unfounded. I didn't understand why you said false dichotomy. I know what Harry is saying. And I know the absurdities scineram says everyday and night here.
Whether or not you agree, Harry was positing a false dichotomy. Scineram is merely playing devil's advocate, trying to get you guys to see that your conclusions are not epistemically justified.
zefreak: Whether or not you agree, Harry was positing a false dichotomy. Scineram is merely playing devil's advocate, trying to get you guys to see that your conclusions are not epistemically justified.
And again, that's why I said it wasn't false. When you responded to me about that statement of it not being false and I don't even see the dichotomy all you did was repeat Harry's position and scineram's position in different words. Maybe if you know Spanish you can write that way too - think about it. And of course my epistemology is fine. You simply can't account for it, thus, you lack explanatory power.
wilderness: zefreak: Whether or not you agree, Harry was positing a false dichotomy. Scineram is merely playing devil's advocate, trying to get you guys to see that your conclusions are not epistemically justified. And again, that's why I said it wasn't false. When you responded to me about that statement of it not being false and I don't even see the dichotomy all you did was repeat Harry's position and scineram's position in different words. Maybe if you know Spanish you can write that way too - think about it. And of course my epistemology is fine. You simply can't account for it, thus, you lack explanatory power.
Whatever. You can bring a horse to water..
zefreak: wilderness: zefreak: Whether or not you agree, Harry was positing a false dichotomy. Scineram is merely playing devil's advocate, trying to get you guys to see that your conclusions are not epistemically justified. And again, that's why I said it wasn't false. When you responded to me about that statement of it not being false and I don't even see the dichotomy all you did was repeat Harry's position and scineram's position in different words. Maybe if you know Spanish you can write that way too - think about it. And of course my epistemology is fine. You simply can't account for it, thus, you lack explanatory power. Whatever. You can bring a horse to water..
Well several posts were offered to you with varying explanations, but you have not been able to address them. I mean the same can be said of you, really now, are you being thoughtful with these kinds of responses? I'd say not.
"Ownership," conventionally defined is not synonymous with neurological control of actions. Let's say you claim to own a particular teddy bear-- do you mean that you can telepathically control the actions of the teddy bear? What about your heart? You have no direct conscious neurological control over its actions; do you not own it?
De jure and de facto ownership are meaningful descriptive terms, normative claims of ownership, are a different beast entirely. What a lot of people are doing in this thread is equivocating normative claims of ownership with descriptive claims.
It makes sense for neurological connections to be evidence of de facto ownership, but it's not evidence of cosmic de jure ownership, i.e. natural law. . I don't see any evidence for the existence of universal de jure ownership in humans. "The universe" as a whole doesn't make courts or any sort of legal provisions for rights violations. Humans do sometimes, but not always. "Human nature," also doesn't set up any sort of legal system; particular humans at particular times do-- and very often not in concordance with Rothbard or [insert name here]'s beliefs.
Why should the nature of the humans who violate natural law be excluded from "human nature"? Some of these rights violators claim to have achieved happiness from it. Are you able to disprove these claims? If by "against human nature," you intend to include all actions that result in overall decreased satisfaction, you will have to prove that the particular actions you would categorize thusly are always and at all times resultant in decreased net satisfaction. You must also prove that all actions in concordance with supposed "human nature," are always and at all times resultant in increased net satisfaction.
majevska: "Ownership," conventionally defined is not synonymous with neurological control of actions. Let's say you claim to own a particular teddy bear-- do you mean that you can telepathically control the actions of the teddy bear? What about your heart? You have no direct conscious neurological control over its actions; do you not own it? De jure and de facto ownership are meaningful descriptive terms, normative claims of ownership, are a different beast entirely. What a lot of people are doing in this thread is equivocating normative claims of ownership with descriptive claims. It makes sense for neurological connections to be evidence of de facto ownership, but it's not evidence of cosmic de jure ownership, i.e. natural law. . I don't see any evidence for the existence of universal de jure ownership in humans. "The universe" as a whole doesn't make courts or any sort of legal provisions for rights violations. Humans do sometimes, but not always. "Human nature," also doesn't set up any sort of legal system; particular humans at particular times do-- and very often not in concordance with Rothbard or [insert name here]'s beliefs. Why should the nature of the humans who violate natural law be excluded from "human nature"? Some of these rights violators claim to have achieved happiness from it. Are you able to disprove these claims? If by "against human nature," you intend to include all actions that result in overall decreased satisfaction, you will have to prove that the particular actions you would categorize thusly are always and at all times resultant in decreased net satisfaction. You must also prove that all actions in concordance with supposed "human nature," are always and at all times resultant in increased net satisfaction.
Agree. What I mean, is that every conceived system (such as Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism or any other) is not based on objective facts, but rather on subjective values. Our main political value is individualism, we should stick to that.
No it is not, I am simply asking if he does not own himself who does, the fact remains that the owner is responsible for the action, who is responsible for him since he is inferring he is not responsible for himself....
wilderness: scineram: Harry Felker:What exactly is the problem with my logic? Aside from of couse you do not agree that you own yourself... You could own yourself without owning everything you produce. Of course. But I'll put this in terms my four year old niece would understand: Is that good or bad? look at my signature and decide...
It depends. Are you the producer or the needy?
How so, you are responsible for your actions, that responsibility concludes that you have some stake in its product, thus the product is yours...
I do think I know where you are going....
The Factory Worker
The factory worker produces widgets, so the widgets are his, this supposes the factory worker is not paid for his service of widget production, the factory worker takes the factory owners materials and produces a widget for a sum of money, the responsibility of the factory worker for the widget is transfered to the owner based on contractual stipulation in exchange for payment, the payment is not for the widget, but for the participation in creating the widget. The only other case would be the factory owner and worker jointly own the widget (raw material from owner and labor from worker) and upon sale they divide the money as per a previous agreed proportion. Both are equal, but the first scenario is more to the workers immediate benefit...