Self-Ownership?

So A still = A, if you realize that A is equal to A AND Not A... right?

Still, the idea that the cat is both alive and not alive, that light is both a particle and wave at the same time, is pretty self-contradictory to our mundane logical brains.

The copenhegan interpretation of QM does not imply a negation of the identity axiom. It doesn't even imply that an object can be represented as two disjoint states. It implies that an object can exist as a superposition of two disjoint states that collapses into a singular state when a measurement is made. You should bear in mind, the superposition state is itself a ditinct state that is not equivalent to either disjoint sate.

A simple yes would have sufficed.  Your anger only makes it harder for you to be agreed with.  But you're wrong about light; consider the double slit experiment.  It's not about it being either wave OR particle at given times.  The double slit experiment shows that it is both particle AND wave, at the same time.  Now, if I understand you correctly you are saying A=A1/A2, and so logically it still follows the identity axiom (A[A1/A2]=A[A1/A2].

it wasnt anger, it was emphasis. My argument is that the wave/particle dichotomy is a theory, not an observed distinction, and furthermore "photons" behave in the way that they behave, which is their identity. Sometimes physicists explain "photons" as if they were "particles." sometimes they explain them as "waves." neither are factual, photons are photons and they behave like photons. Any contradiction is in your mind, not the photons or the experiments.

So, I affirm (A[A1/A2]=A[A1/A2]).

Except I'm saying "life sucks because me not having things means I don't have any power nor autonomy."

Oh, ok. How so? What or whom do you want power over? And how exactly does a person with no real property or chattel somehow lose his autonomy?

I think much of cognitive neuroscience disagrees that private ownership, and its concurrent "work for pay" (or wage labor), is the best incentive.  Look up RSA videos and the empathic civilization; they do a pretty good job of summing it all up.  What motivates people is 1) having enough "pay" to not have to worry about pay 2) autonomy 3) reward for effort, not necessarily success. This is how it seems the most innovative firms are the most innovative.

that seems to me to be highly superficial at best. For example, wouldnt everybody like to "not have to worry" about their survival? But that is illusory and ridiculous, no one "makes" you worry about anything. People like security, but they generally settle for the illusion of security. But, there is a lot of trust involved in trusting an employer enough to "not have to worry" about whether you are going to be in business next week or not. Basically, I apologize if this is going too far, but it seems like you want to relieve the working class of the burden of having to account for their own future survival. I prefer to give people impetus to acquire the tools for true autonomy. I mean they would own these tools outright, as in human capital, social capital, and capital goods; rather than be forced into a collective management system where their autonomy were restricted by their supposed partners.

I believe in reward for effort and constructive criticism, and as I have said earlier, I believe that everyone has something to offer. But, without ownership rights, the calculation necessary to determine the right amount of reward (to encourage growth) from the wrong amount (that would encourage sloth) is impossible. This is because if you are spending other people's wealth you have no real idea of how much effort and time it represents.  I watched the video. It was very interesting, but I think they are lost in the desert here. They tested money as an incentive under very specific circumstances, and they assume that a performance failure is an incentive failure. He even calls it a crazy left-wing idea, which is hard for me to see. I think he revealed something of himself there.

at any rate, the free market will determine what kind of compensation is best at getting the best performance out of each worker.

They will, whether you want them to or not.  There simply is no feasible way to stop busibodies from thinking we don't have to all live under the same umbrella.  To suggest otherwise is utopian.

nonsense. I could levy the same criticism at your dismissal of property rights. Lets simplify this. Tell me why I should have my freedom to contract with consenting adults legally limited in such a way as to necessitate a specific type of consideration?

If you have a way to provide universal right to due process, an attorny, and at least the semblance of a fair trial, I will be all for it.  I'm not against markets.  I think we can do better.  I just think ancap will not provide certain protections, and will revert not back to what we have now, but to a neo-feudalism; where a small group of people own basically everything, and everyone else rents from them.

I would never claim I had a way to provide any of that. And I would love to hear what an anarchist who thinks we can do better than markets has to offer. Please dont say "democracy." As for neo-feudalism, I sincerely doubt that a free market in feudal baronies and earldoms would be any worse than life in a state. Honestly, I feel the same way, and frank herbert crossed with robert a heinlen is the way the future will look. 

Not for the sheer cruelty of it, but because they can make a few extra bucks.  Is that so unreasonable; that people will screw over others if there is a net profit to be made and they lack empathy?

It is unreasonable to suppose that corruption will be worse in a system where people trust each other less, there is more competition to offer these services, and the reputation for fairness is all they really have. It is fine with me if you believe it to be the case. Please tell me how a free market in justice/arbitration would be worse than one in which there is a monopoly that is already favorable to monied interests. The state does not have to maintain their brand as much because they face less competition.

I believe common nomenclature would call that "efficiency."  Laziness is the opposite of productive; you would not call someone productive that did far more work than necessary for simple goods.  If X and Y are hunting elephants and X uses a spear while Y uses a rock... who would be the lazy one?  Most people would say neither, Y is just being dumb.

efficiency has to do with conservation of inputs. Laziness describes the tendency to refrain from caloric expenditure, whether producing or not. In your little story, neither of them is lazy. But the dead asses back at the camp, who did not do anything and still want elephant meat because they are "hungry" are lazy. And, if they get fed, the lazy behavior is incentivized.

I am not lying to them.  I am pointing out the systemic nature of the issue, rather than the apparent personal nature of it.  Big difference.  For you, someone who got hooked on drugs, sold themselves into prostitution is in a fair arrangement.  To me they are not.  I would do whatever I could to help them realize their bottom, and get off the drugs.

You need to realize the systemic nature of business before you try to lecture others about it. As for your libelous mischaracterization Of my positions, if someone "got" hooked on drugs, they are either the victim of a chemical assault or a poor decision-maker. Either way they suffer the consequences. If they "sold" themselves into contract they retain originary rights which cannot be transferred, so they execute their native escape clause as soon as they wish to leave. Although I will grant that sequences of exceedingly poor decisions tend to end badly. In my opinion.

however, I share your subjective disgust for prostitution, and do not appreciate the implication that a wage earner is analogous except in the broadest of senses.

So living in the states to you is a voluntary arrangement?  You are under no force to stay?  You can leave at any time, all you need is $200 for a passport.

when did we go from discussing a voluntary employment contract to international politics? If I want to leave my job, the border patrol isnt charging me $200. 

I am saying, at the very least, that the "owner" should not have legally enforced monopoly power on who gets compensated how much for what.

when did the owner stop being the owner of his own wallet? He doesnt have a monopoly power over anything except himself and his property. If his terms are unacceptable, then do not deal with him. You do not think people should have monopoly power over themselves?

I am saying that the good they make are of equal, if not greater, quality.

that is something only the consumer can decide. 

The wages they offer are more competitive for general labor, less for management and investment.

perhaps the quality of the labor sweeping the floor and filling out the delivery tickets is not as important to the customer as the quality of the laborers who buy steel and hire and fire general labor. Perhaps the high return on investment is a sign that it was a risky investment, or an indicator of the market's demand for investors. We do agree that some of these things would happen organically, however. 

I am saying that despite any of this, or any criticism you may have; they continue to grow, thrive, and prosper... and all without government subsidies.  The cooperative movement, at least the IFC (I think is the name) is.  Chavez has begun to give state funding for it. But prior to that, co-ops funded themselves.

If they are growing, thriving, and prospering why did they now receive state funding, instead of running a surplus?

Then I retract it.  And ignore my previous statment in this response.  Much apologies.

apology accepted my good man!

What's so magical about exerting that not everybody is motivated by material/monetary gain?  I would think it magical to suggest they are.

I believe in the existence of psychic profit as much as anyone else. I dont believe I said anything to contradict that. I simply observe that factories are built by people who want profits, and when you rob them of those profits, you disincentivize the building of factories. 

It's important for me to meditate.  It's not necessary.  It's important to me to help kids not become subject to addiction; it's not neccessary.  I could get along fine without either of these; many people do either day.

so it is important for your value structure, but it isnt necessary for life. Well, investors are necessary and important for a business, because you cannot have a business without capital. The high wages that those investors receive are a measure of the demand for them to invest. Both terms "important" and "necessary" refer to a purpose. Nothing is inherently important or necessary.

The top" of the proverbial pile.  I realize it has no top; that has not, as of yet, stopped people from trying.

I dont see any examples of what you describe in the business world.

I still think you think I want to force cooperative business upon everyone... have I not made it clear I want people to choose this?  You have a caricature of socialists you are trying to project unto me... I assure you, I'm not the droid you're looking for.  If you consider me nosy, I am fine with that; I believe what I believe.  But I'm no tyrant.

why would you want them to choose that instead of wanting them to choose what they want? Who says workers are willing or able to assume the burden of management/ownership across all industries? Is this the fabled worker fetish (descriptive, not pejorative) of radical politics?

in any case, I apologize for any misapprehensions and I think we agree on more than I thought we did at first.

I saw this link posted before that includes some critiques of methodological individualism:

http://171.67.193.20/entries/methodological-individualism/#6

Is there anything here in these criticisms that is relevant to my understanding of self-ownership via AE? Are there any criticisms here that Austrians would find challenging?

Ownership means control. You are given exclusive control of your body as a fact of reality. Therefore, you must already own your body.

The speech in this thread has proceeded as if the concept of ownership weren't derived intuitively from our control of our own body. It is by analogy with our innate control over our physical selves that we understand extended ownership of things that are not our body, yet still considered under our control.