Anarchism

[Arkolon]

Now that we stop assuming self-ownership, look at all the chaos and social unrest that has ensued! Can I hit you? I mean, nobody owns your body, so it's cool, but do I own my fist? Maybe it is your fist? Is ownership shared? This is so confusing. We should just all accept self-ownership.

I accept self-ownership, but I'm saying that without legal protection, there's nothing, apart from social norms protecting me from you hitting me. i.e. you can hit me, and nothing will happen, except I'll probably hit you back. (or maybe i'll throw sorites at you) Now, if there's a legal protection of my personhood, then there's a structure that prohibits you from hitting me and forces you to be punished if you hit me.

Outlined in the development of private defense associations from a Lockean state of nature in the very first chapters of Anarchy, State, and Utopia. I know PDA's end up becoming a minimal state, but what prevents a PDA from enforcing self-ownership itself?

[Atlanticatia]

I accept self-ownership, but I'm saying that without legal protection, there's nothing, apart from social norms protecting me from you hitting me. i.e. you can hit me, and nothing will happen, except I'll probably hit you back. (or maybe i'll throw sorites at you) Now, if there's a legal protection of my personhood, then there's a structure that prohibits you from hitting me and forces you to be punished if you hit me.

Outlined in the development of private defense associations from a Lockean state of nature in the very first chapters of Anarchy, State, and Utopia. I know PDA's end up becoming a minimal state, but what prevents a PDA from enforcing self-ownership itself?

Nothing, but what's stopping me from hiring a militia group to violate your self ownership and attack you? Nothing. There's nothing that makes the PDA superior to my militia group. I don't know a better term to use, but without a supreme authority enforcing laws and protecting people, there's nothing stopping anyone from starting a private attack association. Of course, the PDA will respond by using defense, but that's no different from you hitting me, and me hitting you back. This is the sort of situation where "a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force" is necessary. Without a monopoly, there's nothing that makes the PDA's use of force any more legitimate than the PAA's.

[Sociobiology]

because its not something that can be owned.
also I never said anything about bodies, so watch the strawmen.



false dichotomy.

and if I did, because there are cultures that accept those, that kinda shoots holes in natural rights again.

or I could oppose those based on their effects on society. 1

or I could oppose them for religious reasons. 2

or I could opposed them based purely on opinion. 3

I mean if you need everyone to agree on your subjective assumptions then that shows anything based on those assumptions is entirely subjective as well.

The body is the property of the person. Does your person own your body? Are your organs definitively yours?

what part of I do accept it as something that can be owned confuses you? I know you need to define everything based on property but not everybody is so limited.

Are the things you produce also yours? If not, whose are they?

that depends on how they were produced.

1. How does not owning yourself create questionable effects on society?

i never said it did, but you can ask the reverse question as well.
the burden of proof is on you to show why it is true.

2. You and I both know what we think of gods.

which might matter if we both were not making subjective arguments here.

3. What would your justification be?

subjective opinion just like you

I'm trying to show you that it isn't subjective, and that one does own themselves.

go ahead, you haven't done anything like that yet, merely repeated your belief. You have to show why your proposition is right not why mine is wrong. because we both could be wrong.

[Sociobiology]

If it's not property, it can't be used as property.

So what is the justification for making murder illegal if one is not owned by oneself?

suffering

negative effect on societal coherence, without a positive effect to compensate

reduction in the standard of living.

the claiming of something as property that is not property.

take your pick

these are all backed by just as subjective as self ownership.

[Conscentia]

My opinion matters as much as yours, sir.

Facts aren't opinions. ???

You don't use facts. You just follow Nozick's opinion.

The term private property refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services. As I understand it, this distinction is well accepted in socialist politics.

Why the distinction, then? I understand the approach "here are the weapons those ghastly capitalists use to enslave us, better collectivise it all" to a certain extent, but it doesn't make any sense to me when we turn it on its head. From some kind of reverse Sorites argument, at what point does a block of wood go from personal to private property when building something with it?

Because they're not the same.

As for the block of wood question, it depends.

Negative rights are interchangeable with liberty rights, and that Wikipedia page is more extensive. You can't bestow negative/liberty/natural rights. That goes against their very meaning.

Who says every negative liberty is a right? Law must recognise any particular liberty as a right. Until then, it is not a right - it is just a liberty you happen to have.
You do not bestow the freedom to kill, but is it a right to kill?

Your body is actually the private property of your person. The human body is a means of production, as it can build, craft, learn, plan, create, innovate, and much more. Would a really powerful AI being granted its own physical body make that body its personal, and not private, property? Why? Doesn't that go against your peculiar definition of personal/private property?

Private property involves social production without social ownership. There is no social production involved in a single body's labour, and the private/social ownership distinction is irrelevant when a system involves only 1 person.

Leave AI, aliens, etc. out of this to keep things simple.

[Arkolon]

So what is the justification for making murder illegal if one is not owned by oneself?

suffering

negative effect on societal coherence, without a positive effect to compensate

reduction in the standard of living.

the claiming of something as property that is not property.

take your pick

these are all backed by just as subjective as self ownership.

Each of these things assume self-ownership to varying extents. Suffering assumes that causing harm would be wrong, but, if it isn't your body, why is it wrong? The second case is actually the consequentialist argument in favour of a non-aggression principle, put forward by F. A. Hayek and LvMises. It is comparably the exact same to prove my point. The third case assumes self-ownership in the sense that harming the body would reduce your person's standard of living. And why would decreasing a standard of living be illegal? Wouldn't that render firing people illegal? Or debt illegal? The fourth case, however, is not an actual case.

[Arkolon]

Facts aren't opinions. ???

You don't use facts. You just follow Nozick's opinion.

I'm pretty sure what I quoted was something factual, and then you said "I don't think so", so I said "your opinion doesn't matter." It's hardly relevant now.

Why the distinction, then? I understand the approach "here are the weapons those ghastly capitalists use to enslave us, better collectivise it all" to a certain extent, but it doesn't make any sense to me when we turn it on its head. From some kind of reverse Sorites argument, at what point does a block of wood go from personal to private property when building something with it?

Because they're not the same.

As for the block of wood question, it depends.

What I'm trying to say is that using your definition of property, the distinction between the two is quite blurry at the actual division. Why the distinction-- why cut it like that?

I don't think you understand what I mean by reverse sorites. "It depends" proves my point.

Negative rights are interchangeable with liberty rights, and that Wikipedia page is more extensive. You can't bestow negative/liberty/natural rights. That goes against their very meaning.

Who says every negative liberty is a right? Law must recognise any particular liberty as a right. Until then, it is not a right - it is just a liberty you happen to have.
You do not bestow the freedom to kill, but is it a right to kill?

You've misunderstood. They're called "liberty rights", which are what I have meant when referencing "negative rights", but "liberty rights" (as opposed to "claim rights") are more specific to the actual argument.

Your body is actually the private property of your person. The human body is a means of production, as it can build, craft, learn, plan, create, innovate, and much more. Would a really powerful AI being granted its own physical body make that body its personal, and not private, property? Why? Doesn't that go against your peculiar definition of personal/private property?

Private property involves social production without social ownership. There is no social production involved in a single body's labour, and the private/social ownership distinction is irrelevant when a system involves only 1 person.

Leave AI, aliens, etc. out of this to keep things simple.

I am, as a person, producing things, and I own myself. Private property. To reject private property is to reject living as a free individual. Using your logic, by the way, me operating a machine on my own, producing tonnes of goods every year for my personal gain (or even hiring people to do so) would be "personal property". The means of production are now, magically, personal property and not private property. I also fail to see how land would be, by your definition, private property.

[Greater Soviet Ukraine]

Anarchism is for the far right! We need a powerful government to keep order in society.

[Sociobiology]

suffering

negative effect on societal coherence, without a positive effect to compensate

reduction in the standard of living.

the claiming of something as property that is not property.

take your pick

these are all backed by just as subjective as self ownership.

Each of these things assume self-ownership to varying extents. Suffering assumes that causing harm would be wrong, but, if it isn't your body, why is it wrong?

if it IS your body why is it wrong?

The second case is actually the consequentialist argument in favour of a non-aggression principle, put forward by F. A. Hayek and LvMises. It is comparably the exact same to prove my point.

except it in no way requires self ownership, and they were hardly the first to put forward non-aggression principles, hell even the greeks weren't the first. Nor does it actually require a non-aggression principle, if anything the opposite it implies you must impose laws on society.

The third case assumes self-ownership in the sense that harming the body would reduce your person's standard of living.

which actually in no requires the concept of self ownership.

And why would decreasing a standard of living be illegal? Wouldn't that render firing people illegal? Or debt illegal?

where did I use the phrase personal standard of living? also please tell me where I said it would be the only metric used?

The fourth case, however, is not an actual case.

sure it is if we accept that principle then no self ownership is required. Its not my fault you don't understand the idea of something not being property.

[Jello Biafra]

The point is is that making policy is not equivalent to being the state, for exactly the same reasons that doctors making healthcare decisions is not equivalent to being the state.

making a healthcare decision is not making healthcare policy, so it doesn't work as a comparison.

What would you say is the relevant distinction between making healthcare decisions for people and making healthcare policy?

Also, I snipped off the other part because I think if we can realize what the other is talking about here, then it will help with the police force discussion as well.

[Maqo]

making a healthcare decision is not making healthcare policy, so it doesn't work as a comparison.

What would you say is the relevant distinction between making healthcare decisions for people and making healthcare policy?

Also, I snipped off the other part because I think if we can realize what the other is talking about here, then it will help with the police force discussion as well.

Typically, a 21st century doctor in a developed country will reach a diagnosis and present a patient with a number of possible treatment options. The patient is then free to choose between any of the treatments, or none at all. It's a very personal, optional relationship. There is no force involved making you take your meds and no punishment for not doing so.

Conversely, making policy essentially determines a course of action that *must* be followed. There is no opportunity to say 'no, I don't want that policy, what are the alternatives?' Policy is enforced, and policy affects everyone.

[Liberaxia]

But is it really your first?

Maybe it's my fist.

Now that we stop assuming self-ownership, look at all the chaos and social unrest that has ensued! Can I hit you? I mean, nobody owns your body, so it's cool, but do I own my fist? Maybe it is your fist? Is ownership shared? This is so confusing. We should just all accept self-ownership.

This is just ridiculous. You've fallen so far down the libertarian rabbit hole that you can't even comprehend these things without also thinking about ownership.

[Liberaxia]

No one does because it's not even property.
If you were going to define it as property, it would then fall under the definition of "personal property." Personal property is different from private property, which is what communists and the like want to stop being private. Personal property would be things intended for your own use and gained fairly. Everyone's got a body, no need to communalize it (again, assuming bodies are property). Private property is a relationship between the owner and the person deprived- not a relationship between the person and the thing, which is personal property.

So is murder, rape, and aggression totally justified? After all, no one owns your body, right?

Against Self-Ownership, written by a libertarian.

[Kumuri]

Now that we stop assuming self-ownership, look at all the chaos and social unrest that has ensued! Can I hit you? I mean, nobody owns your body, so it's cool, but do I own my fist? Maybe it is your fist? Is ownership shared? This is so confusing. We should just all accept self-ownership.

This is just ridiculous. You've fallen so far down the libertarian rabbit hole that you can't even comprehend these things without also thinking about ownership.

This entire thing is confusing, really. I think we've come across a fuzzy zone. My explanation for this fuzzy zone is that it's basically the difference between everyone owning something, and no one owning something. As similar as these things sound, they're very different. If everyone owns something, it's common property that can be used by all. If no one owns something, it's not property and can't be treated as such. But I've already stated this. So maybe I'm just not all that convincing, but it's the best I can do to explain it.

[Threlizdun]

Anarchism is for the far right! We need a powerful government to keep order in society.

No, anarchism is, and always has been, a far-left ideology. The far-right calls for the further entrenchment and in many cases extreme expansions of class hierarchies.

[Empire of Narnia]

Anarchism is like The Purge, but everyday.

[Threlizdun]

Anarchism is like The Purge, but everyday.

The Purge is a terrible movie idea that depicts anomie, depicting power being scattered among varying groups and the total breakdown of any societal ethical standards. Anarchy is a society devoid of social hierarchies. They are two very different things.

[Arkolon]

Now that we stop assuming self-ownership, look at all the chaos and social unrest that has ensued! Can I hit you? I mean, nobody owns your body, so it's cool, but do I own my fist? Maybe it is your fist? Is ownership shared? This is so confusing. We should just all accept self-ownership.

This is just ridiculous. You've fallen so far down the libertarian rabbit hole that you can't even comprehend these things without also thinking about ownership.

It was satirical. Come on.

[Arkolon]

This is just ridiculous. You've fallen so far down the libertarian rabbit hole that you can't even comprehend these things without also thinking about ownership.

This entire thing is confusing, really. I think we've come across a fuzzy zone. My explanation for this fuzzy zone is that it's basically the difference between everyone owning something, and no one owning something. As similar as these things sound, they're very different. If everyone owns something, it's common property that can be used by all. If no one owns something, it's not property and can't be treated as such. But I've already stated this. So maybe I'm just not all that convincing, but it's the best I can do to explain it.

That fuzzy feeling is you slowly shifting to right-libertarianism..

[Arkolon]

Each of these things assume self-ownership to varying extents. Suffering assumes that causing harm would be wrong, but, if it isn't your body, why is it wrong?

if it IS your body why is it wrong?

Because it overrides my own self-ownership. That was easy.

The second case is actually the consequentialist argument in favour of a non-aggression principle, put forward by F. A. Hayek and LvMises. It is comparably the exact same to prove my point.

except it in no way requires self ownership, and they were hardly the first to put forward non-aggression principles, hell even the greeks weren't the first. Nor does it actually require a non-aggression principle, if anything the opposite it implies you must impose laws on society.

They are modern examples. Jesus came up with his own rendition of the NAP, with Epicurus being one of the very first recorded to do so. However, these were deontological arguments, and not consequentialist ones. Hayek said following the NAP provides for better results, as did, more or less, every other Austrian economist who wasn't also a proper philosopher. The NAP is built upon self-ownership.

The third case assumes self-ownership in the sense that harming the body would reduce your person's standard of living.

which actually in no requires the concept of self ownership.

Of course it does. The person and the body are arguably separable.

And why would decreasing a standard of living be illegal? Wouldn't that render firing people illegal? Or debt illegal?

where did I use the phrase personal standard of living? also please tell me where I said it would be the only metric used?

Maybe in the future you ought use more adjectives. I understood standard of living as personal standard of living. Regardless, though, debt or laying off people is still a reduction in the standard of living. Whether it's used as the only metric or part of many metrics, it's a really useless and counterproductive metric to use at all.

The fourth case, however, is not an actual case.

sure it is if we accept that principle then no self ownership is required. Its not my fault you don't understand the idea of something not being property.

All is property. What isn't one or another form of property? And yes, air, the oceans, and space fall into one category of property.

[Kumuri]

This entire thing is confusing, really. I think we've come across a fuzzy zone. My explanation for this fuzzy zone is that it's basically the difference between everyone owning something, and no one owning something. As similar as these things sound, they're very different. If everyone owns something, it's common property that can be used by all. If no one owns something, it's not property and can't be treated as such. But I've already stated this. So maybe I'm just not all that convincing, but it's the best I can do to explain it.

That fuzzy feeling is you slowly shifting to right-libertarianism..

I'd sooner die.

No, I was saying it was a "fuzzy zone" because neither of us is actually getting anywhere with this argument.

[Empire of Narnia]

Anarchism is like The Purge, but everyday.

The Purge is a terrible movie idea that depicts anomie, depicting power being scattered among varying groups and the total breakdown of any societal ethical standards. Anarchy is a society devoid of social hierarchies. They are two very different things.

It's impossible to breakdown social hierarchies. They exist even at the most basic levels of organization like families and even groups of friends. While those groups don't have official titles it is clear in many cases that some people consistently lead, some follow, some act as subordinates. The world has hierarchies because we're human and it comes naturally to us. It's not a bad thing either because it allows us to stay organised and productive.

[Lexicor]

The Purge is a terrible movie idea that depicts anomie, depicting power being scattered among varying groups and the total breakdown of any societal ethical standards. Anarchy is a society devoid of social hierarchies. They are two very different things.

It's impossible to breakdown social hierarchies. They exist even at the most basic levels of organization like families and even groups of friends. While those groups don't have official titles it is clear in many cases that some people consistently lead, some follow, some act as subordinates. The world has hierarchies because we're human and it comes naturally to us. It's not a bad thing either because it allows us to stay organised and productive.

It is however possible to remove a monopoly on violence and the initiation of force that comprises the state.

[Empire of Narnia]

It's impossible to breakdown social hierarchies. They exist even at the most basic levels of organization like families and even groups of friends. While those groups don't have official titles it is clear in many cases that some people consistently lead, some follow, some act as subordinates. The world has hierarchies because we're human and it comes naturally to us. It's not a bad thing either because it allows us to stay organised and productive.

It is however possible to remove a monopoly on violence and the initiation of force that comprises the state.

So then anybody can use violence? Sounds like a bad idea, especially since so many different groups of people disagree on so many different things. So many well intentioned extremists and just plain greedy opportunists would use violence to push their ideas or gain power.

[Arkolon]

It is however possible to remove a monopoly on violence and the initiation of force that comprises the state.

So then anybody can use violence? Sounds like a bad idea, especially since so many different groups of people disagree on so many different things. So many well intentioned extremists and just plain greedy opportunists would use violence to push their ideas or gain power.

You clearly don't know how anarcho-capitalism works.