Self-ownership

[Zottistan]

Render acceptable, either morally, legally, or both.

Obviously if something is legalized, it's henceforth legally acceptable. Morally is a stickier matter.

Let's bring this back a bit. What does it mean to "own" something?

According to Wikipedia, "Determining ownership in law involves determining who has certain rights and duties over the property." Merriam-Webster says that it means to have or hold as property, or to have power or mastery over something. Arkolon says that it's something natural, not dissimilar from gravity, and objective from the demands of mortal men. Others say it's the domain and definition of law alone.

Until we can agree on what it means to "own" anything, we won't agree on who owns ourselves.

This has basically been what we've been doing for the bulk of the thread. Even if ownership was defined a certain way, there'd be the question of why ownership in that sense is meaningful, or why we don't define it another way.

[Twilight Imperium]

Well, how do you define it?

[Conscentia]

Well, how do you define it?

Rather like this guy did:

Frédéric Bastiat's main treatise on property can be found in chapter 8 of his book Economic Harmonies (1850).[31] In a radical departure from traditional property theory, he defines property not as a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people with respect to an object. Thus, saying one owns a glass of water is merely verbal shorthand for I may justly gift or trade this water to another person. In essence, what one owns is not the object but the value of the object. By "value," Bastiat apparently means market value; he emphasizes that this is quite different from utility. "In our relations with one another, we are not owners of the utility of things, but of their value, and value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services."

[Zottistan]

Well, how do you define it?

Varies from context to context. I don't believe in an absolute standard of ownership. It varies from culture to culture and individual to individual.

[Conscentia]

Well, how do you define it?

Varies from context to context. I don't believe in an absolute standard of ownership. It varies from culture to culture and individual to individual.

How so?

[Zottistan]

Varies from context to context. I don't believe in an absolute standard of ownership. It varies from culture to culture and individual to individual.

How so?

Culturally, for example, some cultures consider slavery as legitimate ownership while others don't, some peasant cultures had a tradition of ownership through utility, and so on.

As for individual to individual, well, you, myself and Arkolon all have fairly different understandings of ownership.

[Salandriagado]

Nobody. Which is a very good thing, because ownership requires the ability to sell, so you should be very glad that we don't allow people to own themselves. Contract slavery is a shitty thing. You do, however, have a right of exclusive use over yourself, which is all you ever need.

How progressive. Tell me, what amorphous entity so graciously granted me an exclusive right that I already entered the world with?

Nobody. You have it, axiomatically. And it's not progressive, in any way: it's just what the word "own" actually means.

By the way, contract slavery is an oxymoron.

No, it isn't. It's been a well defined thing for literally as long as we have information for (specifically: it's in the code of Hammurabi). For thousands of years, selling yourself into slavery to provide for your family was a "solution" to poverty/debts/etc.

[Sociobiology]

which might matter if you had a non circular argument for why being self aware necessitates ownership.

No: being self-aware necessitates a body, and the bond is ownership.

so now your changing your argument and control equals ownership?

[Sociobiology]

Ownership is acquired first by control; ownership of one thing is then traded with other people for the ownership of other things. I mixed my labour with these raw materials I bought myself (the ownership of) to make this product, and I will trade you ownership of the product for the ownership of a certain amount of money we both agree on. You're assuming that ownership is always control-- no: ownership is first acquired by control of previously unowned property.

so it is entirely a social construct and not in any way objective.

Y is a refuted assumption needed to prove that Y + X

you can't prove Y+X because it is not an argument. it has to be equal to something.

, where X is an objectively true fact,

which in this case is what?

is equal to an objectively true conclusion.

what conclusion, that argument has no conclusion.

Y is used because it is easier to formulate and demonstrate when arguing for it, but does not yield an objectively true conclusion when added to X because Y is not an objectively true fact. Conveniently, Y can be replaced by Y', which is an objectively true fact that yields an objectively true conclusion, but demonstrating and formulating an argument with Y' takes too much time and is subject to language and communication constraints for whatever reason. If I tell you that Y + X = self-ownership is objectively true, and I openly let you know that Y is a refuted assumption but can be replaced with Y', then Y + X = self-ownership is true, because, practically, Y = Y'.

[/quote]

no you can't say it is true that is you again taking your conclusion (the thing being argued) as an assumption. because the only way you can demonstrate Y is if X and the conclusion are both known, which is not the case.
you just described begging the question.

say X + Y = Z if X and Z are both in question you can't use one to support the other.

example
All dogs are red + Lassie was a dog = Lassie was red
is not a sound argument because both the first assumption and your conclusion are both in question (aka not treated as true), neither can be used to support the other.

[Sociobiology]

so far, only if you take it as an unfounded assumption.

1. We are.

no we are are not, that is a circular argument.

it is ,X is true therefore X.

isn't very unfounded, is it?

it is extremely unfounded, you have done nothing to demonstrate it is objectively true.

[The Liberated Territories]

Geez, is Ark still going at this?

I got to give a hand to the stoicism, i do.

It's sadomasochism to me.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Geez, is Ark still going at this?

I got to give a hand to the stoicism, i do.

It's sadomasochism to me.

I once knew a fellow who was a lot like Ark, except with a more Randian bend and much less formal.

[Ieperithem]

Everything has an owner. This computer belongs to me. The Pentagon belongs to each citizen of America. Space belongs to everyone, as stated by current international law. If I don't own myself, someone else would have to, and that would be unconstitutional under the 13th amendment.

[Skeckoa]

Space belongs to everyone, as stated by current international law.

A legit question: How does international law have jurisdiction over space?

[Shilya]

Exclusive right to usage doesn't also mean ownership. I'd say humans are unowned but have a permanent, unrevokable right to the usage of their own body, mainly because what you own, you also can sell.

Space belongs to everyone, as stated by current international law.

A legit question: How does international law have jurisdiction over space?

By virtue of being supported by those who can reach space with nukes.

[Arkolon]

Mutualist here.

Explain to me the difference between my definition of self-ownership vs yours. I define self-ownership as owning yourself, simply meaning that you are not property to be bought, sold, or rented for any amount of capital; you own you, and nobody else can change that. A man should not be property, and is not property.

What exactly is the ancap definition of self-ownership compared to my own? I see your justification of it, but do not understand entirely our differences towards it.

There are many ways to arrive at self-ownership, and ancapism takes self-ownership axiomatically. I'm just justifying why you own yourself, because the philosophy is 99% based around that axiom, which is seemingly unfounded, say the critics. The fact that you agree that you own yourself basically means that we agree, and we will agree, on a lot of things as a result of this axiom. How you get there is debatable. All I can ask you at this point is: why do you own yourself?

[Arkolon]

Render acceptable, either morally, legally, or both.

The legalisation of rape would by definition legally legitimise it, but not necessarily morally - that really depends on one's ethics. For most people, rape is immoral.

As an ethical nihilist, I reject all prescriptive ethics. Only descriptive ethics and ethology are relevant. Identifying what I think is right and why, as opposed to what I should think is right. (Because answering questions about "should" is futile, with all answers being artificial and ultimately baseless, given that our behaviour and character is beyond our control anyway - they are products of causality.)

I can assure you that I do not consider rape to be ethically legitimate, even if it is legal.

Why is rape not ethically legitimate, then? On what grounds do you object to it? Isn't it hypocritical to claim to be an ethical descriptivist and claim that "one ought not rape" in the same post?

[Arkolon]

Render acceptable, either morally, legally, or both.

Obviously if something is legalized, it's henceforth legally acceptable. Morally is a stickier matter.

Let's bring this back a bit. What does it mean to "own" something?

According to Wikipedia, "Determining ownership in law involves determining who has certain rights and duties over the property." Merriam-Webster says that it means to have or hold as property, or to have power or mastery over something. Arkolon says that it's something natural, not dissimilar from gravity, and objective from the demands of mortal men. Others say it's the domain and definition of law alone.

Until we can agree on what it means to "own" anything, we won't agree on who owns ourselves.

It's an exclusive right to something, and the mind-body body-body self-ownership relationship is an exclusive right to your body because firstly it is you, and "you" are made possible by the existence of your body.

[Arkolon]

Obviously if something is legalized, it's henceforth legally acceptable. Morally is a stickier matter.

Let's bring this back a bit. What does it mean to "own" something?

According to Wikipedia, "Determining ownership in law involves determining who has certain rights and duties over the property." Merriam-Webster says that it means to have or hold as property, or to have power or mastery over something. Arkolon says that it's something natural, not dissimilar from gravity, and objective from the demands of mortal men. Others say it's the domain and definition of law alone.

Until we can agree on what it means to "own" anything, we won't agree on who owns ourselves.

This has basically been what we've been doing for the bulk of the thread. Even if ownership was defined a certain way, there'd be the question of why ownership in that sense is meaningful, or why we don't define it another way.

Then it would have to changed to a debate on semantics, and I don't really want to go down that road right now. This is how I define ownership, because of this and this, and this is how I will employ the term throughout the rest of our time here.

[Arkolon]

Well, how do you define it?

Rather like this guy did:

Frédéric Bastiat's main treatise on property can be found in chapter 8 of his book Economic Harmonies (1850).[31] In a radical departure from traditional property theory, he defines property not as a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people with respect to an object. Thus, saying one owns a glass of water is merely verbal shorthand for I may justly gift or trade this water to another person. In essence, what one owns is not the object but the value of the object. By "value," Bastiat apparently means market value; he emphasizes that this is quite different from utility. "In our relations with one another, we are not owners of the utility of things, but of their value, and value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services."

Exclusive right to certain property, yes, which we all have by virtue of being ourselves and being supported by the existence of ourselves.

[Arkolon]

No: being self-aware necessitates a body, and the bond is ownership.

so now your changing your argument and control equals ownership?

No?

[Arkolon]

Ownership is acquired first by control; ownership of one thing is then traded with other people for the ownership of other things. I mixed my labour with these raw materials I bought myself (the ownership of) to make this product, and I will trade you ownership of the product for the ownership of a certain amount of money we both agree on. You're assuming that ownership is always control-- no: ownership is first acquired by control of previously unowned property.

so it is entirely a social construct and not in any way objective.

Objective within social environments. In any given society, ever, there has been a concept of ownership. Each and every (atheist) concept of property can be used to defend that one owns themselves.

Y is a refuted assumption needed to prove that Y + X

you can't prove Y+X because it is not an argument. it has to be equal to something.

I wrote "is equal to an objectively true conclusion" in the same independent clause of the sentence, separated by the dependent clause below.

, where X is an objectively true fact,

which in this case is what?

An analogy, maybe?

is equal to an objectively true conclusion.

what conclusion, that argument has no conclusion.

In our case, self-ownership. Analogously, an objectively true conclusion.

no you can't say it is true that is you again taking your conclusion (the thing being argued) as an assumption. because the only way you can demonstrate Y is if X and the conclusion are both known, which is not the case.
you just described begging the question.

X and the conclusion are known.

Y = relationship between body and mind (either we are our body (monistically) or our mind is reliant on the existence of the body (dualistically), which in both cases yields exclusive rights to ourselves as a result (which is ownership))

X = The fact that we exist; that we are.

The conclusion = self-ownership.

say X + Y = Z if X and Z are both in question you can't use one to support the other.

example
All dogs are red + Lassie was a dog = Lassie was red
is not a sound argument because both the first assumption and your conclusion are both in question (aka not treated as true), neither can be used to support the other.

For Y, you're either using a monist argument or a dualist argument. There are no other alternatives. For X, you're either alive, or you are not. Each of these is true. There are no assumptions, only a total sum of two possibilities twice (and four total outcomes) Here, I'm going to draw a little picture for you in pixlr (mind the horrible lines...)

Y = Monism, but Y' = Dualism, which is what I talked about in our analogy just earlier.

[Arkolon]

1. We are.

no we are are not, that is a circular argument.

it is ,X is true therefore X.

isn't very unfounded, is it?

it is extremely unfounded, you have done nothing to demonstrate it is objectively true.

Are you, or are you not?

[Arkolon]

Geez, is Ark still going at this?

I got to give a hand to the stoicism, i do.

It's sadomasochism to me.

Hey, I never thanked you, by the way. That TG on Stoicism made me find out about hylomorphism. Wouldn't be here if it wasn't for you, TLT.

[Arkolon]

Geez, is Ark still going at this?

I got to give a hand to the stoicism, i do.

It's sadomasochism to me.

I once knew a fellow who was a lot like Ark, except with a more Randian bend and much less formal.

Which particular trait did this person and I share, out of interest?