Self-ownership

[CTALNH]

There is no such thing as "society." It is an arbitrary, human made concept of it's own self organization.

Being arbitrary and artificial doesn't make it nonexistent. Language is arbitrary and artificial, yet it obviously exists. "Society" refers to that very self-organization, and its products.

Yes like not shitting in front of them or etc.

[Arkolon]

That's what we're here for, isn't it?

I thought we were here to demonstrate why self-ownership was valid on that large scale. We kind of already knew that you considered it valid

It's valid on that large scale because your body and its products belong to you and are your responsibility. You have ownership over these things. I think the problem is that everybody is overthinking something so very simple: how can you deny that your body is yours?

[Arkolon]

Wait, which part of this denies computers the ability to be considered by law as persons?

The part where the law doesn't currently recognise computers as persons. In the future, that may (and certainly should, once we manage AI) change.

So, hang on a minute, you're telling me to explain myself because my test for legal personhood is rubbish because it would allow computers to be legal persons, but now you say that in your test and definition of legal personhood computers could, and should, be legal persons? Why? Why did you argue against what I said in the first place, then?

[Arkolon]

Wouldn't self-ownership be logically in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition of holdings-- and by extension, therefore, the principle of justice in transfer of holdings? You are the only one that can have your own consciousness (you are your own consciousness), so how could anyone else, but yourself, own it?

I don't accept "finder's keepers" as justice.

Why not? In what respects is it not fair, or just?

[Arkolon]

Ah, see, no, that's not what a state of nature is. Put bluntly, a state of nature is a collection of individuals (without being a society) that live without the existence of a political state or polity. In the state of nature, a hypothetical scenario, there is no state, and its use is primordially for justifying the existence and role of government. States of nature very much do still have artificial social constructs, including property, making the state of nature, naturally, an "artificial world" I was talking about.

Why not just say "stateless society" then? Why use odd esoteric language?

Don't look at me; bring this up to John Locke.

And the state is a collection or centralisation of legal institutions into one big, overarching legal institution. In a state of nature, what you do on your own property is up to you, and no one can tell you off for it because it is, well, yours, and you govern it. If murder was to occur on your property in a state of nature, you would have the right to determine who is, and how they are to be, punished for what they did. When you succumb to the existence of a formal state, however, you delegate this task to a group of bureaucrats who live somewhere else. This group of bureaucrats is the state. You have given them some of your freedoms and some of your rights in exchange for their services.

In a stateless society, my claim is as legitimate as yours. There is only common property.

No, it isn't, because legal institutions do not determine legitimacy. Legitimacy would be defined by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer of holdings, and making a claim on something that has already been acquired (in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition of holdings) would be illegitimate. You could say that self-ownership operates in the same way.

Have bx and bd, then, just so you don't confuse them as abbreviations.

Confuse them as abbreviations?! They are abbreviations; "aw" stands for "artificial world", "ac" stands for "artificial concept".

They look like abbreviations. You're purposely avoiding actually answering the question. Why?

[Arkolon]

They are in fact principles of justice, not principles in morality.

so you think you have objective justice now?
how is that better?

It was just a minor correction. You did go on a tangent about morality specifically, but justice and morality are not the same.

[Arkolon]

An artificial concept exists in an artificial world.

ac = aw
c = w

A concept exists in the world.

so wizards really exist because harry potter.

No? I don't know how you would get that. I mean, from what I wrote, even, the most you could deduce is that Harry Potter wizards exist in the world of Harry Potter. Saying that Harry Potter wizards exist in a world outside of a Harry Potter world would be the total opposite of what I said.

[Conscentia]

I don't accept "finder's keepers" as justice.

Why not? In what respects is it not fair, or just?

In what respects is it fair or just?

[Arkolon]

I still don't see how attributing life objective value is required for the "absolute morality" I put forward.

it isn't, you need to demonstrate objective/absolute morality. life having value was your attempt.

You did ask me to do it, and I don't see the reason for that.

Haven't we already gone through this? Life is scarce and there is demand greater than 0 for it: therefore its value has to be, objectively, greater than 0.

[Conscentia]

Why not just say "stateless society" then? Why use odd esoteric language?

Don't look at me; bring this up to John Locke.

You have no obligation to copy John Locke.

In a stateless society, my claim is as legitimate as yours. There is only common property.

No, it isn't, because legal institutions do not determine legitimacy. [...]

Legality does determine legitimacy, by definition.
Legit = Legal. They're synonyms.

Confuse them as abbreviations?! They are abbreviations; "aw" stands for "artificial world", "ac" stands for "artificial concept".

They look like abbreviations. You're purposely avoiding actually answering the question. Why?

What question?
You didn't ask a question. You were responding to me, specifically with mathematically errors.

[Arkolon]

Why not? In what respects is it not fair, or just?

In what respects is it fair or just?

Say we're stranded on a desert island, the two of us, and we you look for food on one part of the island and I go looking for food on another part of the island. Note that the island is wholly unowned and no one has ever made any claim to it. You come back empty-handed, and I come back with four large portions of fruit and fish. If you take two baskets, or whatever, how do you not see this as theft? How do you justify this? No part of the island was ever yours; none of the fruit or fish were ever yours, either, and you have no legitimate claim to any of it.

[Conscentia]

it isn't, you need to demonstrate objective/absolute morality. life having value was your attempt.

You did ask me to do it, and I don't see the reason for that.

Haven't we already gone through this? Life is scarce and there is demand greater than 0 for it: therefore its value has to be, objectively, greater than 0.

The demand is objective, but the value is not intrinsic. Value is subjective.

[Conscentia]

In what respects is it fair or just?

Say we're stranded on a desert island, the two of us, and we you look for food on one part of the island and I go looking for food on another part of the island. Note that the island is wholly unowned and no one has ever made any claim to it. You come back empty-handed, and I come back with four large portions of fruit and fish. If you take two baskets, or whatever, how do you not see this as theft? How do you justify this? No part of the island was ever yours; none of the fruit or fish were ever yours, either, and you have no legitimate claim to any of it.

None of the fruit or fish were yours either.

[Arkolon]

Don't look at me; bring this up to John Locke.

You have no obligation to copy John Locke.

If I want to be taken seriously, yes, I do have to give sources, even in philosophy.

No, it isn't, because legal institutions do not determine legitimacy. [...]

Legality does determine legitimacy, by definition.
Legit = Legal. They're synonyms.

No. Legitimacy and legality have different definitions. Legitimacy refers to natural law, or non-legal law (moral, personal, individual, natural), whereas legal specifically refers to that which is man-made law and that which is currently insitutionalised in the part of the world you are describing. Legality can be illegitimate, as can illegality be legitimate.

They look like abbreviations. You're purposely avoiding actually answering the question. Why?

What question?
You didn't ask a question. You were responding to me, specifically with mathematically errors.

bx ∈ bd
x ∈ d, functionally.

[Arkolon]

You did ask me to do it, and I don't see the reason for that.

Haven't we already gone through this? Life is scarce and there is demand greater than 0 for it: therefore its value has to be, objectively, greater than 0.

The demand is objective, but the value is not intrinsic. Value is subjective.

Seeing as demand and scarcity are the two factors that create value (and all matter is scarce), I can objectively say that something that has any demand at all is valuable. Life, which is scarce and is in demand by its owner as long as it remains life, has a value objectively greater than zero. It doesn't matter what the exact value is. All that matters is that it is greater than zero, and thus valuable.

[Arkolon]

Say we're stranded on a desert island, the two of us, and we you look for food on one part of the island and I go looking for food on another part of the island. Note that the island is wholly unowned and no one has ever made any claim to it. You come back empty-handed, and I come back with four large portions of fruit and fish. If you take two baskets, or whatever, how do you not see this as theft? How do you justify this? No part of the island was ever yours; none of the fruit or fish were ever yours, either, and you have no legitimate claim to any of it.

None of the fruit or fish were yours either.

Having acquired the fruit and fish in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition of holdings (nobody owned it before me, I worked for it, and there is enough and in good enough condition for others-- the Lockean proviso), the fruit and fish needn't have ever been mine for my acquisition over it to be legitimate.

[Zottistan]

Why not? In what respects is it not fair, or just?

In what respects is it fair or just?

Depends on your criteria for justice.

And everybody has difference criteria for justice.

[Conscentia]

The demand is objective, but the value is not intrinsic. Value is subjective.

Seeing as demand and scarcity are the two factors that create value (and all matter is scarce), I can objectively say that something that has any demand at all is valuable. Life, which is scarce and is in demand by its owner as long as it remains life, has a value objectively greater than zero. It doesn't matter what the exact value is. All that matters is that it is greater than zero, and thus valuable.

It has subjective value to those that demand it, yes, but not intrinsically valuable.
Life has no intrinsic value.

[Conscentia]

None of the fruit or fish were yours either.

Having acquired the fruit and fish in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition of holdings (nobody owned it before me, I worked for it, and there is enough and in good enough condition for others-- the Lockean proviso), the fruit and fish needn't have ever been mine for my acquisition over it to be legitimate.

Your reasoning is circular.
Your little scenario was meant to demonstrate how the principle is just, and just now you explained that your acquisition was just because of the principle.
ie. The principle of justice is just because of the principle of justice, which is just because of the principle of justice, which is just...

[Conscentia]

You have no obligation to copy John Locke.

If I want to be taken seriously, yes, I do have to give sources, even in philosophy.

This has nothing to do with sources. You have no obligations to copycat John Locke and his use of words.

Legality does determine legitimacy, by definition.
Legit = Legal. They're synonyms.

No. Legitimacy and legality have different definitions. Legitimacy refers to natural law, or non-legal law (moral, personal, individual, natural), whereas legal specifically refers to that which is man-made law and that which is currently insitutionalised in the part of the world you are describing. Legality can be illegitimate, as can illegality be legitimate.

That isn't even true.
The Oxford English Dictionary definition of "legitimacy" is literally "conformity to the law or the rules", and guess what it lists as a synonym of "legality"... Hint: It's "legitimacy".

What question?
You didn't ask a question. You were responding to me, specifically with mathematically errors.

bx ∈ bd
x ∈ d, functionally.

Seriously?
Firstly, that expression is not an equation so that operation doesn't work.
Secondly, just because you've replaced "ac" with "bx" doesn't change the fact that "ac" and "bx" are a single term. "a" is not a coefficient and "b" is not a coefficient. You aren't multiplying c by a or x by b.

[Sociobiology]

it isn't, you need to demonstrate objective/absolute morality. life having value was your attempt.

You did ask me to do it, and I don't see the reason for that.

Haven't we already gone through this? Life is scarce and there is demand greater than 0 for it: therefore its value has to be, objectively, greater than 0.

except demand is subjective therefore so is value based on it.
the intrinsic and objective demand for life is zero.

also we don't know how scarce life is, it may not be scarce at all.

[Sociobiology]

I thought we were here to demonstrate why self-ownership was valid on that large scale. We kind of already knew that you considered it valid

It's valid on that large scale because your body and its products belong to you and are your responsibility. You have ownership over these things. I think the problem is that everybody is overthinking something so very simple: how can you deny that your body is yours?

so self ownership is valid because of self ownership.
see argument, circular.

[Sociobiology]

so you think you have objective justice now?
how is that better?

It was just a minor correction. You did go on a tangent about morality specifically, but justice and morality are not the same.

in this case they share the relevant factor, they are both subjective.
so the argument is exactly the same.

[The Liberated Territories]

Society cannot own; we can therefore not be owned by society.

Which is fine and good, but society still exists.

But I am directly challenging the idea that man somehow belong's to "society." "Society" however is not a physical entity but an idea, as you compared it to language, as arbitrary and artificial. Yet it "exists" solely because it is an idea, dependent entirely on its status as an idea in question, malleable.

The same could be said for the idea of property.
Society is the relationship between one group of people and others. Property is the relationship between a person and a thing, or another person.

Neither can we suppose that the idea of society is found in nature,

Everything that occurs is found in nature. If the idea of society was against the nature of the people who created it, they wouldn't have created it.

nothing is granted from the "divine" or "human nature" that verifies the idea of any given society, but rather we find society arising as a result of each and every individual (backtrack to the Cartesian individual) acting in tandem, and only holding water as long as each and every individual participates in it voluntarily.

Why does it not hold water if it's involuntary?

Naturally.

I do not disclaim that. I disclaim the idea that society is a singular entity by itself that occurs "naturally."

Perhaps it would be better to say that society occurs "naturally" but doesn't exist "naturally."

Because then it goes against it's definition of society.

---

Here's Margaret Thatcher on society from a propertarian standpoint:

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first… There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.

Yet what is society? We apply it axiomatically - society as in a group of a"society" as in the idea that society exists, does not. Society, can be only exist within each and every individual in it, just like a house can only exist with each and every brick in it. Sure, we have our idea of a "house," as well as "society," but without the matter that makes up both, we cannot say that the house exists naturally without the bricks, or society exists naturally without it's members.

[Zottistan]

Which is fine and good, but society still exists.


The same could be said for the idea of property.
Society is the relationship between one group of people and others. Property is the relationship between a person and a thing, or another person.


Everything that occurs is found in nature. If the idea of society was against the nature of the people who created it, they wouldn't have created it.


Why does it not hold water if it's involuntary?

Naturally.

I do not disclaim that. I disclaim the idea that society is a singular entity by itself that occurs "naturally."

It can be treated as a singular entity. It can be used as a block term for the phenomenon of social organization and its results, in which case it would be a singular entity. In the same way a flock of birds is an entity in its own right, distinct from the individual birds.

Really, though, I don't see how this is relevant to the question.

Perhaps it would be better to say that society occurs "naturally" but doesn't exist "naturally."

How can something occur naturally without existing naturally?

Because then it goes against it's definition of society.

Not necessarily. Not all definitions of society include voluntaryness.

Here's Margaret Thatcher on society from a propertarian standpoint:

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first… There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.

And that "tapestry" is society. That doesn't mean society doesn't exist, or that there's no such thing as society.

Being made up of smaller parts does not mean something does not exist.

Yet what is society? We apply it axiomatically - society as in a group of a"society" as in the idea that society exists, does not. Society, can be only exist within each and every individual in it, just like a house can only exist with each and every brick in it. Sure, we have our idea of a "house," as well as "society," but without the matter that makes up both, we cannot say that the house exists naturally without the bricks, or society exists naturally without it's members.

Well, yeah, society is a term for large-scale organizations of people. No people, no society. So what?