Self-ownership

[Trotskylvania]

You support the violence of the state being used to protect private property. You support the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

So you don't have any source, and are just making up a load of crap. Let me know if you ever get tired of it, and want to try discussing reality

You really don't understand how this works do you.

It's called an argument, son. Learn what it means. You're one of these private property loving libertarians. You think that anything that infringes private property rights must be opposed. By direct implication, you support the unchecked despotism of the bourgeoisie.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So you don't have any source, and are just making up a load of crap. Let me know if you ever get tired of it, and want to try discussing reality

You really don't understand how this works do you.

It's called an argument, son. Learn what it means. You're one of these private property loving libertarians. You think that anything that infringes private property rights must be opposed. By direct implication, you support the unchecked despotism of the bourgeoisie.

That's less an argument and more your opinion of what his beliefs are.

One can hardly argue with what you make-up, Trot. Except, perhaps, by quoting the opposing viewpoint regarding the matter (which has occurred), but such isn't really an argument so much as mutual agreement to frame the other's opinions how they like.

[Lalaki]

I approach these questions from both the religious perspective and the secular perspective. I believe that God gave us free will, and thus we are able to live our lives with full control over our actions. I also believe that since all human beings have the same ability to reason, think, and make decisions, it is wrong to "own" another person, as both of you are equal.

[Camelza]

I agree, enough lolbertarianising for tonight.
Goodnight.

Fairly sure Farn has said that term was actionable. Really says a lot about you that you have to resort to vapid personal attacks to try and prove a point.

The attack was not directed to any person, just the ideology.
It also says much about you that you completely avoid responding my posts that are responds to yours.

I did answer your question. Read my post again instead of trying to avoid responding to it.

You have not answered my questions. Try actually answering my questions rather than just making up something that you would prefer to answer instead. Don't worry, I'll wait

I answered your question, genius, just not in a direct manner. If you don't like my answer then point me were I'm wrong, it's simple.
Really, just read my post again.

[Arkolon]

Your proof of ownership is logically flawed. If it were so, I would own my parents, which is obviously not true both de facto and de jure.

I would say I don't own myself, because the vast majority of the reasons why I continue to exist are external rather than internal. I'm only the highest shareholder.

No, because your parents are human beings who own themselves. You're using your own logic now, not mine.

[Arkolon]

Ah so this is that "Self-Ownership" guy that i see in most general threads.

Glad to meet you here.

[Arkolon]

I explained it with bullet points-esque style in a numerical axiomatic list in the OP.

Ah.

Well, my body isn't exactly functional (health problems and all), so therefore, I don't own myself. If that doesn't negate effect, I'll sell myself. Either way, I don't wish to "own" my body.

If you're alive (ie, not dead), you are what I called "functional". If you are "functional", your person is made existent. Because this person is made existent, your person owns your body.

[Briwen]

what did I just read?

[Arkolon]

what did I just read?

I didn't even use that many difficult words.

[Conkerials]

I mean, this is really a philosophical argument. You can say you own your body, but that would put the concept of "you" as your mind, and not 'yourself', thereby putting your body in possession of the mind. So, in a way, if you claim ownership over your body you're kind of embracing a duality of your own existence, which, I suppose, is your decision to make.

Personally, I accept a singularity about myself. I am me, and I am not 'piloting my body' for I am my body (and not in possession of it). My mind and body are one and the same. For the mind does not even exist without the body. And the body does not function without the mind.

That being said human ownership is wrong

[Conkerials]

Wait, so if you have ownership of something you must have the ability (healthy to do so or not) to separate from it and otherwise sell it, trash it, etc.

With that being said, I feel if you embrace self-ownership you accept a form of duality (correct me if I'm wrong). By doing so you imply that they can be separated from one another. How do you propose separation of body and mind without supernaturalism?

[WestRedMaple]

So you don't have any source, and are just making up a load of crap. Let me know if you ever get tired of it, and want to try discussing reality

You really don't understand how this works do you.

It's called an argument, son. Learn what it means. You're one of these private property loving libertarians. You think that anything that infringes private property rights must be opposed. By direct implication, you support the unchecked despotism of the bourgeoisie.

It's called dishonesty. There is no honestly denying the fact that rather than address reality, you chose to make things up and attribute them to me. I'm certainly not your son. My father is a much more honest man.

[WestRedMaple]

Fairly sure Farn has said that term was actionable. Really says a lot about you that you have to resort to vapid personal attacks to try and prove a point.

The attack was not directed to any person, just the ideology.
It also says much about you that you completely avoid responding my posts that are responds to yours.

You have not answered my questions. Try actually answering my questions rather than just making up something that you would prefer to answer instead. Don't worry, I'll wait

I answered your question, genius, just not in a direct manner. If you don't like my answer then point me were I'm wrong, it's simple.
Really, just read my post again.

Read your post, and you didn't answer what I asked. I guess this means that you still aren't going to actually answer

[4years]

It's called dishonesty. There is no honestly denying the fact that rather than address reality, you chose to make things up and attribute them to me. I'm certainly not your son. My father is a much more honest man.

Let's take this one step at a time: Do you deny holding the right-wing libertarian view that property rights are absolute?

[WestRedMaple]

It's called dishonesty. There is no honestly denying the fact that rather than address reality, you chose to make things up and attribute them to me. I'm certainly not your son. My father is a much more honest man.

Let's take this one step at a time: Do you deny holding the right-wing libertarian view that property rights are absolute?

Certainly, let us do that

What, in your opinion, are 'absolute property rights'?

[4years]

Let's take this one step at a time: Do you deny holding the right-wing libertarian view that property rights are absolute?

Certainly, let us do that

What, in your opinion, are 'absolute property rights'?

Why don't you tell me, since it's your views we are trying to clarify here?

[WestRedMaple]

Certainly, let us do that

What, in your opinion, are 'absolute property rights'?

Why don't you tell me, since it's your views we are trying to clarify here?

You're the one seeking some information. I cannot give you what you want if you're unwilling to explain to me what you want. I cannot agree or disagree with something without first understanding what you are meaning by it.

[Shnercropolis]

Your proof of ownership is logically flawed. If it were so, I would own my parents, which is obviously not true both de facto and de jure.

I would say I don't own myself, because the vast majority of the reasons why I continue to exist are external rather than internal. I'm only the highest shareholder.

No, because your parents are human beings who own themselves. You're using your own logic now, not mine.

Then your prrof contains a logical contradiction and is even more flawed than I thought.

[Arkolon]

No, because your parents are human beings who own themselves. You're using your own logic now, not mine.

Then your prrof contains a logical contradiction and is even more flawed than I thought.

1. Humans own themselves.
2. Parents are humans.
3. Therefore, parents own themselves individually.
4. Offspring comes from parents.
5. Offspring is human.
6. Therefore, offspring owns itself.

[Conscentia]

What happened to the following?:

[...] I'll reply tomorrow afternoon. "What are you?" as in, what are you politically?

[Arkolon]

What happened to the following?:

[...] I'll reply tomorrow afternoon. "What are you?" as in, what are you politically?

"Afternoon" is more like night o'clock at night in my opinion. I'll get started on writing, from where I left you all earlier this morning.

[The Liberated Territories]

The sleeper has awakened...

[Conscentia]

What happened to the following?:

"Afternoon" is more like night o'clock at night in my opinion. I'll get started on writing, from where I left you all earlier this morning.

Afternoon refers to the time before evening and following mid-day (noon).

[Arkolon]

A person is made existent with the body, as I said in the OP. As such, the body belongs to the person.

Persons are a legal entity. Humans are generally speaking recognised as persons under law. The flesh then becomes the personal property of the person, but's not the flesh owning itself. It's the person owning the flesh. There is a distinction between physical reality, and our social constructs.

You ARE your person, and the person owning themselves is too cyclical and circular to be taken seriously. However, you are not your body, seeing as you are made alive by the existence of your person (which itself was made existent by the way your body is shaped and how its component parts associate and are built). As a result of this, we conclude that the person (the "you") must own its body. The person and the body, however, are ultimately inseparable.

So how do you justify the legalisation of marijuana in your ... views? What are you, by the way?

I don't necessarily. Why would you assume I do?
I justify the use of it's active ingredients for the medical utility, which is already done to some extent.
My position of legalisation of recreational use is more complicated, and it also happens to be irrelevant.

What do you mean "what are you, by the way?"?

A socialist, a liberal, a Marxist, an anarchist, an "interventionist liberal", or what?

[Arkolon]

"Afternoon" is more like night o'clock at night in my opinion. I'll get started on writing, from where I left you all earlier this morning.

Afternoon refers to the time before evening and following mid-day (noon).

Right. I'm just making an allusion to me not necessarily complying to what everyone generally accepts to be sleep-time, and as a result day-time either.