Self-ownership

[Twilight Imperium]

I'll admit I'm still having trouble with your original proof.

i. A is made from B.
ii. If not-B, therefore not-A.
iii. B belongs to A.
1. A owns B.

Avoiding the possibilities for ii. to be science-magicked away for the time being, there's still the jump from iii. to 1. that I take issue with. iii. only follows from i. and ii. for a particular sence of belonging - like belonging to a club or a particular grouping. Take the example you used earlier in that post:

i. A brick house is made of bricks.
ii. Without the bricks, there is no brick house.
iii. The bricks belong to the brick house.

therefore

1. the brick house owns the bricks?

[Arkolon]

I said that I had to DIY philosophise to find an answer as to why we own ourselves without resorting to ownership as control (which is wrong and easily proven so), and that is actually in line with the axioms that supposedly follow from it. I said I made adjustments to Aristotelian hylomorphism to render it more physicalist, and replaced "mind" as the life itself. I'm not a dualist. I use the word hylomorphism because it is, believe it or not, a shortening of actually typing out what hylomorphism and hylomorphic relationships are.

You can't just redefine a philosophy that already has a definition.

What do you want me to call it? I have previously stated that I use a dualist vocabulary that can be translated to one that is more monistic; the OP uses dualism, and as such hylomorphic relationships stand true in that instance.

You confused legal personality with what I called "person". You confused homonyms. I saw it as a non-issue that is worth nothing but my own disregard. What do you want from this?

If you aren't referring to legal personality, then ownership is entirely irrelevant.

The word "person" in the way I used it was meant to be interchangeable with "mind", "soul", "life", "individual", and so on.

[Arkolon]

More logically consistent, obviously. Marxism, for instance, relies on the assumption of a labour theory of value, which is wrong because, since the dawn of modern economics some one-hundred and twenty-five years ago, we know that value is subjective, and is essentially decided by supply and demand. Every philosophy relies on these assumptions, and pitting Starter Axioms against each other to find the most logically consistent isn't very difficult to do. We just need a lot of spare time, and then to rally in everyone from every corner of the political spectrum.

That's not logical consistency, that's lining up with reality.

Remind me, what are the axioms connecting "we are" to "we own ourselves"?

1. We are.
2. Therefore, we think.
3. If we think, then we have that which is capable of thought (the mind).
4. if we have that which is capable of thought, then it must be supported by another corporeal mechanism (the body).
5. The relative matter of that which is capable of thought is the corporeal mechanism.
6. If there is no corporeal mechanism, then we are not capable of thought (therefore we are not).
7. "We" are that which is capable of thought.
8. The corporeal mechanism upon which we are supported is therefore naturally belonging to us.
9. If the corporeal mechanism upon which we are supported is therefore naturally belonging to us, we own our bodies.
10. Owning something is owning the rights to something, which effectively makes that something an extension of our own rights and of ourselves.
11. Therefore, we own ourselves.

Cut out what needs to be cut out for the monist's argument, and there you go.

[Arkolon]

More logically consistent, obviously. Marxism, for instance, relies on the assumption of a labour theory of value, which is wrong because, since the dawn of modern economics some one-hundred and twenty-five years ago, we know that value is subjective, and is essentially decided by supply and demand. Every philosophy relies on these assumptions, and pitting Starter Axioms against each other to find the most logically consistent isn't very difficult to do. We just need a lot of spare time, and then to rally in everyone from every corner of the political spectrum.

You don't understand Marxism at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Karl_Marx

Did or did Marx not express, either implicitly or explicitly, that he used the labour theory of value to base his claims, and/or claim that a labourer was entitled to the fruits of their labour-- thus making capitalism exploitative and "theft"?

[Arkolon]

I'll admit I'm still having trouble with your original proof.

i. A is made from B.
ii. If not-B, therefore not-A.
iii. B belongs to A.
1. A owns B.

Avoiding the possibilities for ii. to be science-magicked away for the time being, there's still the jump from iii. to 1. that I take issue with. iii. only follows from i. and ii. for a particular sence of belonging - like belonging to a club or a particular grouping. Take the example you used earlier in that post:

i. A brick house is made of bricks.
ii. Without the bricks, there is no brick house.
iii. The bricks belong to the brick house.

therefore

1. the brick house owns the bricks?

The brick house/bricks analogy was used to demonstrate hylomorphism alone, and the house owning its bricks falls short of being logical because the house cannot, in any way, "own", simply because it does not have that which allows it to own. Instead, we used an analogy which employed characters with minds, ie those with that which allows them to own, with a master and a slave (thus demonstrating, to a broader extent, the slave-master dichotomous relationship in property as well): a master (the mind) is made a master because they have slaves (the body). If there are no slaves, then there is no master. If there are slaves, then they belong to the master. The mind-body/body-body/mind-person-body/body-self relationship exists in the very same way: a mind is made a mind it has a body. Without a body, there is no mind. If there is both mind and a body, then the body belongs to the mind.

EDIT: Monistically, because I have time to kill, this would translate as something along the lines of this: a master (being self-aware; being able to think) is only a master if they have slaves (the corporeal mechanism). If there are no slaves, then there is no master, in the same way that, without a body, one cannot be self-aware. Your life, conscious, self, your "you" owns the body in the same way. If there are slaves and no master, then these slaves aren't in fact slaves, and are, however, freed men ("nonfuctional" bodies; that which cannot think).

[Conscentia]

You can't just redefine a philosophy that already has a definition.

What do you want me to call it? I have previously stated that I use a dualist vocabulary that can be translated to one that is more monistic; the OP uses dualism, and as such hylomorphic relationships stand true in that instance.

I want you to stop being inconsistent.

If you aren't referring to legal personality, then ownership is entirely irrelevant.

The word "person" in the way I used it was meant to be interchangeable with "mind", "soul", "life", "individual", and so on.

So ownership is entirely irrelevant, and your argument is nonsense.

[Conscentia]

You don't understand Marxism at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Karl_Marx

Did or did Marx not express, either implicitly or explicitly, that he used the labour theory of value to base his claims, and/or claim that a labourer was entitled to the fruits of their labour-- thus making capitalism exploitative and "theft"?

Read the link provided.
Alternatively, read what Marx actually wrote himself.

[Arkolon]

What do you want me to call it? I have previously stated that I use a dualist vocabulary that can be translated to one that is more monistic; the OP uses dualism, and as such hylomorphic relationships stand true in that instance.

I want you to stop being inconsistent.

What do you want me to call it?

The word "person" in the way I used it was meant to be interchangeable with "mind", "soul", "life", "individual", and so on.

So ownership is entirely irrelevant, and your argument is nonsense.

Legality is cultural, whereas legitimacy is more ethical. What constitutes a legal person depends on the legal institution. In the state of nature, me mixing my labour with land entitles me to that land, even if no legal institution regarding ownership actually exists as of yet (for we are in the state of nature). In the very same way, my body is mine even without the existence of a legal institution.

[Arkolon]

Did or did Marx not express, either implicitly or explicitly, that he used the labour theory of value to base his claims, and/or claim that a labourer was entitled to the fruits of their labour-- thus making capitalism exploitative and "theft"?

Read the link provided.

Mobile doesn't do the #Karl_Marx bit, and what I found from it conflicts with the page on Marxist economics, which says that he did base his claims around the LTV. So I ask you to answer me: did or did Marx not express, either implicitly or explicitly, that he used the labour theory of value to base his claims, and/or claim that a labourer was entitled to the fruits of their labour?

[Mavorpen]

Read the link provided.

Mobile doesn't do the #Karl_Marx bit, and what I found from it conflicts with the page on Marxist economics, which says that he did base his claims around the LTV. So I ask you to answer me: did or did Marx not express, either implicitly or explicitly, that he used the labour theory of value to base his claims, and/or claim that a labourer was entitled to the fruits of their labour?

No, and neither does the page on Marxist economics as you claim it does.

[Conscentia]

I want you to stop being inconsistent.

What do you want me to call it?

Explain "it".

So ownership is entirely irrelevant, and your argument is nonsense.

1. Legality is cultural, whereas legitimacy is more ethical. What constitutes a legal person depends on the legal institution. 2. In the state of nature, me mixing my labour with land entitles me to that land, even if no legal institution regarding ownership actually exists as of yet (for we are in the state of nature). In the very same way, my body is mine even without the existence of a legal institution.

1. Ethics, in the sense of an external philosophy to which one adheres to judge behaviour/character by, are as artificial as the law and are in-fact a form of informal law.
2. That is false. I have already told you, entitlements are derived from the law, whether informal or formal. In the state of nature, labour does not entitle you to anything.

[Arkolon]

Mobile doesn't do the #Karl_Marx bit, and what I found from it conflicts with the page on Marxist economics, which says that he did base his claims around the LTV. So I ask you to answer me: did or did Marx not express, either implicitly or explicitly, that he used the labour theory of value to base his claims, and/or claim that a labourer was entitled to the fruits of their labour?

No, and neither does the page on Marxist economics as you claim it does.

Marx employed a labour theory of value, which holds that the value of a commodity is the socially necessary labour time invested in it. In this model, capitalists do not pay workers the full value of the commodities they produce; rather, they compensate the worker for the necessary labor only (the worker's wage, which cover only the necessary means of subsistence in order to maintain him working in the present and his family in the future as a group). This necessary labor is, Marx supposes, only a fraction of a full working day - the rest, the surplus-labor, would be pocketed by the capitalist.

[Mavorpen]

No, and neither does the page on Marxist economics as you claim it does.

Marx employed a labour theory of value, which holds that the value of a commodity is the socially necessary labour time invested in it. In this model, capitalists do not pay workers the full value of the commodities they produce; rather, they compensate the worker for the necessary labor only (the worker's wage, which cover only the necessary means of subsistence in order to maintain him working in the present and his family in the future as a group). This necessary labor is, Marx supposes, only a fraction of a full working day - the rest, the surplus-labor, would be pocketed by the capitalist.

Right, and that confirms what I stated. And?

[Arkolon]

What do you want me to call it?

Explain "it".

Refrain from being snarky, but "it" is the relationship between that which is self-aware and the corporeal mechanism upon which it is supported.

1. Legality is cultural, whereas legitimacy is more ethical. What constitutes a legal person depends on the legal institution. 2. In the state of nature, me mixing my labour with land entitles me to that land, even if no legal institution regarding ownership actually exists as of yet (for we are in the state of nature). In the very same way, my body is mine even without the existence of a legal institution.

1. Ethics, in the sense of an external philosophy to which one adheres to judge behaviour/character by, are as artificial as the law and are in-fact a form of informal law.

What are you trying to say re: informal law?

2. That is false. I have already told you, entitlements are derived from the law, whether informal or formal. In the state of nature, labour does not entitle you to anything.

Yes, it does entitle you to whatever you mix with it. Labour is an abstract extension of the self that allows the self to physically mix themselves with the property. It is how property is legitimately accumulated.

[Arkolon]

Right, and that confirms what I stated. And?

Which part of the paragraph that shows that Marx used the labour theory of value proves your claim that Marx didn't use the labour theory of value?

[Mavorpen]

Right, and that confirms what I stated. And?

Which part of the paragraph that shows that Marx used the labour theory of value proves your claim that Marx didn't use the labour theory of value?

The part where it doesn't say that Marx didn't use the labor theory of value. It says he employed a labor theory of value.

[Arkolon]

Which part of the paragraph that shows that Marx used the labour theory of value proves your claim that Marx didn't use the labour theory of value?

The part where it doesn't say that Marx didn't use the labor theory of value. It says he employed a labor theory of value.

This is really disappointing.

[Mavorpen]

The part where it doesn't say that Marx didn't use the labor theory of value. It says he employed a labor theory of value.

This is really disappointing.

That you failed to make an important distinction because of misreading one word? I agree. But I give you leeway because English is not your first language, according to you at least.

[Arkolon]

This is really disappointing.

That you failed to make an important distinction because of misreading one word? I agree. But I give you leeway because English is not your first language, according to you at least.

That that was your argument is what was disappointing. The fact that he used any rendition of the LTV at all boils down to him using a theory of value that has been almost universally discredited in the realms of economics for the last one-hundred and twenty-five or so years. The fact that "Karl Marx" and "labour theory of value" appear in the same sentence without a negative disassociating them more than just proves my point. It spells out my point.

[Mavorpen]

That that was your argument is what was disappointing. The fact that he used any rendition of the LTV at all boils down to him using a theory of value that has been almost universally discredited in the realms of economics for the last one-hundred and twenty-five or so years. The fact that "Karl Marx" and "labour theory of value" appear in the same sentence without a negative disassociating them more than just proves my point. It spells out my point.

No, not it doesn't. Because you're not actually referring to anything Karl Marx argued per his rendition of the labor theory of value. You're arguing a silly caricature that you're imposing on Marx to make him easier to attack. He was aware of supply and demand and it's affects on change in value. He never denied it. Stating, "it's been discredited" is nothing but a vague and frankly lazily unsubstantiated claim given that you don't seem to understand him enough to specifically point out what's wrong with what he actually argued.

[Arkolon]

That that was your argument is what was disappointing. The fact that he used any rendition of the LTV at all boils down to him using a theory of value that has been almost universally discredited in the realms of economics for the last one-hundred and twenty-five or so years. The fact that "Karl Marx" and "labour theory of value" appear in the same sentence without a negative disassociating them more than just proves my point. It spells out my point.

No, not it doesn't. Because you're not actually referring to anything Karl Marx argued per his rendition of the labor theory of value. You're arguing a silly caricature that you're imposing on Marx to make him easier to attack. He was aware of supply and demand and it's affects on change in value. He never denied it. Stating, "it's been discredited" is nothing but a vague and frankly lazily unsubstantiated claim given that you don't seem to understand him enough to specifically point out what's wrong with what he actually argued.

I'd gladly continue this elsewhere, because this has nothing to do with self-ownership.

[Mavorpen]

No, not it doesn't. Because you're not actually referring to anything Karl Marx argued per his rendition of the labor theory of value. You're arguing a silly caricature that you're imposing on Marx to make him easier to attack. He was aware of supply and demand and it's affects on change in value. He never denied it. Stating, "it's been discredited" is nothing but a vague and frankly lazily unsubstantiated claim given that you don't seem to understand him enough to specifically point out what's wrong with what he actually argued.

I'd gladly continue this elsewhere, because this has nothing to do with self-ownership.

I...

No. There's nothing to continue. Your big argument against him involved bringing up something he never disagreed with or argued against and attacking something vaguely connected to him that didn't specifically define his beliefs. My only intention was to point that out. The biology major in me just can't take the downright unscientific arguments that have been produced by you in this thread. So, have fun with that, I guess. I've made my point about your argument against Marx that really don't amount to anything. I really hope I don't have to repeat it again down the line.

[Conscentia]

Explain "it".

Refrain from being snarky, but "it" is the relationship between that which is self-aware and the corporeal mechanism upon which it is supported.

If you want a term to describe it, I think that it would be "biological naturalism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism

I like these phrases I learnt from Crash Course Psychology: "Everything psychological is biological", and "The mind is what the brain does".

What are you trying to say re: informal law?

A legal code is an explicit and objectified set of socially defined rules. For example, a society may have the rule "Murder is illegal" and one would be able to objectively determine whether or not the law has been violated.
Formal law refers to codified rules and instructions, while informal law refers to non-codified rules and instructions.

Yes, it does entitle you to whatever you mix with it. Labour is an abstract extension of the self that allows the self to physically mix themselves with the property. It is how property is legitimately accumulated.

That is false. Without law there are no entitlements.
All labour means in nature is that you have redistributed the energy & entropy in the universe.

[Arkolon]

I'd gladly continue this elsewhere, because this has nothing to do with self-ownership.

I...

No. There's nothing to continue. Your big argument against him involved bringing up something he never disagreed with or argued against and attacking something vaguely connected to him that didn't specifically define his beliefs. My only intention was to point that out. The biology major in me just can't take the downright unscientific arguments that have been produced by you in this thread. So, have fun with that, I guess. I've made my point about your argument against Marx that really don't amount to anything. I really hope I don't have to repeat it again down the line.

1. You think, therefore you are.
2. If you are, therefore you have a corporeal mechanism.
3. If you have a corporeal mechanism, you can accumulate extensions of yourself through labour.
4. Through labour, you can create that which can lead you to think even deeper or more critically of your own or of others' ideas or beliefs.
5. By creating that which can lead to more thought, you are reassuring more solidly your own existence.
6. Create your own thread defending your distortion of Marxist economics.
7. If you do so, it will allow you to think deeper and more critically.
8. If you create your own thread, I'll see you there, too.

[Geilinor]

You can't just redefine a philosophy that already has a definition.

What do you want me to call it? I have previously stated that I use a dualist vocabulary that can be translated to one that is more monistic; the OP uses dualism, and as such hylomorphic relationships stand true in that instance.

If you aren't referring to legal personality, then ownership is entirely irrelevant.

The word "person" in the way I used it was meant to be interchangeable with "mind", "soul", "life", "individual", and so on.

So it isn't about ownership, it's about having a mind/soul/life.