Self-ownership

[Arkolon]

1. We are.
2. Therefore, we think.

That doesn't work both ways. The fact that I think proves that I am. The fact that I am doesn't prove that I think. A tree is. Does it think?

I know these things should be in order, but
7. "We" are that which is capable of thought.

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).

Not all of the body is necessary for supporting thought. You don't need hands to survive and support your thinking mechanism, for example. Does that mean we don't own our hands? They aren't part of the relative matter of that which is capable of thought.

Our hands are connected to the relative matter of that which is capable of thought. Going back to our master-slave relationship, being a master of a slave entitles you to that slave as well as all that is produced by that slave; you could make your slave mix their labour with some land and that land would be yours, not theirs, as they are property: they cannot own.

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.

But that's not what "belonging" means. Being a constituent of something doesn't mean it owns you.

One, that is one that is capable of thought (and therefore can own), cannot be owned. Something that cannot think being a constituent of that which can think entitles that which can think to its constituent parts. The cells that make me belong to me. The organelle that constitute a cell do not belong to the cell; they belong to me.

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.

"Owning" something is only owning the rights to something under certain artificial institutions of owning.

Could you give me an alternative institution of owning?

[Salandriagado]

None of those things are in your axioms, nor are they proved anywhere in your proof. They are thus entirely irrelevant to your proof. "It's obvious" is not, in any way, acceptable in a proof. If I'm marking anything that includes the word "obvious", "self-evident" or anything of the kind, I'll immediately try to break it, and usually manage it. That's how a proof works: either its in your axioms, or it doesn't exist. There's no reference to a "mind" anywhere in your "proof" - it should work just as easily in a system without minds at all.

The proof was given context. Read up one paragraph from where my proof appeared. Sounds like you skimmed through and looked for a different format, one comprised of more bite-sized text, to replace reading through my actual posts.

No, I'm looking at your actual proof. Proofs don't exist in context. A proof is either logically valid, or it isn't. There's no middle ground here. What you are actually presenting isn't a proof at all: it's a (bad) argument, formatted to look like a proof. It's just a very long way of saying "I'm right because I say I am".

[Twilight Imperium]

One, that is one that is capable of thought (and therefore can own), cannot be owned. Something that cannot think being a constituent of that which can think entitles that which can think to its constituent parts. The cells that make me belong to me. The organelle that constitute a cell do not belong to the cell; they belong to me.

You're still giving special privilege to sapient beings here. Note that I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but you have to put it in your proof. Logical proofs are supposed to be self-contained, not dependent on special cases.

[Conscentia]

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

Ownership of the self is a logical conclusion of having a mind/soul/life, yes.

No it's not. It really is not.

A constituent of the H. Sapiens species happens to be a brain capable of higher level cognitive functions. No legal conclusions are inherently true of the preceding fact.

[Arkolon]

The proof was given context. Read up one paragraph from where my proof appeared. Sounds like you skimmed through and looked for a different format, one comprised of more bite-sized text, to replace reading through my actual posts.

No, I'm looking at your actual proof. Proofs don't exist in context. A proof is either logically valid, or it isn't. There's no middle ground here. What you are actually presenting isn't a proof at all: it's a (bad) argument, formatted to look like a proof. It's just a very long way of saying "I'm right because I say I am".

Technically, you only looked at half of my proof, considering the axiomatic list that talk about A being made up of B isn't proof on its own. It's backed by the context.

[Arkolon]

One, that is one that is capable of thought (and therefore can own), cannot be owned. Something that cannot think being a constituent of that which can think entitles that which can think to its constituent parts. The cells that make me belong to me. The organelle that constitute a cell do not belong to the cell; they belong to me.

You're still giving special privilege to sapient beings here. Note that I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but you have to put it in your proof. Logical proofs are supposed to be self-contained, not dependent on special cases.

It's what is used to make a distinction between humans, other sapient beings and nonliving objects, such as blocks of wood, rocks, brick houses, and so on. These objects cannot own because they do not possess that which allows them to own.

[Arkolon]

Ownership of the self is a logical conclusion of having a mind/soul/life, yes.

No it's not. It really is not.

A constituent of the H. Sapiens species happens to be a brain capable of higher level cognitive functions. No legal conclusions are inherently true of the preceding fact.

You're forgetting one, but I'm sure you did so purposely.

[Conscentia]

No it's not. It really is not.
A constituent of the H. Sapiens species happens to be a brain capable of higher level cognitive functions. No legal conclusions are inherently true of the preceding fact.

You're forgetting one, but I'm sure you did so purposely.

I'm forgetting nothing.

[Arkolon]

You're forgetting one, but I'm sure you did so purposely.

I'm forgetting nothing.

Try and think a little harder, see if you remember it.

[Conscentia]

I'm forgetting nothing.

Try and think a little harder, see if you remember it.

That implies that you are not mistaken.

[Arkolon]

(Hey, your link was kind of relevant. No need to delete it.)

EDIT: I'm pretty sure of this one.

[Conscentia]

(Hey, your link was kind of relevant. No need to delete it.)

EDIT: I'm pretty sure of this one.

At the Underlined: How?

To the edit: Why? You are clearly wrong to claim that there are inherent legal conclusions to draw from neurological facts.

[Arkolon]

Hey, your link was kind of relevant. No need to delete it.

How?

I'd rather not derail the thread, but it wasn't not relevant, in any case.

[Arkolon]

(Hey, your link was kind of relevant. No need to delete it.)

EDIT: I'm pretty sure of this one.

At the Underlined: How?

To the edit: Why? You are clearly wrong to claim that there are inherent legal conclusions to draw from neurological facts.

The mind can own, and it has to own its constituent parts. The homo sapiens have a brain with big enough capacity to allow for the self-aware mind, which is supported by a body, which belongs, therefore, to the mind. Could you come up with something other than "you're wrong"; something with a little more substance, please?

[Conscentia]

At the Underlined: How?

To the edit: Why? You are clearly wrong to claim that there are inherent legal conclusions to draw from neurological facts.

The mind can own, and it has to own its constituent parts. The homo sapiens have a brain with big enough capacity to allow for the self-aware mind, which is supported by a body, which belongs, therefore, to the mind. Could you come up with something other than "you're wrong"; something with a little more substance, please?

No it cannot. Legal personalities can own. Nothing else can own, because propertarian ownership, as I've said many times before, refers to a relationship between people (ie. multiple legal persons) with respect to an object.

[Britannic Realms]

Are you asking if I own my body? If you are, then my answer is: of course I own my own body.

[Arkolon]

The mind can own, and it has to own its constituent parts. The homo sapiens have a brain with big enough capacity to allow for the self-aware mind, which is supported by a body, which belongs, therefore, to the mind. Could you come up with something other than "you're wrong"; something with a little more substance, please?

No it cannot. Legal personalities can own. Nothing else can own, because propertarian ownership, as I've said many times before, refers to a relationship between people (ie. multiple legal persons) with respect to an object.

Why?

[Arkolon]

Are you asking if I own my body? If you are, then my answer is: of course I own my own body.

Why?

[Conscentia]

No it cannot. Legal personalities can own. Nothing else can own, because propertarian ownership, as I've said many times before, refers to a relationship between people (ie. multiple legal persons) with respect to an object.

Why?

What do you mean "why?"?
Only legal personalities can own things, because, by definition, the legal relationships between legal personalities, like propertarian ownership, can apply only to legal personalities.

[Arkolon]

Why?

What do you mean "why?"?
Only legal personalities can own things, because, by definition, the legal relationships between legal personalities, like propertarian ownership, can apply only to legal personalities.

Again, that means that there is no such thing as people in the state of nature, which is ridiculous.

[Conscentia]

What do you mean "why?"?
Only legal personalities can own things, because, by definition, the legal relationships between legal personalities, like propertarian ownership, can apply only to legal personalities.

Again, that means that there is no such thing as people in the state of nature, which is ridiculous.

There are no such things as legal personalities in the state of nature. There are only humans. It's not ridiculous. It's inherently true.

[Arkolon]

Again, that means that there is no such thing as people in the state of nature, which is ridiculous.

There are no such things as legal personalities in the state of nature. There are only humans. It's not ridiculous. It's inherently true.

It is possible to own without legal institutions. My hand is mine even in anarchy. My house is mine even without a state. Its acquisition was legitimate, and its possession is equally so. Self-ownership is a basis for legitimacy, not legality.

[Conscentia]

There are no such things as legal personalities in the state of nature. There are only humans. It's not ridiculous. It's inherently true.

It is possible to own without legal institutions. My hand is mine even in anarchy. My house is mine even without a state. Its acquisition was legitimate, and its possession is equally so. Self-ownership is a basis for legitimacy, not legality.

No it isn't, because ownership is a legal institution.

Anarchy means no state, not anomie.

[Arkolon]

It is possible to own without legal institutions. My hand is mine even in anarchy. My house is mine even without a state. Its acquisition was legitimate, and its possession is equally so. Self-ownership is a basis for legitimacy, not legality.

No it isn't, because ownership is a legal institution.

Anarchy means no state, not anomie.

It is possible to own legitimately without legal institutions, then.

[Conscentia]

No it isn't, because ownership is a legal institution.
Anarchy means no state, not anomie.

It is possible to own legitimately without legal institutions, then.

You cannot own at all without legal institutions because ownership is a legal institution, ergo you cannot own either legitimately or illegitimately if there is no ownership.