Self-ownership

[Arkolon]

This doesn't answer my question. You're repeating yourself.

It does answer your question. I defined society for you, and told you at what point law is formalised. I just ignored your nonsense about percentages. There is no percentage in the definitions.

It's a sorites. You can't answer it because there is no answer. You're using an argument from vagueness, which means I can casually dismiss this as fallacious.

[Arkolon]

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

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

1. We are.

isn't very unfounded, is it?

[Conscentia]

It does answer your question. I defined society for you, and told you at what point law is formalised. I just ignored your nonsense about percentages. There is no percentage in the definitions.

It's a sorites. You can't answer it because there is no answer. You're using an argument from vagueness, which means I can casually dismiss this as fallacious.

I am not. I've been very clear. Do you not understand what a superorganism is?

[Zottistan]

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

1. We are.

isn't very unfounded, is it?

A lot of the points between "we are" and "we own ourselves" are fairly unfounded.

[Arkolon]

I know these things should be in order, but
7. "We" are 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.

Only under certain understandings of "owning" the slave.

How else would you want to own a slave? Shackle slavery is theft under the propertarian understanding of ownership that the argument for self-ownership uses, by the way.

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.

This doesn't explain anything. I asked how being constituted of something makes it belong to you, and you basically said that being constituted of something makes it belong to you.[/quote]
What else do you want me to say? How do the cells that make me not belong to me? How do the subatomic particles in the nuclei of cells that make me not belong to me?

Could you give me an alternative institution of owning?

We did this already, remember? Ownership as property, for an example.

Or no set-in-stone institution of ownership, which is what I subscribe to.

Each alternative institution of owning rests on one starter axiom that differs from institution to institution. Give me the starter axiom for alternative institutions of ownership, and we'll see just how baseless these things are in the first place.

The libertarian understanding of property, and its accumulation and transfer thereof, is based around self-ownership anyway. What this really boils down to is what I wrote above.

[Arkolon]

It's a sorites. You can't answer it because there is no answer. You're using an argument from vagueness, which means I can casually dismiss this as fallacious.

I am not. I've been very clear. Do you not understand what a superorganism is?

In your argument, it's a society. How much of a superorganism is needed for law to be correctly formalised, and why?

[Arkolon]

1. We are.

isn't very unfounded, is it?

A lot of the points between "we are" and "we own ourselves" are fairly unfounded.

Such as?

[Conscentia]

I am not. I've been very clear. Do you not understand what a superorganism is?

In your argument, it's a society. How much of a superorganism is needed for law to be correctly formalised, and why?

Read the post again.

A percentage of the society. Societies aren't defined very easily, and are mostly interconnecting. How many people, as a percentage of the society, would it take for a law to become formalised, if a written law between two people, that acts in the very same way as formal law does, is not considered formal law-- and why that exact number?

Well, looking at the Wikipedia article I conclude that a society, in the context of our usage, is a superorganism outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence, characterised by persistent interpersonal relationships.

The law of a society can be said to be formalised when a codified legal code is accepted by said society. That is, the enforcement of the aforementioned legal code is sufficiently successful as to regulate the behaviour of the superorganism.

If two people were to successfully separate from any other superorganism to form a distinct superorganism, they could formulate formal law to govern their tiny society. However, it is doubtful that only two humans could even form a superorganism.

Any objections to this conclusion?

[Zottistan]

A lot of the points between "we are" and "we own ourselves" are fairly unfounded.

Such as?

All the ways highlighted in my post earlier which you replied to above.

[Arkolon]

The law of a society can be said to be formalised when a codified legal code is accepted by said society. That is, the enforcement of the aforementioned legal code is sufficiently successful as to regulate the behaviour of the superorganism.

In a hypothetical animal society of 99 sheep and one sheepdog, where the sheepdog can round up the sheep as they are under their control, does this mean that the law of the sheepdog is formal law? Translate this to a human society: does the law of one man with a gun become formal law to the 99 unarmed individuals around them?

[Zottistan]

Only under certain understandings of "owning" the slave.

How else would you want to own a slave? Shackle slavery is theft under the propertarian understanding of ownership that the argument for self-ownership uses, by the way.

Wanting to own a slave has nothing to do with it.

The point is that these qualifiers (for example, that slaves can't own and that ownership comes with rights) are being defined into existence.

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.

This doesn't explain anything. I asked how being constituted of something makes it belong to you, and you basically said that being constituted of something makes it belong to you.

What else do you want me to say? How do the cells that make me not belong to me? How do the subatomic particles in the nuclei of cells that make me not belong to me?[/quote]
I want you to provide the reason that the cells that make you belong to you if you can, or admit that your reasoning is ultimately "just because", based on an artificial definition of "ownership".

We did this already, remember? Ownership as property, for an example.

Or no set-in-stone institution of ownership, which is what I subscribe to.

Each alternative institution of owning rests on one starter axiom that differs from institution to institution. Give me the starter axiom for alternative institutions of ownership, and we'll see just how baseless these things are in the first place.

Ownership as control: the only meaningful way to possess something in all contexts is by controlling it.

No set-in-stone institution of ownership: no starter axiom. It is the absence of a construct of ownership.

The libertarian understanding of property, and its accumulation and transfer thereof, is based around self-ownership anyway. What this really boils down to is what I wrote above.

Above where?

[Conscentia]

The law of a society can be said to be formalised when a codified legal code is accepted by said society. That is, the enforcement of the aforementioned legal code is sufficiently successful as to regulate the behaviour of the superorganism.

In a hypothetical animal society of 99 sheep and one sheepdog, where the sheepdog can round up the sheep as they are under their control, does this mean that the law of the sheepdog is formal law? Translate this to a human society: does the law of one man with a gun become formal law to the 99 unarmed individuals around them?

You have evidently never heard the term "superorganism" before.
I said "society" not "hostage situation".

[Arkolon]

In a hypothetical animal society of 99 sheep and one sheepdog, where the sheepdog can round up the sheep as they are under their control, does this mean that the law of the sheepdog is formal law? Translate this to a human society: does the law of one man with a gun become formal law to the 99 unarmed individuals around them?

You have evidently never heard the term "superorganism" before.
I said "society" not "hostage situation".

If formal law is decided by whoever has power over everyone else (as you said here:

The law of a society can be said to be formalised when a codified legal code is accepted by said society. That is, the enforcement of the aforementioned legal code is sufficiently successful as to regulate the behaviour of the superorganism.

), does a hostage situation-resembling microsociety of one man with a gun and ninety-nine without mean that the armed man gets to decide, justifiably, how these other people act? I'm just a little disappointed as to how you're trying to shove this questionable form of societal rule into your argument against self-ownership.

[Conscentia]

You have evidently never heard the term "superorganism" before.
I said "society" not "hostage situation".

If formal law is decided by whoever has power over everyone else (as you said here:

The law of a society can be said to be formalised when a codified legal code is accepted by said society. That is, the enforcement of the aforementioned legal code is sufficiently successful as to regulate the behaviour of the superorganism.

), does a hostage situation-resembling microsociety of one man with a gun and ninety-nine without mean that the armed man gets to decide, justifiably, how these other people act? I'm just a little disappointed as to how you're trying to shove this questionable form of societal rule into your argument against self-ownership.

I did not say that the law is necessarily just.

I'm not shoving anything anywhere. You are the one who brought up dictatorships. I never said I approved of dictatorships.

[Anollasia]

I'M A FREE SPIRIT!!!!

*anarchy*

[Arkolon]

If formal law is decided by whoever has power over everyone else (as you said here:

), does a hostage situation-resembling microsociety of one man with a gun and ninety-nine without mean that the armed man gets to decide, justifiably, how these other people act? I'm just a little disappointed as to how you're trying to shove this questionable form of societal rule into your argument against self-ownership.

I did not say that the law is necessarily just.

I'm not shoving anything anywhere. You are the one who brought up dictatorships. I never said I approved of dictatorships.

It would be logically inconsistent of you not to approve of dictatorships.

[Prezelly]

At the moment i do not own myself because i live in the US under the age of 18. So my parents own me

[Anollasia]

At the moment i do not own myself because i live in the US under the age of 18. So my parents own me

That makes it sound like you're a slave or pet.

[Arkolon]

At the moment i do not own myself because i live in the US under the age of 18. So my parents own me

But ostensibly you can think for yourself. For that reason, you own yourself regardless of what your parents say.

[Prezelly]

At the moment i do not own myself because i live in the US under the age of 18. So my parents own me

But ostensibly you can think for yourself. For that reason, you own yourself regardless of what your parents say.

I am legally bound to listen to my parents. I cannot do much without them outside of my house. Loans from the bank, doctors visits, cant do it

[Arkolon]

But ostensibly you can think for yourself. For that reason, you own yourself regardless of what your parents say.

I am legally bound to listen to my parents. I cannot do much without them outside of my house. Loans from the bank, doctors visits, cant do it

Forget the law in your area. To whom does your hand belong to? To whom do your thoughts belong to?

[Prezelly]

I am legally bound to listen to my parents. I cannot do much without them outside of my house. Loans from the bank, doctors visits, cant do it

Forget the law in your area. To whom does your hand belong to? To whom do your thoughts belong to?

Myself, who do I owe for the hand and my thoughts? Who influenced my thoughts throughout my life? Parents

[Arkolon]

Forget the law in your area. To whom does your hand belong to? To whom do your thoughts belong to?

Myself, who do I owe for the hand and my thoughts? Who influenced my thoughts throughout my life? Parents

Good thing this thread isn't called Self-influence or "Who has influenced your life the most?", huh?

[Conscentia]

I did not say that the law is necessarily just.
I'm not shoving anything anywhere. You are the one who brought up dictatorships. I never said I approved of dictatorships.

It would be logically inconsistent of you not to approve of dictatorships.

On the contrary. Approval of dictatorships would be a logical contradiction of my advocacy of democracy and my borderline communist position.

[Prezelly]

Myself, who do I owe for the hand and my thoughts? Who influenced my thoughts throughout my life? Parents

Good thing this thread isn't called Self-influence or "Who has influenced your life the most?", huh?

It is
Still, they own me in at least one sense