Self-ownership

[Conscentia]

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?

Again, ownership is a legal institution. One cannot "forget the law" when discussing ownership because ownership is part of the law.

[Salandriagado]

No, "proof" is a very specific word. A proof is a list of statements, each of which is either designated an axiom or a logical consequence of the statements going before it, one of which is designated the conclusion. They don't have "contexts": they have explicitly mentioned axioms.

That wasn't my whole proof. I never even called it proof. You're shoving words into my mouth; you're the only one who's upset because the axiomatic list doesn't satisfy your definition of the word "proof", telling me that it isn't, therefore, proof. My question is, honestly: so what? It's not proof. Stop looking for proof in something that is not proof. It is, quite evidently, an explanation of the context above the alternatively-formatted text you call "proof".

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.

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.

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.

The state doesn't belong to the people with my three-point proof list. Again, my mistake.

The proof I gave is not provably false. There is one exception to what B can be because of the necessary owner-owned dichotomy: B cannot be an owner. Your argument only holds because you disregarded a fundamental component of property.

[Jello Biafra]

I assume you post on here because you enjoy it and not because someone is paying you to.
Or alternatively, society might provide you with rewards, such as protection, food, and housing.

Sure, but that's because this is a personal kink of mine. Filing cabinets, conducting research or working in an assembly line isn't what I would call fun, and I seriously doubt that every labourer does what they do simply because they enjoy it. There is an obvious monetary incentive behind it. By the way, where would food, houses, and protection spawn from if there is no one to create them? Wouldn't a central authority have to necessarily be created for this reason?

Why would there be no one to create them? Are people going to forget how to do those things?

[Apparatchikstan]

If I don't own me, who does?

[Salandriagado]

If I don't own me, who does?

Nobody. Which is a very good thing, because ownership requires the ability to sell, so you should be very glad that we don't allow people to own themselves. Contract slavery is a shitty thing. You do, however, have a right of exclusive use over yourself, which is all you ever need.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If I don't own me, who does?

Everyone.

[Apparatchikstan]

If I don't own me, who does?

Everyone.

Well, there's no deed of title on file, and I never got a check. However, anyone wanting to come claim me is welcome to try. I hold open house all day every day.

[Apparatchikstan]

If I don't own me, who does?

Nobody. Which is a very good thing, because ownership requires the ability to sell, so you should be very glad that we don't allow people to own themselves. Contract slavery is a shitty thing. You do, however, have a right of exclusive use over yourself, which is all you ever need.

How progressive. Tell me, what amorphous entity so graciously granted me an exclusive right that I already entered the world with? By the way, contract slavery is an oxymoron.

[Arkolon]

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.

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but control of the people through any means is how you defined formal law. Either you're going to have to change your decision, or accept that, under your terminology, dictatorships are justified.

[Arkolon]

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.

That which is owned cannot own for itself. A house can't have property. A slave can't have property. An individual human being can have property. A master can have property. It's evident of all concepts of property. Ownership as control: only that which has a mind can control. Ownership as everyone being remunerated for their contributions: only that which has a mind can contribute to society (an organisation of minds). A hammer can't have property. Even as a joke institution of property, it just can't.

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?

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".

I have, many times. Look back at the hylomorphism analogies, the master-slave analogies, the brick house analogies, etc. I'd only be repeating myself.

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 first justifies theft and, to a lesser extent, rape. The second one is a waste of time because there will always exist a construct of ownership. For both: what can own, and what cannot be owned?

[Arkolon]

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

Again, ownership is a legal institution. One cannot "forget the law" when discussing ownership because ownership is part of the law.

One legal institution could legalise rape. Does that legitimise rape? And why not?

[Arkolon]

Sure, but that's because this is a personal kink of mine. Filing cabinets, conducting research or working in an assembly line isn't what I would call fun, and I seriously doubt that every labourer does what they do simply because they enjoy it. There is an obvious monetary incentive behind it. By the way, where would food, houses, and protection spawn from if there is no one to create them? Wouldn't a central authority have to necessarily be created for this reason?

Why would there be no one to create them? Are people going to forget how to do those things?

What would be the point in creating them?

[Conscentia]

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

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but control of the people through any means is how you defined formal law. Either you're going to have to change your decision, or accept that, under your terminology, dictatorships are justified.

Lies. I defined formal law as an applied codified legal code.
Law could indeed be formalised that way, but I did not say I approved of it. At no point did I ever claim that the law is inherently just or inherently arises by just means.

[Conscentia]

Again, ownership is a legal institution. One cannot "forget the law" when discussing ownership because ownership is part of the law.

One legal institution could legalise rape. Does that legitimise rape? And why not?

What do you mean when you say "legitimise"?

[Zottistan]

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.

That which is owned cannot own for itself. A house can't have property. A slave can't have property. An individual human being can have property. A master can have property. It's evident of all concepts of property. Ownership as control: only that which has a mind can control. Ownership as everyone being remunerated for their contributions: only that which has a mind can contribute to society (an organisation of minds). A hammer can't have property. Even as a joke institution of property, it just can't.

A person can have property and at the same time be the property of somebody else.

A hammer is incapable of owning. But that has nothing to do with it being property. That has to do with the fact that it's a hammer.

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".

I have, many times. Look back at the hylomorphism analogies, the master-slave analogies, the brick house analogies, etc. I'd only be repeating myself.

You'd be repeating yourself because those aren't satisfactory answers. As I've said at least as many times as you've brought them up, they're all artificial.

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 first justifies theft and, to a lesser extent, rape. The second one is a waste of time because there will always exist a construct of ownership. For both: what can own, and what cannot be owned?

Justifying rape and theft doesn't make it less valid, just less preferable.

There will always exist a construct of ownership because ownership is a construct. It's useful, but pretending it's objective or that the reasoning behind it is ultimately anything other than "just because" is silly.

For the first: anything conscious can own, anything at all can be owned.
For the second: the question isn't addressed.

We'v had this exact same conversation already, at least twice. I might just drop out, since we're going in circles.

[Arkolon]

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but control of the people through any means is how you defined formal law. Either you're going to have to change your decision, or accept that, under your terminology, dictatorships are justified.

Lies. I defined formal law as an applied codified legal code.
Law could indeed be formalised that way, but I did not say I approved of it. At no point did I ever claim that the law is inherently just or inherently arises by just means.

So what do you approve of? I'd rather hear that than what you previously gave.

[Arkolon]

One legal institution could legalise rape. Does that legitimise rape? And why not?

What do you mean when you say "legitimise"?

Render acceptable, either morally, legally, or both.

[Arkolon]

That which is owned cannot own for itself. A house can't have property. A slave can't have property. An individual human being can have property. A master can have property. It's evident of all concepts of property. Ownership as control: only that which has a mind can control. Ownership as everyone being remunerated for their contributions: only that which has a mind can contribute to society (an organisation of minds). A hammer can't have property. Even as a joke institution of property, it just can't.

A person can have property and at the same time be the property of somebody else.

A hammer is incapable of owning. But that has nothing to do with it being property. That has to do with the fact that it's a hammer.

What about it being a hammer makes it incapable of owning?

I have, many times. Look back at the hylomorphism analogies, the master-slave analogies, the brick house analogies, etc. I'd only be repeating myself.

You'd be repeating yourself because those aren't satisfactory answers. As I've said at least as many times as you've brought them up, they're all artificial.

If you ask "Why?" enough times, absolutely everything boils down to "just because". Why is there gravity? Why are there clouds? Why? Why this; why that? Refuting my claims on the grounds that they might boil down to "just because" would make it logically inconsistent of you to accept gravity, the water cycle, science, and oblivion itself, as they too are grounded in this "just because".

The first justifies theft and, to a lesser extent, rape. The second one is a waste of time because there will always exist a construct of ownership. For both: what can own, and what cannot be owned?

There will always exist a construct of ownership because ownership is a construct. It's useful, but pretending it's objective or that the reasoning behind it is ultimately anything other than "just because" is silly.

Regardless of whichever institution of ownership you can come up with, you would still own yourself, as a) your body is being controlled by you, b) you were born with the body, c) you are your body. . .

For the first: anything conscious can own, anything at all can be owned.

So you agree with me that only that which can think can own?

[Conscentia]

Lies. I defined formal law as an applied codified legal code.
Law could indeed be formalised that way, but I did not say I approved of it. At no point did I ever claim that the law is inherently just or inherently arises by just means.

So what do you approve of? I'd rather hear that than what you previously gave.

Well too bad that it's irrelevant to the topic.

[Zottistan]

A person can have property and at the same time be the property of somebody else.

A hammer is incapable of owning. But that has nothing to do with it being property. That has to do with the fact that it's a hammer.

What about it being a hammer makes it incapable of owning?

The fact that it doesn't have a consciousness. Slaves do.

You'd be repeating yourself because those aren't satisfactory answers. As I've said at least as many times as you've brought them up, they're all artificial.

If you ask "Why?" enough times, absolutely everything boils down to "just because". Why is there gravity? Why are there clouds? Why? Why this; why that? Refuting my claims on the grounds that they might boil down to "just because" would make it logically inconsistent of you to accept gravity, the water cycle, science, and oblivion itself, as they too are grounded in this "just because".

The whole point of the OP was explaining why you're reasoning wasn't "just because".

There will always exist a construct of ownership because ownership is a construct. It's useful, but pretending it's objective or that the reasoning behind it is ultimately anything other than "just because" is silly.

Regardless of whichever institution of ownership you can come up with, you would still own yourself, as a) your body is being controlled by you, b) you were born with the body, c) you are your body. . .

It would allow other people to partially own you by controlling you.

For the first: anything conscious can own, anything at all can be owned.

So you agree with me that only that which can think can own?

Yeah.

[Arkolon]

So what do you approve of? I'd rather hear that than what you previously gave.

Well too bad that it's irrelevant to the topic.

Oh, so suddenly institutions of property are irrelevant to self-ownership?

So the last, what, twenty pages have been a waste of time?

[The Confederal Republic]

Mutualist here.

Explain to me the difference between my definition of self-ownership vs yours. I define self-ownership as owning yourself, simply meaning that you are not property to be bought, sold, or rented for any amount of capital; you own you, and nobody else can change that. A man should not be property, and is not property.

What exactly is the ancap definition of self-ownership compared to my own? I see your justification of it, but do not understand entirely our differences towards it.

[Conscentia]

What do you mean when you say "legitimise"?

Render acceptable, either morally, legally, or both.

The legalisation of rape would by definition legally legitimise it, but not necessarily morally - that really depends on one's ethics. For most people, rape is immoral.

As an ethical nihilist, I reject all prescriptive ethics. Only descriptive ethics and ethology are relevant. Identifying what I think is right and why, as opposed to what I should think is right. (Because answering questions about "should" is futile, with all answers being artificial and ultimately baseless, given that our behaviour and character is beyond our control anyway - they are products of causality.)

I can assure you that I do not consider rape to be ethically legitimate, even if it is legal.

[Conscentia]

Well too bad that it's irrelevant to the topic.

Oh, so suddenly institutions of property are irrelevant to self-ownership?

So the last, what, twenty pages have been a waste of time?

What? Seriously, what are you talking about? I said no such thing.

[Twilight Imperium]

What do you mean when you say "legitimise"?

Render acceptable, either morally, legally, or both.

Obviously if something is legalized, it's henceforth legally acceptable. Morally is a stickier matter.

Let's bring this back a bit. What does it mean to "own" something?

According to Wikipedia, "Determining ownership in law involves determining who has certain rights and duties over the property." Merriam-Webster says that it means to have or hold as property, or to have power or mastery over something. Arkolon says that it's something natural, not dissimilar from gravity, and objective from the demands of mortal men. Others say it's the domain and definition of law alone.

Until we can agree on what it means to "own" anything, we won't agree on who owns ourselves.