ProfessionalTeabagger

No.

Thanks but I'm asking if you think any part of it is wrong. If it is not wrong then do you concede the statist's objection has been refuted? To sum up my rebuttal, it is - An act of aggression necessarily involves the initiation or threat of the use of force or fraud. Exhaling carbon dioxide does not involve the initiation or threat of the use of force or fraud. Therefore exhaling carbon dioxide is not an act of aggression.

Hi there. I believe I have refuted your argument? Could you tell me if I have not and where my rebuttal fails?

Lack of consent is not the same as withholding consent. If the person having to breathe the same air wants to argue that it's an act of aggression then they will be subject to that same argument.

I DID provide an argument. I gave you examples of acts of force that cannot logically be coercion. What do you mean "with out the consent" . Do you mean if EXPLICIT consent is not given at every single possible moment for everything? Everything would simultaneously be aggression and non-aggression at the same time. Why don't you just take it to the final level of nihilist retardation and say "Well all events involving the interaction particles technically are acts of force so really isn't EVERYHING force? Ha HA checkmate Mister anarchist. Rape's no different from wind blowing. Ha ha! It's all just particles. Ha ha."

Lack of consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for coercion. The rapist doesn't consent to being hit when a woman is defending herself. Does that mean the actions against the rapist are aggression? NO, they're defensive. Did President Obama get your consent to wear a blue tie? You are FORCED to look at the blue tie if you happen to see a tv screen. Did you you get my consent to to respond to this comment? Maybe I will take back my consent for that in the next 30 seconds. Does that mean you are now attacking me if you respond? Did you get consent for everything you did today? Did you get consent to get consent? Did you get consent to get consent to get consent? Jesus wept.

COERCION! The child not being coerced. Coercion necessarily involves that the thing be unwanted. There is no logical possibility of a child not wanting to be born, only an an adult not wanting to have been born.

There's no coercion. It's offensive to even have to respond to questions from such cretins. Don't spend too much time on these people. The "lack of consent for anything = coercion" argument is young earth creationist level thinking. If they persist, just pat them on the head and move on to people who are not trying to waste your time.

This question has been answered for you several times and the dishonest nature of the question has been pointed out. To ask "what gives that parent the right to force life upon another being" is to presuppose the life is "forced" onto someone. If it was "forced" onto someone then by definition (as it's not self-defense) it would be immoral. The question is prejudicial. That's a logical fallacy called begging the question. If you want to argue that procreation is coercive force then make the argument. Don't presuppose it is and then ask questions based on that presupposition. Stop fucking doing it.

That problem you have is a problem you have created. It's not that that I'm using an "is" claim to describe something that isn't there but that YOU are describing something that isn't there in the argument. This "obligation to others" thing is something you imported. That I own the car is a fact. Your acknowledgement of that fact doesn't confer any obligation on you. Obligations are chosen.

I guess "in control" would refer to the specific moment of active engagement with Property X to the exclusion of others. Control would be more broad and refer to past, present and future. I don't think so. One can make an is claim that is also an ought claim. If I say this is my book that I authored then that is an IS claim. But it can also have oughts embedded in it. Like "so you ought not claim YOU wrote it". Maybe you are in some dispute and you shout "This is my book!". That's a factual statement but it may also contain an implicit claim that the person I'm shouting at ought not say otherwise. Is and ought are only mutually exclusive in terms of the Humean fallacy. With the car example it might be helpful to imagine the car as a person working for 6 months (that's how long to earn to money for the car). Instead of imagining the thief stealing the car imagine them stealing the time and labor. The thief has stolen and taken control of the fruits of that labor. So the work you did in the past was, unbeknownst to you, actually for THEM. The theft is essentially an act of slavery. This makes sense when you put slavery on the same continuum as rape, theft, murder and assault. They are all degrees of the same thing; property violations. The closer to the self the more egregious the violation.

Why can't it be both?

Your body is created by you (and your parents who ideally relinquished control at an appropriate time). If someone violates it then that person is claiming a right over your body which they simultaneously deny you. They do not own those parts of you that they're violating but they are controlling them to some degree. Similarly the car is created by you and is an extension or part of yourself. It is a manifestation of your time and labor, etc just as much as your body/mind is. When the thief steals it he is violating you as the car is part of you. He claims ownership of the car but does not HAVE legitimate ownership of the car. Control does not equal ownership. When we say "Self-ownership is control over your body" we don't just mean you happen to be IN control of it at some given time or moment. There's much more to it. If you want to make the "product of time/labor = property. Baby = product of time and labor, therefore baby equals property. Property can be destroyed therefore baby can be destroyed" kind of argument then go ahead.

Self ownership DOES entail human beings own themselves as private property. Private property is practically a synonym for self ownership. Your body is your property and it is private. You can’t get much more private than the property of your self. People can voluntarily damage, enslave or destroy that property but they will be affirming self-ownership and private property to do so. I’m not conflating the “is” of bodily control with the “ought” of self-ownership. You are doing that by projecting your view of self-ownership as a solely normative claim onto the argument. Self-ownership is a fact. It doesn’t just stop at “bodily control”. It is a fact that I own the effects of my voluntary actions. I am responsible for them and they can be attributed to me. They are mine. I own them. It is a fact that I own myself. It cannot be any other way. "Friedman is explicitly arguing against argumentation ethics in that extract" Well then Friedman’s the silly one. You don’t have to be in an ancap society to have “full” self ownership. That’d be like saying because you have to have full self ownership to fully own property then because you do not live in a society that permits you to own property therefore you do not have full self ownership. Even a slave has full self-ownership. That’s WHY it’s slavery and not legitimate use of property. If you really believe that “that all libertarians except Stefan think self ownership means .. whatever you said” then how do you explain the libertarians you’re talking to? To sorta quote Kevin, “What are we? Chopped liver?” The thief is IN control of the physical car but does not control the car in the sense that he does not control the time and labor that went into the car. The thief has taken THAT but he does not control it. The thief can never be the person who created the car and as such can never have legitimate ownership of the car. That's why he's a thief. Remember, ownership entails control but control does not necessarily entail ownership. You answered this question by pointing out "we already established that". Control of X does not necessarily mean always IN control of X. That's an stupifiyingly literal interpretation. The person who created the car owns the car. They have that relationship to the car that no one else has. It is an extension of themselves. But it can never be an extension of the thief's self. He can never have rightful ownership of it because rightful ownership must come from self ownership. I do not wish to go watch a video to refresh myself on the context of that particular statement of Stef's. In certain contexts it might be a rights claim, in others not. What IS a rights claim anyway? A thief in a sense makes an implicit kind of rights claim when he steals your car. He claims a right to own the car even if he makes no explicit normative claim.

It's a kind of illegitimate ownership called theft. The car is a manifestation of the rightful owner's time and labor. The thief cannot logically claim ownership of that.

It is an argument because I have defined the terms I'm using and proven these definitions are valid by supporting them with empirical evidence. Self-ownership (I own myself, you own yourself) is exclusive control of of ones body. It is a fact of reality that I control my body, therefore self-ownership is a fact. The effects of my voluntary actions are owned by me. I maintain and use my body to create these effects. YOU are assigning ownership of these effects TO me when you wrongly claim that I'm just "asserting" an argument. It's because of these things that logically follow from having exclusive control of one's self that the term self-ownership or ownership is applied. I think Friedman meant that people are exercising self ownership and have homesteaded in order to argue the truth of propositions regardless of the society. Even slaves require self-ownership to do this. I suspect the critics think that violating self-ownership means removing it or part of it; like if someones is forcibly claiming ownership of you, you can't have full self-ownership. It might be a bit like arguing that if a woman is repeatedly being raped then she no longer has a full vagina.

Probably. I'm pretty sure it would have occurred Hoppe that one can still debate with parts of the body missing. FFS. It's like if Stef argues that you have exclusive control of your body and some boring jackass points out that we DON'T control AAAAALLLL of our body because you know actually the heart actually pumps blood and teeeeechnically you don't control it and you knoooow teeechnically some parts of the body control you and blahdee blah blah... I don't know that much about Hoppe's particular view and I'll maybe read the rest of it sometime. Also at least one of the writers is a devout Christian. It kinda annoys me when when people apply such skepticism to various concepts of self-ownership but continue to believe crazy supernatural bullshit.

When it got to the part where they argued that a collectivist could claim he can take someones kidney because technically they could still debate with one kidney I stopped reading. This is so much like a certain kind of criticism Stef's arguments gets.

It's best not to alter my argument and then conclude something based on that alteration. Human beings own themselves as private property. That way they have to volunteer the time/labor, etc that is all part of their private property. Private property ownership is a fact. I own myself. That is a fact of reality. You own yourself. That is a fact of reality. As long as we both interact in a voluntary manner then neither of us is claiming a right that we deny the other. But something like the state must necessarily interact with people in a coercive manner.

Because I own it. I AM me and can't not own myself. It's private property. It's not un-owned, right? It can't be publicly owned (leaving aside possibly ways to volunteer for that) because I am part of the public. It can't be partly publicly owned, right? The state is initiating force against me when they tax. They use force and that force is initiated. Words and concepts can have different senses and be used in different contexts.

No, the factual descriptive nature of property is the basis of property rights. Whenever the government taxes you it claims a right to tax you whether explicitly or implicitly. As such it claims a right to forcibly take part of your property while denying you the same right. You can test this starting out with the fact of property/selfownership and then playing through a scenario were some party begins to assert rights. Exist is meant in two different senses. For example, the scientific method does not exist (externally to human consciousness) but in another sense it does exist and is objective because it is derived from objective reality. Similarly, property rights are derived from the objective fact of self-ownership. These rights do not exist in reality but they exist in another sense and are objective.

Aggression is the initiation of force. Issues of rights/ morality come up when people interact. Your body is your property and you will have have property rights.

I'm assigning ownership of it to Michael Moore.

Are you here to talk about Stef's definition or Rothbards? It's also worth mentioning that the article "Reading the ethics of liberty, Part 3 Rothbard's confusion about self-ownership" was written by the leftist Michael Moore. So it might be biased.