labmath2

I think the idea people try to express when they say something like wage slave is exploitation of the weak. In an interview, Peter Schiff was talked about how the minimum wage law led to increased unemployment and when he was asked if there was any group he would pay $2.00 and hour to, he said "mentally retarded." While i see the economic genius in doing such a thing (since they would most likely not get a job otherwise and so $2.00 an hour is the most they can hope for), i cannot help but cringe at the thought of the idea. Many people who worked at a job they hated know the only reason they did not leave as soon as it became uncomfortable for them is because they would be worse off by leaving the job. As long as supply for a service is greater than demand for the service, workers will have to bend to their employers will. I think about the push of mass media for everyone to learn programming that is going on now and i am almost certain they are trying to flood the market with programmers so they can pay them less than they are currently playing them now.

There is one thing that bothers me in the argument and its not that it could lead to bad outcome since Stefan says do not look to outcome, but to process. The problem is the obvious situation coercion, the child depending on you for survival, which makes the child much more susceptible to abuse of this kind. I think people underestimate the power of creating environments that forces people do things they would not normally do even in the absence of physical coercion.

I think child interaction is still one of those areas where it is hard to come to any conclusion. I think what you are arguing, which is interesting, is that one could enter a contract with his child which makes spanking morally justifiable. I could be wrong, but i will try to explain, at least the way i understand it, the way the argument is posed. I have a 6 year old son and i negotiate with him. In order to negotiate with him, he has to have the capacity for reason and to freely make a decision within the scope of what we are discussing. Assuming we are discussing him interacting with other children and i explain to him that hitting other children is bad because it makes them feel bad ... At the end of the discussion, i say if you do hit someone else, then i get to decide if there are enough mitigating circumstances to make it justifiable (i.e self defense). If there is no such circumstance, then you will receive some form of punishment. If the child understands and agrees, then there is no violation of NAP since its voluntary, if he disagrees, then we can renegotiate till we reach some acceptable conclusion. However, if the child cannot understand me for one reason or the other, then the spanking will act as conditioning since negotiation is off the table.

Cynicist, I am not sure you make a distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. philosophical claims emerge from the a priori knowledge and scientific claims emerge from a posteriori knowledge. In my experience, a priori knowledge is true by definition, or by assumption. If it is true by definition then it cannot be falsified, but if it is true by assumption, if you can prove the assumption is false, then the conclusion is false. The difficulty i am having with grasping libertarian philosophy is that i am not sure if it is true by definition or by assumption.

I know the two are different, but in the right context you can make them sound the same. Politicians use plural nouns as much as possible to make the two appear synonymous (America, This great nation, We, The American people e.t.c).

I find the first post interesting, but i do not think the average person thinks i support collectivism, i think what they support is cooperation. I think it is the case that some level of cooperation is intrinsic in our systems. The problem is the average person think more cooperation (collectivism) should make us even more better off.

If what you are saying is true, then the only problem i am having is in understanding how you go from the descriptive claim of self ownership to making value judgement. In my experience, value judgement is internal and descriptive claim is external. To give an example, we can verify if someone did something, i.e I built a car, but whether that is moral or immoral is internal since it is value we assign to the action.

What would full control over a situation look like. I assume your decision are also restricted by nature and other peoples choices to some degree. What makes this instance wrong, but those other instances okay. If i had to answer the question, i will say the difference with the gunman is that you are conscious of threat coming from another person. If there was a threat from another person, but you are not conscious of it, then it cannot influence your decision. If you are conscious of a threat, but it is not from another person, while it influences your decision, we do not really care. There are other things to consider as well, like how believable the threat is and whether it really influenced your choice. Other instances where other people's choice influence your decision is ignored since it is not in he form of threat. My understanding of threat is not a result of self ownership, just intuition about what is right and wrong.

Yep i agree. But again, ownership defined as Moral right to control makes C untestable since it is not an empirical thing we can check for. Before you answer for C, what do you and Stefan mean by universalizable? I have heard Stefan say that you cannot universalize that everyone ought to act in such a way as to maximize their happiness. His argument is that some people acting to maximize their happiness infringes on other people's happiness, but that theory says nothing about you acting to maximize other people's happiness so there is no explicit contradiction.

Now i see the problem, It was my misunderstanding. but there is still a problem with the leap. i will add a clause into statement B to show you the missing link. --B-- All physical entities either can or can't be owned (by what?), there is no other possibility and they are mutually exclusive. Agree? If no, then explain, if yes then: Yes i agree. --C-- All the universe of possibilities that exist regarding the ownership of individuals (how did you go from ownership of physical entities to ownership of individuals?) are mutually exclusive and one has to be true if we are to find an objective, universal and consistent theory of morality that can be applied to reality. That universe is composed by the following possibilities: 1) No one owns anyone 2) Everyone owns everyone 3) Some own others 4) Every person owns his/herself If B is consistently followed, C would look more like this. --C-- All the universe of possibilities that exist regarding the ownership of things are mutually exclusive and one has to be true if we are to find an objective, universal and consistent theory of morality that can be applied to reality. That universe is composed by the following possibilities: 1) Nothing owns anything 2) Everything owns everything 3) Some things own other things 4) Everything owns itself. A more appropriate B for your c is more like this. --B-- All humans either can or can't be owned, there is no other possibility and they are mutually exclusive. Agree? If no, then explain, if yes then, In order to accept any answer to your C, then we need to actually apply a testable definition of ownership. Ownership as moral right to control is not a testable hypothesis. In your exclusion of 1,2, and 3, you had to use some testable hypothesis of ownership. The reason i say a testable hypothesis is needed is so we can check all situations (theoretically) to see if it holds. From my current understanding of ownership, 4 is not always true, there are conditions that have to be satisfied for 4 to be true. One of those conditions is that i have to be alive for me to won myself. If i modify 3 to say some people own you sometimes, this is not necessarily false (when you are a child, when you are dead, when you are mentally insane...). Of course in --B-- we already restricted ownership to humans for C to follow, otherwise there needs to be another step between B and C to say some things cannot own things.

I feel like i have said this a lot but there is till confusion. First for me to properly answer that question i have to know what it means to own. IN the case of can all humans fly, i would have to understand what you mean by fly to answer the question. If you mean get inside a plane and be lifted up into the air, then yes, however if you mean spontaneously lifting off the floor, then no. We have to be on the same page about what exactly you are referring. It is for this reason that i keep asking you to explain what you mean by own. If i ask what would be sufficient for someone to be considered flying, you may say as long as their leg is not touching the ground, they are flying. Of course after some thought i will point out that if i am in a pool, my leg may not necessarily touch the ground, then you will refine the definition till what you mean by flying is so well defined there is no misunderstanding. Only after what that means can i answer the question can all humans fly. Do the same thing for ownership so that what you mean by someone owing something is so well defined that it excludes all instances that someones does not own something, but includes every instance of someone owing something. Once that is clear, then whether all physical entities can be owned can be tested against your definition (condition sufficient for ownership) and if there is no exception, then all physical entities can be owned, but if there is one exception, then all physical entities cannot be owned. If in fact all physical entities cannot be owned, then --C-- in the list you made does not follow I hope this is more clear.

I am confused, i was under the impression you claim you do not own your action when you have a gun to your head, not because you don't have exclusive control, but because you do not have full control. I am simply pointing out that i do not understand what you mean by you do not have full control as it would seem you never have full control. However, it is still the case that you have exclusive control over your actions (you are not being physically forced to act). Moral right to control is no less confusing than own. If to own is to have moral right to control, then how does one gain moral right to control and what is sufficient for moral right to control? If i may point out, own in the sense moral right to control is an axiom, because it not descriptive, but prescriptive.

What would full control look like. I cannot control myself to spontaneously fly so please explain. It is this point that needs evaluation. In what sense do you mean own? If control is necessary for ownership, then there are physical entities i cannot own because i cannot control them. If of course you mean own in a different sense, let me know. You can try many coming up with substitutes for own till you come up with something simpler. What is sufficient for ownership?

I think i understand now. The problem i had with the concept of self ownership is that you claim it arises naturally, as if its a description of something that already exists. However, self ownership is a prescription, an axiom, from which all other libertarian idea follow. Self ownership itself is assumed, instead of proven. The reason i emphasize this point is that many libertarians seem to assume there are only two positions, the acceptance of self ownership, or the denial of self ownership. There are other philosophies based on slightly different axioms that can also be generalized and have different consequences for the philosophy. An example is self autonomy by left libertarians, which does not see the self as a property, but the self as an agent and instead of straight ownership, advocates occupancy and use. Of course this has its problems as well, but you get the point, Another possibility is self control, in this case the mind is seen as the unit of control and the body its "puppet." In which case, we all try to increase the amount of control we exert and while others can exert control over things we used to control in our absence, we cannot control anything once our mind is gone. In this sense, we not only compete with others for control, we also compete with nature for control. I am sure if we subject each of these philosophies to the Socratic method, it will fail at some point because it is not a descriptive (except for maybe the self control, but i am not sure it gives rise to any real philosophy on which to build a society, since it simply describes what we observe) claim. The reason i am being really careful with details is that many of the old philosophers tell you this is what i assume to be true, and if it holds in all situations, then everything else i derived from it holds. I have not yet seen a libertarian do that kind of presentation of libertarian philosophy, they simply seem to claim libertarian philosophy always holds regardless of the conditions. If that is true, then it is a descriptive claim, and i have yet to encounter any such claim that can also help us make value judgement (good or evil) without relying on some assumption. Of course you can say libertarian ethics only tell us if someone has violated NAP, which in itself is neither good nor evil (not virtuous), so their is no obligation to follow NAP. In the realm of science and morality, I personally prefer Sam Harris' approach. We can certainly measure if an individual is better physically or psychologically in one state relative to another, and if the intention is to maximize each individuals physical and psychological well being, then we can try different rules and see which help us achieve this condition. A rule such as thou shalt not kill seems pretty self explanatory, but there are some areas which are much more difficult and i am willing to concede libertarian philosophy probably has the best solutions to date for those areas.. At this point i can only assume some people will roll their eyes and say well such a society will not have principles. I agree, but if there arises a situation where principles make people demonstrably worse off (one of those extreme examples people bring up, like life boat scenario), we should be willing to say if we are in the same situation, we would probably do the same thing and so should make it an exception. I think this sums up my perspective and if you disagree, well thanks for reading anyways.

The problem i have with your logic in the video is that you already assume self ownership before proving self ownership. You do not cite what criteria must be satisfied for self ownership. You state two criteria to my knowledge that is necessary, which is control and reason, but you claim even if i do not control myself, self ownership still holds. When you say reason, You seem to assume human reasoning. For something to learn, there has to be a belief (an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists) system. An example of this is Pavlov's dog believing there is food after a bell rings even if there is no food, of course it then confirms this belief with its senses. You keep stating the person with a gun to his head has only two choices, in reality he has a plethora of choices, he can sing, dance etc. He cannot choose what the gunman does, but he can certainly choose what he does and his choices in this area are not limited to the gunman's demands.

Your first response seems to imply that by definition, and not criteria, humans can own themselves. You could just say by definition humans are the only living things we think have the capacity for self ownership. Your response to the gunman situation is still confusing for me. You use the word force, but there is no use of force by the gunman, unless you say threat of use of force is itself the use of force. If you mean b is in a situation he did not choose, well that is true of many of B's interaction with people. B did not choose to be born, does not choose how people perceive him, e.t.c. I will appreciate if you can be a little more clear by what you see as the problem. You keep focusing on the fact that there is a threat, but he can still say no to the gunman, but if he chooses to hand over his wallet, then we would have to agree it was a choice by someone with self ownership and hence a valid choice. For the third part, animals are capable of reason if that definition is applied. Since animals can learn (for example a dog), then it is the case that they are consciously making sense of things, applying some logic for establishing and verifying facts, institution and belief based on new or existing information. If this were not possible, then they could not learn. I am not sure what you mean by exclusive control. It certainly is the case that you don't control certain aspect of your body and mind (like who you find attractive or if you are hungry). Even if we ignore the lack of complete control, we could still say you have exclusive control, but if someone were to put a gun to your head and demand your wallet, are you still in exclusive control? If you are, then handing over your wallet does not violate your property rights, if you are not, then you do not seem to own yourself. It is not that you should have higher right, but that you do have higher right because i am not in a position to oppose your control over me. Of course this has no ethical implication, it is just a description of events. We can always add a clause saying no one ought to control anyone else. This argument is just to say that is an alternative theory to self ownership that could be explained by the same evidence for self ownership. Actually self control kind of fails when you add the claim you ought not control anyone else because it is the case that you ought to control your children till they can control themselves. This test of theory and possible revision is the process i am looking for.

I think it will be easier to simply state what is sufficient for self ownership. The argument with the gunman is not dispelled by stating the interaction was started by him pointing a gun at you. The problem is with the idea that you were forced, meaning you had no control over your actions (control as a necessary condition for ownership), well then who owns you at that point in time. If however, you still own yourself, then while the gunman is guilty of threatening you, he cannot rob you without forcefully taking the money from you since you still own your actions (physical force will be necessary to violate self ownership). From your answer about animals, you imply capacity to use reason is also a necessary condition for self ownership. The problem here is i do not know what you mean by reason? How do we determine if something has the capacity for reason? What about someone who is mentally disabled, even though they have the capacity for reason (i can only assume they have capacity for reason since i do not actually know what criteria you use to determine if someone does) are they also held to the same standards as normal people?

I saw the video and it still gives an incomplete picture of what self ownership is. First, it does not state a sufficient condition for self ownership, thought at the end when he discusses abortion, he implies life is the sufficient condition for self ownership. He states almost at the beginning, "if we do not directly affect that which we claim to own, then we do not own it." I take this to mean control is a necessary condition for ownership. He does not state how much control is necessary for ownership so i do not fully know what he means by the statement. IN the end he also proposes a case where someone being threatened has his negative rights being violated, but there is a problem there. If a gunman points a gun at you and demands your wallet, you have 2 options, to surrender your wallet or not to surrender your wallet. If you claim you have no choice but to surrender your wallet, then you imply you do not have control over your action in which you deny self ownership. Which means the gunman owns you in that moment in time. If you however still own yourself, then you did voluntarily give him your wallet because he did not actually do anything to you. You might think this is absurd, but it seems to follow self ownership argument in my opinion. Does someone in a coma own himself/herself? Do animals own themselves? Do we have to take someone's will seriously? He does not fully address ownership issues since sometimes the necessary condition is not there, but ownership persists, and there is no sufficient condition for self ownership (at least no explicitly stated one).

I am not familiar with those arguments, so can you please reference those arguments? . Why isn't control sufficient and universalizable for the idea of ownership to be unnecessary? In that sense, it is impossible for two people to exert equal control over something, therefore, the one with the greater control determines the outcome of the thing, Even if you "own" your body, it is possible for someone else, i.e a gunman, to still exert control over you, even though you are physically capable of making decisions for yourself. If self ownership is always true, then someone holding a gun to your head should not absorb you of responsibility for what you do since you always own yourself. This is just an example to get you thinking about a more complete sense of the term self ownership and what would have to be ture for it to be false. I keep running in to a problem when i consider the fact that self ownership in this sense stems from control over one's thought which i am not sure is verifiable. I am sure a pedophile would have a defense in saying he/she does not control his thoughts for children. I am not sure to what extent our control over what we think and how we think affects our self awareness..

I am not sure if you noticed, but your answer to what would have to be true for self ownership to be false is just you restating that self owership is false. Your definition of what self ownership is unclear. I am not sure what you mean by the only possible universal moral solution to the question regarding the ownership of reasoning individuals. Let me rephrase the question, what does it mean for an individual to own himself/herself?

Well, i am not sure what you mean by it is the only universalizable of the possibilities. I think control is fundamental to ownership. I can claim to own a star and no one would fight me for it since i have no control over it anymore than they do. To claim ownership is to claim greater control and if someone else's control supersedes yours then there is no violation of property right.

I think i might need clarity in your definition. Can you please elaborate on what you mean to be aware and responsible of and for our actions and thoughts. First, what do you mean by thoughts, as in IP or what way can people be responsible for their thoughts. Second, isn't awareness a necessary condition to making decisions? If you mean self awareness, then i do not know of any test that concluded that animals do not have self awareness. Even if we did agree that animals are not self aware, i am pretty sure babies are in the lacking self awareness category as well. How do we know when someone has achieved self awareness or even if they can achieve self awareness (the mentally disabled)? Third, in what sense is anyone responsible of and for their actions? How is a rapist responsible for his actions, if not by actions of others forcing him to be responsible for it. I do not know in what sense you mean responsible. Thanks for taking the time to actually try and think this through.

You attempt to answer my first question, but i am not sure your answer is well thought out. You bring in the idea that animals do not own themselves, but to my knowledge, nothing in self ownership states an animal exception. Animals after all do exercise control over their body and make decisions. We might all agree they have much less control over themselves than humans do, but that does not exclude them from self ownership. I think it will be easier to see these problematic areas if you try answering all three questions to the best of your ability.

If self control is taken as the premise instead of self ownership, then i think you can logically see how this could be extended to a more generalized theory. The mind is the agent of control, the body is the primary thing that is controlled and everything else we control is through the control of the body. In this sense, it is possible for someone to exercise greater control over your body by exerting some force on your mind that translates into the control over your body. In this sense, your actions are judged based on level of self control. An example of this will be payment of taxes which stems from some force exerted on the mind (threat of incarceration) which translates into control over the body. But this is just one way of thinking about the ideas supporting self ownership as possibly explained by other theories. The segment after the three questions is just there to get the reader going, the main idea is the three questions above it. Thanks for your input, but i was hoping you would address the three questions more directly.

I have contemplated libertarian ideas and every time i came to a roadblock i wanted to pass it off as some flaw in logic or just an extreme that should never be taken seriously. What if we did take it seriously, and the problem simply stems from the foundation of libertarian principles. It is at this point i decided to subject the foundation of libertarian principles, namely self ownership, to the Socratic method. What is self-ownership? what would have to be true for self ownership to be false? Finally in trying something akin to Bayes' rules, could the evidence for self ownership be equally or better explained by another theory, i.e self-control, self-awareness, autonomy, e.t.c? Working from the premise that self-ownership is true, we still have to accept that is only true as long as our mind is still intact. A dead person, or a mad person, or a newborn child does not own himself/herself in the same way an adult does. Then it stand to reason, at least in my opinion, that the owner is the mind, and the property the body. However, the body dictates to the mind to some degree because the body is the source of input for the mind. Simply put, though i own myself, i cannot change the reality of the pain i feel from hunger or thirst. If this is true, then i have wonder how much of myself do i really own and how much of myself are things that are simply outside of my control. I would like to end on something i heard from Dr, Peter Boghossian. Faith is pretending to know something you don't know. I think faith exists outside religion, it exists in almost every facet of human knowledge, from child rearing (those who believe in corporal punishment) to death (fear of death). If we all have a little less faith, i think we can benefit greatly from what reason has to offer. Thanks to Stefan for starting the ball rolling.