MarkIX

I think a couple of bible quotes seem pertinent here perhaps; "Let he who is without... take by force" no? What about, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye ... when it is offensive to him when you do so". I mean give the poor guy as break, he's a law professor, it's not like he is able to get as many willing female students as is his due. I guess the next best thing is to be extremely rich and "demonstrate" a concern for the poor, especially the young ones with boobs.

could the people who down voted this please give their reasons?

From an anarchist /libertarian perspective his latest trouble with the police would be called criminal for what reason?

Did I say I avoid controversy? Perhaps you should reread my post as I believe you have misinterpreted it

I have a neutral reputation. I have complained about the reputation system I called it "herd mental". Not exactly a reasoned argument but still A complaint from a non negative reputation holder. With one exception the people with negative reputations that I have noticed don't seem for the majority to be entirely illogical or deliberately obstructive. For a community that supports the strivings of the damaged to be free, to institute a policy of micromanagerial judgement on every single "utterance" seems a bit counter productive. It also can't be said I have avoided negative reputation because I avoid controversy, look at my recent history if you doubt that.

Perhaps This Video will help you by supplying additional information. There is a follow up too

The Scientologists are lonely. It's easier to attack something if you associate it with something people already dislike.

I think the point is that all of us could be killed quickly by an asteroid impact at any time, won't you please think of the species (children are so yesterday). Don't get me wrong I'd love to go into space but I'll never get there on Statist terms. A better chance would be something like these guys

What are you talking about? What does milk mean to you anyway? Lying in your advertising is not acceptable, why are you saying it is just for milk?

It seems to me you're in a bit of a hole. Nobody said milk is useless. The contention is that to a large portion of the population it is actually harmful, and yet it is still marketed as healthy. Do you think this is proper?

So. No duty of care, and its OK to actively obfuscate the truth about you product as long as you don't actually lie?

So can you inherit land or any other thing?

OK. I still having trouble with your objection. Are you saying that being unfit for purpose and misrepresenting that is not a problem for a product? We aren't talking about mere taste preferences we are talking about health effects that people are uninformed about.

Why does it matter?

I can't remember anyone advocating banning anything, could you point me to where it happened? Or are you suggesting informing people is synonymous with state action to prohibit a product?

No it doesn't make any sense or it makes just as much sense as being able to kill when you put on a blue or camoflage uniform, because after all they are different "attributes" so is still counts right , Sheesh. It's obvious I'm wasting my time, If someone doesn't value evidence what evidence are you going to use to convince them. So, I'm done with this.

Exactly! the ownership of your body is not universally applicable, the ownership of the toothbrush is. You can never sell your body but you can sell your toothbrush the conditions or attributes of ownership are different Are you saying that the ability to sell is never an attribute of ownership. if so good luck with that. If you are saying that that the ability to sell is not always present and since the ability to sell is dependent on ownership, could it not be said that the attributes of ownership are different when it is present to when it is absent? So, it is owned differently from property that can be sold it is missing an attribute that is derived from ownership Why does whether its a material object matter? You claim that you own your actions and the effects of your actions which are intangible, if they are all the same category then being a material object is irrelevant Maybe you are right. But I don't think so.

So can I own your body? That is not the only criteria required for ownership other wise the workers would own the means of production by default What attributes was I adding? Edibility is irrelevant but its axiomatic that you can't sell something you don't own. Selling can't exist without ownership, and ownership that exists without selling is categorically different to ownership with selling. If Stefan's argument is a refutation of the Anarcho-Communist position it requiresthat their be no difference between a woman's body and a factory if you say there is a difference then any Anarcho-Communist can use the same differences to rebut Stefan's argument. I'm also arguing that if Stefan is correct with his argument that the consequences are undesirable. So the argument is either a moral failure or an argumental failure.

@ Pepin Thank you that was very helpful. I can see now why people would find arguing iswith me frustrating. I will attempt to restate my argument in a more coherent fashion. In a recent video Stefan made and argument against Anarcho-Communism that argument is here My contention is that the argument put forward by Stefan fails to refute the Anarcho-Communist position because of significant flaws. In the argument Stefan conflates the production of material goods with the production of babies, he does this by claiming that the body is another thing made of matter that is owned in the same way as any other matter. If he is not claiming that a person's body Is the same with respect to ownership as any other thing then his argument is not a refutation of the stated Anarcho-Communist position, any difference will also serve the Anarcho-Communist position and they can't therefore be described as rapists who should be pepper sprayed on the basis of this argument. So he must actually mean that the body and any other matter fall into the same category of ownership. Since they are the same category of property anything that applies to one entity in the category applies to all entities. So a body can be bought and sold like a toothbrush but it gets worse as they are the same with respect to ownership abilities a body could be bought and sold by a toothbrush. This make no sense but it is a logical conclusion to draw if all things are consigned to one category of property. does that make more sense now? Well we seems to have cleared that up. So do you think that anything made of matter is of a similar enough type to be placed in the same category with respect to property. Is your body enough like your toothbrush that it can be said you own them in exactly the same way?

That's exactly how its obvious! If all ownership is categorically the same, which is the opposite of what I'm arguing, then why wouldn't you be able to sell you actions. Again it seems obvious to me that ownership of actions is categorically different from ownership of your body which is again categorically different to ownership of other things. Perhaps I am failing to make clear the meaning of "categorically different" Lets take the example of two humans one is twenty years old with normal brain function and the other is twenty weeks old with normal brain function. While they are both human they are categorically different in terms of moral agency. Now take two other people one it a twenty year old with normal brain function and the other is Steven Hawking, while Steven Hawking is physically nearly as helpless as a baby he ,obviously, has moral agency that no one sane would attribute to the baby. Just like Humans can belong to different categories WRT moral agency property or ownership can be categorically different At least three of which have been introduced "Things" which you can sell, Your body which you can't sell along with other peoples bodies which you can't buy, and your actions which aren't actually tangible.

I'm not talking about the attributes that are specific to the individual pieces of property, I'm talking about the differences in the ownership. It seems obvious to me that if something cannot be sold it is not owned in the same way as something that can be sold it is categorically different do you think that is true?

@Pepin Perhaps you could inform me what part of the passage you quoted is incomprehensible to you?

So while they are both property they are not property in the same way. Is that what you are saying?

Can you sell me your body just like you sell me a toothbrush, after I have bought it can I break it down for parts?

No.The question is not what put them in different categories, the question is why Stef claims they are not. I say that Stef claims that body parts and Toothbrushes are in the same with regards to "ownability". I don't think they are. I say that the argument put forward by Stef supports his definition of Anarcho-Communisim rather than rebutting it. I say that Bodies and other "things" are categorically different is terms of their behaviour as property. I think it should be obvious why I say that We can discuss homesteading another time ( after it ceases to be magical thinking) I will just ask what is doing the homesteading? No. syllogism requires two propositions I am only dealing with one. "My toothbrush is owned in the same way I own my eyeball" Universalized as "The Properties with regard to ownership of X are the same as The Properties with regard to ownership of Y" Px=Py so therefore Py=Px Under this formulation you could sell me your children and I could break them down for parts. If they are property based on the same criteria how can their "ownability" be different? If the are different then An-Comms can use that difference to discriminate "the means of production of material goods" from "the means of production of babies". To sum up: Either there is not a categorical difference in states of property and I can sell my children for parts or less horrendously gain a rationale for the An-Comm position or: There is a categorical difference which is equally available to An-Comms and therefore this fails as a refutation of their position on the means of production.