Search the Community

Do you really own your time? If you think in the classical description of time as an extrinsic and universal experience shared among everyone, you might wonder what is it that somebody means when they say that they own their time. For example, if I were to build a table, and then you were to steal it - we could say that you've retroactively enslaved me by appropriating the fruits of my labored time. Usually you would just argue that your time is yours axiomatically or rationalistically. That arguing about it would be using your time in the first place. But what is it about time that makes it, well, yours? Enter the theory of General Relativity. Before Einstein, time was understood to be an objective feature of nature. It was a shared and collective experience amongst every person or thing. Clocks were universal. Time on Mars is the same time on Earth. But if something is universal and absolute amongst every person, how can any individual own it? Can you own electricity? You could own an electric generator and the electricity it produces, but you can't own "Electricity" as a universal concept and force of nature. Same with time, but we don't have time generators either, so time would have remained as an extrinsic factor of the world. However, that didn't last long. It would be very complicated to explain it here, but GR changed everything. In GR, time is not an extrinsic absolute, but an intrinsic and relative experience for everyone and everything. Maybe you've heard or seen a recent movie by Christopher Nolan called Interstellar. In it, explorers travel near a black hole and experience a phenomenon called time dilation. The passage of time for one person flows differently for another given different physical conditions. Gravity can affect the flow of time, as well as space travel at high speeds. This effect has been measured to be a real thing that actually happens in the real world. It is used as a way to properly calibrate GPS satellites since time runs slightly differently in space where the force of gravity is weaker than on the surface of the Earth. But you might be wondering, what does it have to do with philosophy or property rights? Since GR posits time as a uniquely personal experience for each observer, every person owns its own version of time itself. Your passage of time is different from mine. My clock will never be ticking at the same time as yours. Time is different on Mars than on Earth. This means that my time will forever be a personal, inextricable, inescapable, relative, subjective-yet-objectively-measurable experience. When I use my labor, energy, and time to homestead and create property, it really is my time. And my time only. When you steal from me your really are violating my time. In the end, a theory of property rights would need not only to be useful, but to be true as well. We understand that the mark of truth requires reason and evidence. It was nice to have reason for property rights. Now I think that we also have evidence.

Ok so, I'll ask where does property come from and I'm under the impression that the answer is "from the exercise of self-ownership." So external property rights come from the exercise of internal self-ownership. Ok, I say, where does self-ownership come from? I'll get responses mirroring these ideas on page 76 of UPB. "Now the first “property” that must be dealt with is the body. “Ownership” must first and foremost consist of control over one’s own body, because if that control does not exist, or is not considered valid, then the whole question of morality – let alone property – goes out the window" This denotes the nature of all other property rights stemming from self-ownership. "Thus the very act of controlling my body to produce speech demands the acceptance of my ability to control my speech – an implicit affirmation of my ownership over my own body." This reflects the factual ability to control, and the exercise of that control somehow implying self-ownership. <that implication is the part that needs explanation. Stefan seeks to do this in surrounding statements: "Clearly, the body cannot entirely control itself, but rather must be to some degree under the direction of the conscious mind.. What this means is that a man is responsible for the actions of his body, and therefore he is responsible for the effects of those actions" "responsible" is used here not in the way that we say that the drought was responsible for the lower yield of crops this year. That's fine, but notice by doing this, Stefan smuggles the morality into the conversation. Before that we have a-moral facts: conscious minds exist, bodies exist, and consciousness sends electric impulses to extremities resulting in motor control. No problem. Which of those is a "moral" fact? Once you use "responsibility" in the way that Stefan does here...: "If I say to you: “Men are not responsible for the actions of their bodies,” it would be eminently fair for you to ask me who is working my vocal chords and mouth. If I say that I have no control over my speech – which is an effect of the body – then I have “sustained” my thesis at the cost of invalidating it completely" ...the argument has been concluded before being made. Stefan then moves the argument to say that if you deny the action or the causal link, you are denying the as of yet unexplained underlying moral premise. Since the former part of that sentence is contradictory, so would the second part. The problem is the unexplained underlying morality of the situation. One day we may be able to relinquish motor and speech control. These events at the level of the brain are being better understood every day. How then, is absolute slavery not possible? Even if, after a while, you were screaming in your head "no! no!! no!!!" What would that mean for your self-ownership? What is free-will worth if it affects nothing? This might seem really simple for all of you, but for some reason it's like Greek to me. ( .) (. )

In an anarchistic world, how would indigenous peoples seek justice through arbitration or private law so that they might remain on the lands they've existed on for decades or more? Wouldn't these people be at a clear disadvantage when up against a wealthy business, even compared yo your average poor person?

I pose a several philosophical questions. Suppose that an AI system pass Turning's Test and are completely indistinguishable from other human interactions. Since we cannot distinguish between an an interaction with an AI system and an interaction with a human we can assure that we will pose onto it the objective system of morality. With that in mind, should we program AI systems with a built in system of moral principles guiding its actions since they will be subjected to such principles? Does such a AI system have moral responsibility? Is the creator(s) of such a system responsible for its actions? If an AI system were to attain property does the property belong to the system or to the system creator? Does the System Creator retain such property if the nature of the system were to be revealed?

Is it just me does the ending suggest "occupancy and use" as the valid property right or at least Lockean proviso?

It is my intention to make the “taxation is theft” argument completely watertight, even from a legal perspective. That is, I want to beat statists at their own damn game. I, and I think everyone here, understand the philosophical meaning of land ownership, homesteading, etc. But I need to make sure I understand the legal side of property ownership. I need some people who have a good legal understanding (and/or philosophical) to make sure everything I’m saying is correct. So please, shoot holes in my arguments and tell me where I’m wrong. Be brutal! First though, we should make some definitions clear. Ownership of property means that it is YOURS, and you have the right to do whatever you want with it, as long as you are not aggressing against others or violating some other contract that you agreed to (example: I own my windows and I can paint them pink UNLESS I have agreed with my homeowner’s association not to make my house look ridiculous). Also, you do NOT have the right to enter onto someone else’s land (or house, etc.) without their permission, much less demand payment from them without their agreement. To do so would be known as armed robbery. When you are on someone else’s land (or using their property) you must abide by their rules. The rightful owner does not have the right to aggress against you or use any more force against you than is necessary to remove you from their property (should they chose), but you still must abide by their rules, otherwise you are aggressing against them. I cannot walk onto your lawn and set up a lemonade stand unless you agree to this. You cannot use my weed-whipper unless I allow you. This is all basic voluntarism, non-aggression principle stuff. Hopefully this is all obvious. Now, onto the legalese; suspend reality with me for a little bit while we dive into the world of government insanity: 1. “A land patent is an exclusive land grant made by a sovereign entity with respect to a particular tract of land.” A land patent gives you alloidal ownership over land. Allodial — Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal. In other words, completely, unconditionally, and privately yours; The intuitive and commonly understood definition of "property". The US government did and does hand out “land patents” to supposedly grant you complete, thorough, and permanent ownership. In other words, IT'S YOURS. So LEGALLY (according to the gub’ment), one does not actually own their land unless they have a land patent in their name. So that means even if you own a house and have paid your mortgage, you don’t legally OWN your land in the traditional, obvious sense of private ownership. Hopefully some red flags are already popping up in your head. For the government to be able to grant you ownership of something, they have to actually have ownership of it before they give it to you, otherwise they have no authority over said thing. So, for the moment, let’s pretend that the government actually DID have ownership over a certain piece of land (it does not, but I’ll get into that in a minute). Say it gave a land patent for that piece of land to “Bob”. So now, Bob completely and privately owns this piece of land. Yet legally, if Bob sells this piece of land to Mary, she does not actually privately own this land like Bob did, until she pays the government to get the land patent updated in her name. Legally, is this true? If so, clearly this makes no sense, for if Bob wanted to sell HIS land to Mary, it automatically now belongs completely to Mary. If it reverts back into the hands of the government, then it never really belonged to Bob in the first place, but instead to the government. Once you voluntarily give some property (land or otherwise) to someone through selling it or by giving it freely, you have voluntarily given up all right to that property. That’s what PRIVATE OWNERSHIP is all about. If you want to retain any kind of authority over that property, then that needs to be spelled out in a contract, and there is NOT unconditional, free-and-clear ownership of said property. Yet, the wording in land patents would suggest that they DO grant you free-and-clear, private ownership of land; The government claims that about 60% of land in the US is privately owned. They either do not truly mean privately owned, or they are clearly violating the rights of private land owners. Clearly, the way the government handles this makes no sense, and for them to claim the right to tax you or take your land through eminent domain implies that either they own your land or that you agreed to said taxes/eminent domain previously, which of course you never did. This is why the concept of taxes (property taxes in particular) make no sense, for if you actually OWN your land, nobody has the right to come onto your property and demand continued payment for it- that is no different from renting property. Is it feasible that you could only own your property conditionally, on the agreement that you are subject to the government’s laws on your land? If so, this is not spelled out anywhere (correct me if I’m wrong). Moreover, the government cannot simply impose laws on private owned landowners who occupied their land before the government tried to establish authority over their land. Now, back to the concept of government ownership (this is very important!): Does the government actually own anything? I would say “no”. Why? Firstly, when governments form, they steal money (and land) from people who rightfully owned their land and money before the government encroached on their territory. Again, this is nothing more than armed robbery with a badge. So right from the beginning, the government is an illegitimate, criminal organization because it operated using stolen money. As a consequence of this, government doesn’t actually rightfully own anything, and thus have no moral legitimacy to establish new taxes, laws, etc. over private property. I believe it’s really as simple as that. Am I missing anything important?