where does self-ownership come from?

[dsayers]

Recent debates I've had have me questioning my own grasp on where self-ownership comes from.

 

When I first heard Stef refute arguments against self-ownership by pointing out that they're using their body to argue against the use of their body, I thought maybe it was strictly the ability to move one's own mouth, fingers, etc.

 

This doesn't apply to horses though, and while we wouldn't be sadistic to an animal, we certainly do not regard them as owning themselves. So does this mean it also requires consciousness?

 

Then I think of a baby who might be conscious of self, but not yet able to conceptualize the other. We would not consider the act of a baby piercing your skin with their nails as immoral. So does it also require conceptualization of the the other and therefore the ability to universalize self-ownership?

 

Many thanks to all who participate. My understanding of the NAP and secular, consistent immorality stems from self-ownership, so I'd like to be really clear on what the requisites are.

[alexqr1]

I just posted a video related to this in this forum, it is called ethics and self-ownership. (http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38425-self-ownership-and-ethics//0

 

Self-ownership is the only possible solution that stands the test of logic. Praxeology is what separates humans from other animals, we use reason in order to assign value to different potential scenarios and act based upon those values.

 

There are 5 possibilities that are all mutually exclusive and together form the whole universe of possibilities. That means that only one can be true an one has to be true.

 

1) Social ownership: You only own what you are able to directly affect and transform. This situation is impossible because in order for it to be true, all humans would have to agree about what all other humans should do at all times. Individuals have different ideas and this would be impossible, then there is the paradox that is implied, which is that we can not agree with the rest of the individuals without everyone else alive allowing us to agree.

 

2) Limited ownership: This means that we co-own ourselves along with a limited group of individuals. First there is the inconsistency of arbitrariness: Who decides who owns whom? Then, we would have to overcome the fact that each individual is the only person capable of directing his or her own thoughts and his or her own body without using external stimuli.

 

3) 3^rd Pary ownership: This would mean that one person owns another person. The same logical contradictions of #2 apply.

 

4 and 5) No ownership and self ownership: A 4th possibility could be that we are not owned by anyone. A void of ownership cannot exist because it would immediately become self-ownership since every individual is capable to control many of the body functions and is able to act in the praxeological sense according to his or her own needs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are false because they are impossible. It leaves us with self-ownership as the only possible solution. Not only are there not contradictions in self-ownership but it is the only one of the 5 solutions that is possible. Since all 5 are mutually exclusive and they form all the universe of possibilities, then self-ownership is true.

[dsayers]

I watched the video and it was a worthwhile watch for sure.

 

However, the only part that seemed to pertain to this question was the assertion that self-ownership comes from the ability to reason. Which is quite useful if true.

 

My question would then be: Is conceptualization of the other a requisite for reason as it would be impossible to accurately reason without understanding that our choices can effect the other?

 

And would this mean that somebody that demonstrates that they lack reason or misapply it (serial rapist for example) has forfeited or is ineligible for self-ownership?

[alexqr1]

My question would then be: Is conceptualization of the other a requisite for reason as it would be impossible to accurately reason without understanding that our choices can effect the other?

Many choices do not affect others directly, I would argue that the conceptualization of the other is not necessary for reason. However, what I believe is more relevant for the subject is that the conceptualization of the other IS necessary for self-ownership. Not only is my self-ownership irrelevant in the absence of others but it also only has true meaning when the same principle is applied to others, namely, others own themselves too.

And would this mean that somebody that demonstrates that they lack reason or misapply it (serial rapist for example) has forfeited or is ineligible for self-ownership?

I would apply that more to children and mentally ill individuals. A healthy serial rapist has waived his negative rights (at least some) when he committed rape, which is unethical. That would be a result of the violation of the 1st principle in the video.

[dsayers]

I had to re-read your first paragraph before I understood the distinction you were making. It is an excellent point of clarification. You may want to alter your video to reflect this since at about the 2 minute mark, you speak as if self-ownership is to be applied on the basis of reason alone.

 

Could you clarify your 2nd paragraph? You say a serial rapist has waived his negative rights in response to me asking how, but without providing the how. This was actually the purpose of my deeper analysis of where self-ownership comes from: to determine if it is ethical to initiate the use of force against a "criminal" who is not a threat in the moment. And can you elaborate on how this would apply to children, the mentally ill, and those with brain damage?

 

Sorry if this seems like asking too much. I expected this topic would generate more of a discussion among numerous individuals.

[alexqr1]

On the contrary, I am happy that you ask. I read something you posted on a separate thread (I can't remember which) where you say you are not worried about being right in a debate but making sure the truth comes out of the debate. Sorry if my paraphrasing changed what you meant, that was my take on what you said. I usually say that I really enjoy "winning" a debate because it means I helped someone clarify his or her ideas, but I enjoy "losing" a debate a lot more. It is that feeling of awe you get when you understand why you were wrong and the way to find the truth is pointed to you. Your questions may only help you understand, but they may also point out to a fallacy I may be committing.

 

Anyway, the first principle I proposed in the video is:

 

1) A situation where X infringes upon a negative right of Y (or threatens to infringe upon that right) which Y has not willfully waived in X’s favor is unethical

 

It is implied that if it is a rape, then the victim did not willfully waive her (or his) right to not have sex with the rapist, otherwise it would had been consensual sex instead.

As a result of a rape, the rapist now has waived some of his (or her) negative rights to the victim who in turn gains a positive right in relation to the rapist. In other words, the rapist is now in "debt" with the victim and must repay the damage done. Assessing the value of the damage might be tricky, but regardless, it is evident that the victim has now a positive right that allows him or her to collect from the rapist.

 

I'm not sure if you are an anarchist, but either way, if you are really interested in this topic I suggest reading Linda and Morris Tannehill's The Market for Liberty (PDF here: http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf audiobook here: http://freekeene.com/2007/12/26/free-audiobook-the-market-for-liberty/) I believe it is chapter 9, although I'm not sure, that makes reference to how a murderer would acquire debt in relationship to those who benefited from the murdered person. Assessing the value of a life, which can not be really repaid, is a similar situation to rape. I think this book had a lot of influence in my way of thinking now.

 

I believe this is where the issue of DROs would come in handy, to asses value of damages.

 

As far as children and mentally ill. I have to confess I have problems with these topics, but what I do know is that you own yourself according to how you apply reason to your decisions. Animals do not own themselves because they do not act in the praxeological sense. Children and mentally ill are not fully capable of using their reason and for that reason those who take care of them can fill in the void. For example, I don't let my 2-year old cross the street when a car is coming by, no matter how much he would want to, there is no good reasoning behind his action.

 

I hope this helped, I know this last paragraph is not that clear but like I said, if there is one issue where I have trouble understanding ethics and liberty it is with children and mentally ill.

[dsayers]

Well I'm hoping that if I can accurately understand where self-ownership comes from, that I can understand how to best apply it to children, the mentally ill, the brain-damaged, and "criminals."

 

I understand how X accrues a debt to Y and I like the way you term it as it makes it easier to understand and apply to other situations. However, this debt to Y doesn't mean that Y can morally up and TAKE from X whatever debt is accrued. Nor does it mean that Y could hire Z to physically arrest the freedom of movement of X (assault) for the purpose of making them address the debt.

 

This is why I think understanding exactly where self-ownership comes from is so important. We need to know how it applies to children, to the mentally ill or degraded, and at least as a though experiment, how it applies to people who have engaged in immoral actions.

[alexqr1]

I understand how X accrues a debt to Y and I like the way you term it as it makes it easier to understand and apply to other situations. However, this debt to Y doesn't mean that Y can morally up and TAKE from X whatever debt is accrued. Nor does it mean that Y could hire Z to physically arrest the freedom of movement of X (assault) for the purpose of making them address the debt.

Suppose you are walking on the street and I pick your pocket, now I have your stuff, your money, credit cards, etc. If you had the chance, do you think it would be immoral to use force to stop me and take your wallet back?

[dsayers]

It would not. But you cannot take back an assault, rape, or a murder. I don't feel this addresses my concern at all.

[alexqr1]

Agreed, you can not take those things back, but my point is you are justified to use force if necessary to obtain restitution from the one who assaulted, raped or murdered. Force, of course, would be the last resort. However it would be ethically justified in the case of resistance from the original attacker. I'm not dealing with the assessment of the debt here, but whatever that debt is, force is justified to take it back if other non-violent means fail.

[dsayers]

I appreciate your patience in this thread. I'm very frustrated as it seems as if I suffer from a mental disconnect that I cannot identify.

 

If person A assaults/rapes/murders person B, they do not cease to own themselves as I understand self-ownership. As such, are we not engaging in the immoral act of the initiation of the use of force if we try to arrest their freedom of movement for the purpose of forcing punishment upon them?

 

I get that a serial killer/murderer is on the level of a wild animal on the loose. However, I don't know how I know this since I cannot logically and consistently arrive at that position starting from first principles. Because of this, I cannot fathom how somebody who only commits such an infraction once (and therefor isn't necessarily suffering from a persistent effect) fits into all this.

[alexqr1]

If person A assaults/rapes/murders person B, they do not cease to own themselves as I understand self-ownership. As such, are we not engaging in the immoral act of the initiation of the use of force if we try to arrest their freedom of movement for the purpose of forcing punishment upon them?

Of course person A does not cease to own him or herself. What I propose is that person A immediately waives some of his negative rights which in turn become positive rights for the affected individuals. Kind of like a person who steals a car has waived his right not to have the car plus damages taken from him. Thad does not mean the person who stole the care ever ceased to own himself nor does it meant that he waived ALL of his negative rights. You can’t kill a person because he stole your car.As I propose in my theory, you can only waive negative rights voluntarily, that is, either by contract or agreement or by directly and voluntarily violating someone else’s negative rights.

I get that a serial killer/murderer is on the level of a wild animal on the loose. However, I don't know how I know this since I cannot logically and consistently arrive at that position starting from first principles. Because of this, I cannot fathom how somebody who only commits such an infraction once (and therefor isn't necessarily suffering from a persistent effect) fits into all this.

The theory I propose in the video is consistent and based on objective principles. You can apply those principles to all human interactions. If person A steals $100 from person B then person A waived his right not to have $100 plus damages taken from him in favor of person B. Person B now has a positive right in relation to person A where person A has to give B $100 plus damages or risk having it taken from him by person B.

[dsayers]

Of course person A does not cease to own him or herself. What I propose is that person A immediately waives some of his negative rights which in turn become positive rights for the affected individuals. Kind of like a person who steals a car has waived his right not to have the car plus damages taken from him. Thad does not mean the person who stole the care ever ceased to own himself nor does it meant that he waived ALL of his negative rights. You can’t kill a person because he stole your car.

 

I agree with all of this and this is one of the major reasons I'm investigating this.

 

Say for example a "known criminal" is in my presence and I could easily overpower/subdue him for the purposes of formally assessing damages, subjecting him to a brain scan to determine the extent of his capability for reason, or whatever it is. For me to do so in regards to the transgression of theft of a dollar would be immoral. Many would say that to do so in regards to the transgression would be moral and necessary.

 

How do we grade this scale if the person doesn't cease to own themselves?

 

I realize this is more of an application of the answer. I'm still interested in why we don't say for example that horses own themselves.

 

I really appreciate your time in helping me examine this.

[alexqr1]

I agree with all of this and this is one of the major reasons I'm investigating this.Say for example a "known criminal" is in my presence and I could easily overpower/subdue him for the purposes of formally assessing damages, subjecting him to a brain scan to determine the extent of his capability for reason, or whatever it is. For me to do so in regards to the transgression of theft of a dollar would be immoral. Many would say that to do so in regards to the transgression would be moral and necessary.How do we grade this scale if the person doesn't cease to own themselves?

Well you would have to prove that you first attempted to collect the dollar without the use of violence and then that the use and extent of violence was necessary (or at least that you thought it was at the moment) for you to recover your dollar.For example, you would have a tough time proving that abducting and keeping someone in your basement for 3 weeks was necessary to recover $1. Normally, reaching into someone’s pocket and taking $1 without that person consent would be a violation of his right not to be bothered, but if that person has waived that right in your favor, and non-violent ways have proved unsuccessful, then reaching into his pocket to get your dollar back would not be immoral. Killing him and then taking your dollar would obviously be excessive and unnecessary, thus immoral.This is where the DROs would likely come in, but that is more pragmatic, if you want to stay on the ethical side of the conversation, then I’d say that any force more than the necessary would be immoral.

I realize this is more of an application of the answer. I'm still interested in why we don't say for example that horses own themselves.

If there is no action (praxeological), then there is no ownership. Let’s take a dog for example (I’m more familiar with dogs than horses). You can’t predict human behavior with certainty, but you can predict a dog’s behavior. Say there is a starving dog with no previous negative reinforcement against it taking food from a plate. If you leave a plate full of food next to the dog, the dog will take the food. You can bet all your money that will happen because there is no action. The dog does not make the decision to take the food or leave it, it just reacts according to its instinct. The only reasons the dog won’t take the food are because it physically can’t or because of negative reinforcement (like someone hitting the dog every time it takes food from the plate) or because there is a physical or medical situation.The same is not true for humans. Humans act. There is a decision involved in the situation. Say there is a starving man with no negative reinforcement against taking food from a plate. If you leave a plate full of food next to him, you cannot be know for sure what is going to happen. Maybe the guy is on a diet, maybe he is on a hunger strike or maybe he wants to break a record or whatever. There is a rational decision involved.That is why the man owns himself and the dog does not. 

I really appreciate your time in helping me examine this.

No problem, I really don’t feel the knowledge is just going one way in this conversation. Your questions are thought provoking.

[dsayers]

This is where the DROs would likely come in, but that is more pragmatic, if you want to stay on the ethical side of the conversation, then I’d say that any force more than the necessary would be immoral.

 

I'm interested both in the ethics and the application. The $1 was a bad example because theft is different in that restitution is possible and quantifiable. You steal my car, I go to get it back, you stand in my way, I force my way past you, I have not committed an immoral act.

 

With the praxeological requisite of self-ownership, does this mean it's safe to assume that a serial killer/rapist can be taken down with the use of force simply because they've demonstrated a lack of reasoned consideration? What about somebody that's done it just once? A brain scan would be a good idea, but at what point is ostracism not enough and force moral? If person A assaults person B and creates a debt to him, can person B hire person C to collect on that debt? Even if this would involve person C initiating the use of force to "bring the person to justice?" If person A murder person B, who does the debt accrue to?

 

When I pose these questions, I'm not asking you specifically. It's something I've been thinking about.

 

I'm sure the day will come when there is no state, people raise their children peacefully and rationally, that regular brain scans will help us to eradicate environmental psychopathy and/or minimize damage that does get inflicted, and so on. My concern is that by this time, we'll have centuries of abuse-addled bloodlust in our makeup. I think it's important for people to remember that somebody who commits an immoral act still owns themselves so that we can come up with better solutions than force first, last, only, and always. Plus I think it will prime our consciousness in a way that will help us identify mistakes vs patterns.

[PatrickC]

I'm curious dsayers. How was 'self ownership' treated in your family?

[dsayers]

Inconsistently. We were owned by our parents, God, the schools, our government, etc. What little was "ours" could be taken away for any reason. Stef's video about Childhood Gifts and Property Rights was very enlightening.

 

That said the first couple/few years of my life (prior to parents' divorce), I was thoroughly nurtured. Which I'm thankful for because as I was growing up and even into my adult life, I could feel that things weren't right even though I couldn't articulate how, why, to what extent, or how serious it was. So most of the inconsistencies damaged me in terms of the way I think and my (lack of) level of awareness of the damage itself. You could say this made the transition for me quicker than many.

 

Does that help?

[PatrickC]

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'inconsistent'... How was your 'autonomy' respected by your family, might be a better question.

[dsayers]

Sorry, I guess the inconsistency is inherent. I was thinking along the lines of them exercising their self-ownership while rejecting mine.

 

My autonomy was heavily stunted. Not allowed to do much outside the house/yard. Once I was, it came with calling to report that I got where I was going (even if it was a two minute walk down the road) and frequent calls to check in. I was frequently not allowed to do various things, for arbitrary reasons. When I tried to seek out the reason, I was eventually told to either drop it or I would be grounded/punished. I felt at times as if I was going insane because I so desperately sought understanding but no explanation was given.

 

It was exponentially worse once I started talking to girls. No real surprise since as a result of my abuse, I had shown signs of deviance very early on. Their infliction of Christianity alone made puberty such a destructive time. I remember the agony of having sexual urges and addressing them while feeling I sinned against God himself and my promise to "never do that again." Anyways, it was if my mother was threatened by other females being in my life. As if she was in denial that as a human, sexuality was a part of who I was too. I even remember her saying in regards to inquiry as to why she freaked out even at the idea of me being alone with a girl for even a couple minutes, "I don't care what you do, but it's not going to happen under my roof."

 

I don't mind the personal questions. In fact, it's nice to be asked. I am curious though as to how this might relate to where self-ownership comes from. I'm looking for answer that are logical, consistent, and objective. I've learned that anecdotal evidence from my life is no guide whatsoever in such matters.

[PatrickC]

I am sorry to hear all that.Then it should be fairly apparent as to 'why' you might struggle with the concept of 'self ownship'. I find the philosophical concepts I stuggled most with were the ones that were routinely violated in my personal history.

 

Understanding 'why' may still not help you understand the concept more fully at first, but it allows you to explore a more personal area of oneself. Hope that explains my reason for raising it.

[dsayers]

Do you mean from a "I was denied it, so I'm concerned about others being denied it due to an antiquated, statist bloodlust"?

[PatrickC]

Do you mean from a "I was denied it, so I'm concerned about others being denied it due to an antiquated, statist bloodlust"?

 

I don't know, maybe.. Only you can know how you experienced it. I'm just pointing to areas in which self knowledge might be more applicable.. It's like that old Socrates cliche, 'know thyself'.

[Xtort]

Recent debates I've had have me questioning my own grasp on where self-ownership comes from.

 

When I first heard Stef refute arguments against self-ownership by pointing out that they're using their body to argue against the use of their body, I thought maybe it was strictly the ability to move one's own mouth, fingers, etc.

 

This doesn't apply to horses though, and while we wouldn't be sadistic to an animal, we certainly do not regard them as owning themselves. So does this mean it also requires consciousness?

 

Then I think of a baby who might be conscious of self, but not yet able to conceptualize the other. We would not consider the act of a baby piercing your skin with their nails as immoral. So does it also require conceptualization of the the other and therefore the ability to universalize self-ownership?

 

Many thanks to all who participate. My understanding of the NAP and secular, consistent immorality stems from self-ownership, so I'd like to be really clear on what the requisites are.

 

I think horses own themselves, we just don't care.  Acknowledging ownership and respecting it are two different things.  As for the source, who knows?  We don't know where gravity comes from either, we just look at it's effects.  Matter attracts matter, we don't know why or how, we just know that it does.  If you're still fuzzy on how this applies to self ownership, just ask yourself why you can't claim credit for the applause after Obama gives a speech.

[dsayers]

I'm more interested in the context of "criminal justice." Ostracism is a powerful tool, but a serial killer would be unaffected. Such a person would be an ongoing threat so force used to apprehend him would be defensive and therefor moral. Somebody who has killed once may not be an ongoing threat and continues to own himself. Is ostracism enough? Can we morally apprehend him?

 

In a free society, this would be a thought experiment whose application would be so rare, it wouldn't be terribly important. In the meantime, a LOT of people have this concern. They're so afraid of joe mugger that they think joe politician mugger who is larger and with greater reach is justified. It helps to be able to logically and consistently speak of self-ownership to help others understand that we don't need joe politican mugger to protect us from that which we could protect ourselves from. They tend to not be content with ostracism alone because they understand that some criminals would be unaffected or even empowered by this.

[Xtort]

I'm more interested in the context of "criminal justice." Ostracism is a powerful tool, but a serial killer would be unaffected. Such a person would be an ongoing threat so force used to apprehend him would be defensive and therefor moral. Somebody who has killed once may not be an ongoing threat and continues to own himself. Is ostracism enough? Can we morally apprehend him?

 

In a free society, this would be a thought experiment whose application would be so rare, it wouldn't be terribly important. In the meantime, a LOT of people have this concern. They're so afraid of joe mugger that they think joe politician mugger who is larger and with greater reach is justified. It helps to be able to logically and consistently speak of self-ownership to help others understand that we don't need joe politican mugger to protect us from that which we could protect ourselves from. They tend to not be content with ostracism alone because they understand that some criminals would be unaffected or even empowered by this.

 

 

I think a compassionate society would have hospitals where these kinds of people can be treated and helped.  As for the use of ostracism, well that all depends.  Can we currently stop criminals from using roads?  Sidewalks?  Can we stop them from getting on a bus and going to a victim's house?  Can we even stop them from having their home paid for by section 8 and their living paid for by social security?  I think ostracism has more utility than you think.

[Waster]

I have struggled with this topic as well. When i had the right definitions and language i was able to figure out and that took me quite some time. The first question is what is property? Property are objects that we have control over. Belongings and having ownership is the same thing. Self ownership means that we have control over our own body. If we speak that is true. We have control over our mouth, our thoughts, our language. But it is not a principle, it is not an axiom. I can give a counterexample. For example when I sleep I dont have control over my body, so I dont really exercise self-ownership at that moment. An even better example are slaves. They have no or very little control over their own body. They are controlled by their masters. So no self-ownership for them.

 

I think where you are struggling is the is-ought problem (Hume). Self-ownership is a descriptive statement.  It can never be a normative statement at the same time for a justification for the NAP. This is a weak point of UPB. It tries to wriggle around the is-ought problem, but you cant!

[alexqr1]

The following possibilities

I think where you are struggling is the is-ought problem (Hume). Self-ownership is a descriptive statement.  It can never be a normative statement at the same time for a justification for the NAP.

The following possibilities are the whole universe of possibilities regarding ownership of humans, they are mutually exclusive and one most be true:1. Everyone is owned by everyone2. Everyone is owned by a limited group of individuals3. Everyone is un-owned4. Every individual is owned by him or herselfThere may be other possibility which are both not universal and inconsistent, for that reason I did not include them (e.g Some are owned by others some are owned by themselves and some are not owned)Now, given that these 4 are the whole universe of consistent and universal possibilities, and that one must be true and only one can be true, then if we could dismiss 3 of them then we will have our answer.1. Everyone being owned by everyone is a universal and consistent possibility, however it requires that everyone would have to agree about everyone else all the time, which is impossible.2. Everyone being owned by a limited group of individuals (which may be as small as one when it is not the same individual in question) is a universal proposition but it is not consistent. Who decides who owns who?3. A state of non ownership would immediately turn into self-ownership because if our self is not owned, then as soon as we control it and posses is we acquire it and own it, so non-ownership is an unstable proposition which cannot exist.That leaves us with 4. We own ourselves. This is a universal and consistent proposition which can exist in reality.Self-Ownership is not a desire, an opinion or a craving, it is a fact.

[dsayers]

When you park your car, it doesn't cease to be yours just because you're not making use of it in the moment. The way you're referring to self-ownership, you are saying that slavery is moral because the slavers' use of coercion to reduce the freedom the slave has equates to the slave no longer owning themselves. A normative examination of this practice is how we are able to determine that coercion and slavery are immoral, even if they happen. Specifically, the slavers are exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. The owned by somebody else is persistent while the ownership exerted by the slaver is temporary.

[Xtort]

Slaves still exhibit self ownership.  They do not become will-less robots.

[Waster]

Slaves have no have self ownership. They are property. That is the definition of slavery.

 

 

The following possibilitiesThe following possibilities are the whole universe of possibilities regarding ownership of humans, they are mutually exclusive and one most be true:1. Everyone is owned by everyone2. Everyone is owned by a limited group of individuals3. Everyone is un-owned4. Every individual is owned by him or herselfThere may be other possibility which are both not universal and inconsistent, for that reason I did not include them (e.g Some are owned by others some are owned by themselves and some are not owned)Now, given that these 4 are the whole universe of consistent and universal possibilities, and that one must be true and only one can be true, then if we could dismiss 3 of them then we will have our answer.1. Everyone being owned by everyone is a universal and consistent possibility, however it requires that everyone would have to agree about everyone else all the time, which is impossible.2. Everyone being owned by a limited group of individuals (which may be as small as one when it is not the same individual in question) is a universal proposition but it is not consistent. Who decides who owns who?3. A state of non ownership would immediately turn into self-ownership because if our self is not owned, then as soon as we control it and posses is we acquire it and own it, so non-ownership is an unstable proposition which cannot exist.That leaves us with 4. We own ourselves. This is a universal and consistent proposition which can exist in reality.Self-Ownership is not a desire, an opinion or a craving, it is a fact.

 

How can you say that you have included the whole universe of possibilities if you dont include not universal statements? Your statements are not mutually exclusive, so the true statement doesnt necessarily need to be included in your list. How can you say self-ownership is a fact when you cherrypick your statements? And i just gave you a counterexample a post above you, so a fact?

[dsayers]

Slaves have no have self ownership. They are property. That is the definition of slavery.

 

If slaves are conscious humans capable of reasoning, how do they go from this state to property? You're skipping over the step of coercion to claim that the same coercion is valid, binding, accurate, and capable of altering fundamentals.

[alexqr1]

Slaves have no have self ownership. They are property. That is the definition of slavery.

Which is why slavery is immoral.

How can you say that you have included the whole universe of possibilities if you dont include not universal statements?

Sorry I thought I was clear with that. I could had included them it is just that not being universal then they are irrelevant, so instead of 4 possibilities we would had had 4+x where x amount of possibilities are not universal and inconsistent so they would not be applicable.

Your statements are not mutually exclusive, so the true statement doesnt necessarily need to be included in your list.

It is impossible for 2 or more possibilities to be true at the same time. I cannot own myself and at the same time be owned by someone else. Or I cannot be owned by everyone and at the same time not owned by anyone.

How can you say self-ownership is a fact when you cherrypick your statements? And i just gave you a counterexample a post above you, so a fact?

Slaves: It is precisely because their capacity to control themselves has been coercively removed that the interaction is immoral. Pointing out at slaves as a counter-argument against self-ownership is like pointing out at theft as a counter-argument for property rights. Or like saying murder is not immoral because some people murder.

[Waster]

If slaves are conscious humans capable of reasoning, how do they go from this state to property? You're skipping over the step of coercion to claim that the same coercion is valid, binding, accurate, and capable of altering fundamentals.

I am not making a normative claim, how it should be. It is irrelevant if the act of coercion is valid or invalid. I am only noticing that not everyone owns himself.

Which is why slavery is immoral.

[..]

Slaves: It is precisely because their capacity to control themselves has been coercively removed that the interaction is immoral. Pointing out at slaves as a counter-argument against self-ownership is like pointing out at theft as a counter-argument for property rights. Or like saying murder is not immoral because some people murder.

Question: Is the self-ownership a normative statement or descriptive statement?

 

If it is a descriptive statement, then yes, slaves are a counter-example. If not, if it is a normative statement, then you cannot use the self-ownership principle as a descriptive statement. Its not that hard. This is the is-ought problem.

[dsayers]

First of all, you did not answer my question. This is the second time I've asked you for some rigor behind your claims and you've ignored it. This could be an indication that there is none to offer. Do you watch for confirmation bias?

 

Secondly, this is a philosophy board. It doesn't matter if person A CLAIMS to own person B if that claim is invalid. We use normative analysis to determine the truth value of objective claims.

[Waster]

I was making a quesion and you didnt answer it either. BTW, do not nag me for not answering a loaded question.