Stef's argument for self-ownership = Tu Quoque fallacy?

[thelion]

By the way, everyone here realizes that the subject of dispute is basically whether argumentation ethics is true or not?

 

Argumentation ethics comes from Hans Hermann Hoppe, and Molyneux basically agrees with it. So do I (whatever that is worth).

 

When a person honestly argues with another and attempts to persuade or demostrate her point, she by virtue of arguing accepts his ownership of his body (and from there all his other freedoms and ownerships in the usual way). If she did not, then instead of arguing, she would attack, and force him to admit what she wants to hear, or at the least, not argue, or rely on dialectic tricks. But this she does not do in the first case.

 

There is no ad hominem when she says that he accepts her freedoms and ownerships and she accepts his freedoms and ownerships from the nature of their arguing peacefully and honestly together, for neither can or would refuse to do this and at the same time argue peacefully and honestly...

 

Of course, the weakness of argumentation ethics, is that the argument eventually ceases ... and then ....

 

Like they say in Japan, the customer is God, but that is only while he is in the store and buying ... once he leaves ...

 

Many (most?) people do not argue but charge on ahead with arms raised and weapons in hand, maybe shouting something, or muttering it, while they advance. In that case, so long as they are not actually in an argument, they needn't accept freedoms or ownerships of anybody besides them ...

 

Hence we need (and have) the other sources of ethics to defend life and liberty in all other cases except the honest debate, do we not?

[Kevin Beal]

By the way, everyone here realizes that the subject of dispute is basically whether argumentation ethics is true or not?

 

Argumentation ethics comes from Hans Hermann Hoppe, and Molyneux basically agrees with it. So do I (whatever that is worth).

Not exactly:

FDR554 Argumentation Ethics

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_554_Argumentation_Ethics.mp3

[labmath2]

While i think argumentation ethics is genius, i only have one problem with it, it is one of those theoretical rules that may not work so well when you move from epistemology to ontology. We can argue about what is best for man while there is no direct cause for either one of us to be swayed and we can both walk away in disagreement. In essence, arguments do not need to be resolved and there is minimal cost for arguing with someone else about concepts. However, when we argue about real things, i.e who owns this land, there is a real cost to not resolving that argument quickly and other means might become more attractive than arguing. 

 

To address more pressing concern, if i argue that Government should be used to solve social problems, while i violate argumentation ethics, the cost of arguing here is rather low ( at least from the statist perspective, of course, a libertarian realizes the more time spent arguing, the longer they are oppressed by a violent institution). If i lived in a an area where a company is fracking, knowing the time we spend arguing means more time for them to frack might make me less inclined to argue. This is why we argue about those situations in a metaphysical sense before the situation actually arises. It is the same reason we do not let victims or family members of victims investigate or sentence the accused. They can in theory be reasonable, but in practice be much less reasonable.

[Kevin Beal]

While i think argumentation ethics is genius, i only have one problem with it, it is one of those theoretical rules that may not work so well when you move from epistemology to ontology. We can argue about what is best for man while there is no direct cause for either one of us to be swayed and we can both walk away in disagreement. In essence, arguments do not need to be resolved and there is minimal cost for arguing with someone else about concepts. However, when we argue about real things, i.e who owns this land, there is a real cost to not resolving that argument quickly and other means might become more attractive than arguing.

Both examples have ontological aspects. Action is real. Ethics would make absolutely no sense if it did not bear on the real world.

 

Ethical theories like Argumentation Ethics and UPB don't say anything about what the possible outcomes of actions may be. The argument from effect may be important, but it's not actually a criticism of the theory. It's a criticism of reality (assuming it really would result in whatever outcome).

 

And as far as a practical application goes, it's not limited to debate. If someone acts hypocritically, then you are justified in rejecting them and criticising them on that basis. By quickly and methodically rejecting hypocrites, you save yourself a lot of time, and it also means that you cannot sustain statism, religion and other similar cults.

 

By offering people these frameworks, you give them the same ability. And you don't want to debate people who don't understand that hypocrisy is bad or won't look at themselves. Assuming you are actually having a productive debate with someone, then it's not that far from getting them to accept enough of UPB or argumentation ethics to avoid moral evils like statism and religion.

 

Libertarians bickering about stupid shit is not the fault of ethical theories

[logic32]

I think self ownership can be proven by reducing to absurdity: 

 

"I don't own myself, therefore I accept that I be killed or raped."

This is a common error, it doesn't follow that because you don't own yourself as property, that you can be morally permissibly killed or raped. For instance, it might be morally wrong to rape you because it has bad consequences, i.e. suffering. There are many other moral frameworks which explain why rape is wrong other than deontological self-ownership. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid theory, just that this is a bad argument for it.

[Libertyblues]

The logical progression has been shown. You own yourself (you ARE yourself and have exclusive control over your body). Therefore you must also own the effects of your voluntary actions. Property created (like a chair) is an extension of yourself into reality. You necessarily own the chair. You can't make a chair that someone else made. The chair is your time and labor and just as you have rights over your self you have rights over the chair. If someone takes the chair they are taking your time and labor (effectively enslaving you retroactively). They are violating your property just the same as if they violated your body and mind.

At this point in the discussion I have a question. I accept that you owe yourself, but most of the knowledge and skills a person builds on are the property of generations of geniouses before him (their ideas). So if Einstein were still alive, wouldn't he own part of modern space travel technology?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

At this point in the discussion I have a question. I accept that you owe yourself, but most of the knowledge and skills a person builds on are the property of generations of geniouses before him (their ideas). So if Einstein were still alive, wouldn't he own part of modern space travel technology?

What part of space travel exploration would he own? (make sure all your terms are clearly defined) 

[Libertyblues]

What part of space travel exploration would he own? (make sure all your terms are clearly defined)

I would propose that he would own the marginal gain that his original addition to the existing theories contributed to all the physics which builds on that theory..

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I would propose that he would own the marginal gain that his original addition to the existing theories contributed to all the physics which builds on that theory..

I don't know what that means.

[Nathan Metric]

Although I believe Stefan was going in the right direction with this form of argumentation the argument itself is incomplete. The presupposition of the argument is that property rights is about showing causal relations, but it doesn't explain WHY property should be about reinforcing causal relations. To be more precise, Stefan arguments shows that everyone owns themselves in the sense that they are responsible for themselves, but his argument doesn't explain why one should have the right to control that which he is responsible for. So really, the fallacy isn't a tu quoqu one. It's a naturalistic fallacy.

 

An easy way to complete this argument is to invoke Mises's economic calculation problem. A proper economy has to perform economic calculation. A socialist economy cannot perform economic calculation because ownership of property has nothing to do with causal relations.

 

An economy needs to perform economic calculation so that way it functions at maximal efficiency.

An economy needs to be maximally efficient so that way we can have the most scientific pursuits.

Maximal scientific advancement is part of the pursuit of truth.

Truth is virtuous and thou shall pursue virtue.

 

There. Self-ownership defended. Private property defended. No naturalistic fallacy used.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Although I believe Stefan was going in the right direction with this form of argumentation the argument itself is incomplete. The presupposition of the argument is that property rights is about showing causal relations, but it doesn't explain WHY property should be about reinforcing causal relations. To be more precise, Stefan arguments shows that everyone owns themselves in the sense that they are responsible for themselves, but his argument doesn't explain why one should have the right to control that which he is responsible for. So really, the fallacy isn't a tu quoqu one. It's a naturalistic fallacy.

 

An easy way to complete this argument is to invoke Mises's economic calculation problem. A proper economy has to perform economic calculation. A socialist economy cannot perform economic calculation because ownership of property has nothing to do with causal relations.

 

An economy needs to perform economic calculation so that way it functions at maximal efficiency.

An economy needs to be maximally efficient so that way we can have the most scientific pursuits.

Maximal scientific advancement is part of the pursuit of truth.

Truth is virtuous and thou shall pursue virtue.

 

There. Self-ownership defended. Private property defended. No naturalistic fallacy used.

Calling something incomplete an argument does not make. So that would mean you were poisoning the well in your very first sentence, which is usually not a good sign for the rest of your objection.

 

Property should be about causation because if it wasn't in any sense, it would have no relevance to reality (since everything about reality is both an effect and a cause).

 

But clearly if we want to talk about property as applied to reality, the idea is to make it consistent with cause and effect, since reality is consistent and there is a cause and effect to everything in reality, and we want to understand property as it relates to reality.. I know this sounds obvious, but really it is curious to me what you think property would have to do with if not for cause and effect and reality..

 

Would it have to do with the property rights of completely imaginary things, which are not subject to cause and effect? I hope that doesn't sound like a jab I'm honestly just trying to wrap my head around what you said. 

 

Oh and one very important thing I forgot to comment on, causal relations are not "enforced," per se, so they definitely cannot be "reinforced"; causal relations simply are, and we can either create our theories to be consistent with cause and effect (i.e. reality) or not. Obviously this will have implications to how we use force in society, since there will be causes and effects of that force which are obvious and implied.

 

I'll let you chew on that and tell me what you think because I didn't want to pile up too much criticism about that specific paragraph, since I do actually have objections to everything else you said.

 

"An economy needs to perform economic calculation so that way it functions at maximal efficiency."

 

An economy is an aggregate of people. An aggregate people cannot be more or less efficient. They are just an aggregate of people; you need to have some goal to compare them with to say they are efficient. Economics says that more people will be better off if everyone is subject to the same rules; it says that less people will be relatively better off if they can make the rules and/or exempt themselves from the rules. It is pretty simple, but unrelated to anything you are talking about, which is not a valid representation of what economic science actually is. And hopefully I could say so with some credibility since I am decently literate in economics and the Austrian school, including the calculation problem.

 

As a final note to leave about your post as a whole, since I didn't want to respond to everything, I think you are going very quickly past some very shaky/vague statements, and it felt like a bit of a spin having to go through each statement respectively; and then at the end you're declaring things, which I found a tad creepy after all the poorly defined arguments you made prior. So I look forward to see what you think in reply, but I will admit I'm mostly writing this for the benefit of refuting you for others, but I also would be surprised and curious if you had a objection I haven't contemplated.

[Nathan Metric]

Calling something incomplete an argument does not make. So that would mean you were poisoning the well in your very first sentence, which is usually not a good sign for the rest of your objection.

 

That's wrong. I explained why Stefan's argument was incomplete. I did not simply assert that it was incomplete and called it a day.

 

 

 

Property should be about causation because if it wasn't in any sense, it would have no relevance to reality (since everything about reality is both an effect and a cause).

 

But clearly if we want to talk about property as applied to reality, the idea is to make it consistent with cause and effect, since reality is consistent and there is a cause and effect to everything in reality, and we want to understand property as it relates to reality.. I know this sounds obvious, but really it is curious to me what you think property would have to do with if not for cause and effect and reality..

Well, I agree. I agree that property rights should be related to causation, but you're just making the exact same mistake Stefan made. You're not explaining WHY it should be related to causation.

 

Ownership can mean two things

a)Being responsible for something

and

b)Having authority over something.

 

By itself, it is naturalistic fallacy to say that because a person is responsible for X he therefore should have authority over X. That is the issue I was trying to address. To justify property rights without performing a naturalistic fallacy.  To complete Stefan's original argument.

 

 

Oh and one very important thing I forgot to comment on, causal relations are not "enforced," per se, so they definitely cannot be "reinforced"; causal relations simply are, and we can either create our theories to be consistent with cause and effect (i.e. reality) or not. Obviously this will have implications to how we use force in society, since there will be causes and effects of that force which are obvious and implied.

 

Let's say a farmer has authority over a farm. The fact that we treat him as the owner of his farm is to help complement or communicate the fact that he is the causal agent of the farm. That was what I meant by "reinforce". Socialism on the other hand confuses people as to the causal relations in the economy. The laws of causality teach that particular effects have particular causes. Socialism saids that everything (ie everyone) is responsible and therefore must be given authority over everything which implies a denial of the laws of causality.

 

 

An economy is an aggregate of people. An aggregate people cannot be more or less efficient. They are just an aggregate of people; you need to have some goal to compare them with to say they are efficient. Economics says that more people will be better off if everyone is subject to the same rules; it says that less people will be relatively better off if they can make the rules and/or exempt themselves from the rules. It is pretty simple, but unrelated to anything you are talking about, which is not a valid representation of what economic science actually is. And hopefully I could say so with some credibility since I am decently literate in economics and the Austrian school, including the calculation problem.

 

 

 

Okay, an economy that maximally serves consumer demand is maximally efficient.

I agree that everyone should be subject to the same rules. Universal moral rules serve the moral goals I outlined. 

 

 

Now as for everything else, do you disagree that science is limited by economy? That science in order for it to be vibrant requires civilization. The more advanced the civilization the more free the pursuit of science is.

Do you disagree that science is part of the pursuit of truth?

Do you disagree that truth is virtuous?

Do you disagree that one ought to pursue virtue?

[labmath2]

I do not know if this has been addressed here (will read the entire thread later), but the problem i continue to have with self ownership is that ownership is either assumed (not properly defined), or its defined in such a way that makes it useless outside of self ownership (ownership is control. Obviously you do not own something simply because you physically control it like a car). The standard definition of owneship is a tautology, so it doesn't resolve the problem. The performative contradiction of arguing against self ownership also hinges on precise definition.

[Freedomain]

 the problem i contunue to have with self ownership

 

[dsayers]

or its defined in such a way that makes it useless outside of self ownership

The definition of a root is useless above ground. This doesn't change the fact that ALL of the rest of the plant stems from its roots.

[labmath2]

The definition of a root is useless above ground. This doesn't change the fact that ALL of the rest of the plant stems from its roots.

That sounds very deep, but do you care to actually make the argument in a form i can understand?

[shirgall]

I do not know if this has been addressed here (will read the entire thread later), but the problem i continue to have with self ownership is that ownership is either assumed (not properly defined), or its defined in such a way that makes it useless outside of self ownership (ownership is control. Obviously you do not own something simply because you physically control it like a car). The standard definition of owneship is a tautology, so it doesn't resolve the problem. The performative contradiction of arguing against self ownership also hinges on precise definition.

 

You are assuming self-ownership when you ascribe an opinion to yourself or that you want to state it to someone else. By doing so, you embrace the concept that you have value... value that you must build and protect and extend.

[dsayers]

That sounds very deep, but do you care to actually make the argument in a form i can understand?

Again? How many times must we do this dance? I haven't been able to convince you any of the other times. However, since this is public, and I agree that the analogy could be considered ambiguous, I oblige...

 

Self-ownership is the root of all property. If I defined ownership in such a way that it only applied to self-ownership, this wouldn't invalidate my legitimate, exclusionary claim to MY car. Because if I own myself, that means I own my life, time, the effects of my labor, etc. If I use those to provide value to others to such an extent that I've legitimately earned that car, that car is mine even if the definition of ownership doesn't fit that relationship.

[labmath2]

You are assuming self-ownership when you ascribe an opinion to yourself or that you want to state it to someone else. By doing so, you embrace the concept that you have value... value that you must build and protect and extend.

My use of I is purely a descriptive use of language. It would be more accurate but take more time to describe the process, a freedomainradio member by the handle labmath used his fingers to type words into the thread that expresses ideas which for the sake of convenience will be ascribed to him for the duration of the thread. He has no special rights to the argumenr as anyone else is equally free to claim them, but it helps in conversatiob if we ascribe them to him, then instead of recreating the arguments, we can use the short form labmath's claim or labmath's argument.

[labmath2]

Again? How many times must we do this dance? I haven't been able to convince you any of the other times. However, since this is public, and I agree that the analogy could be considered ambiguous, I oblige...

 

Self-ownership is the root of all property. If I defined ownership in such a way that it only applied to self-ownership, this wouldn't invalidate my legitimate, exclusionary claim to MY car. Because if I own myself, that means I own my life, time, the effects of my labor, etc. If I use those to provide value to others to such an extent that I've legitimately earned that car, that car is mine even if the definition of ownership doesn't fit that relationship.

If ownership changes meaning from one istance to the next, then it cannot act as the foundation for proving property rights. If any challenge is brought to your use of ownership, you can simply move from one definition to another without addressing the challenge. So it would be easier to define ownership in one way, then build your theory. I look forward to your definition of ownership.

[neeeel]

 if I own myself, that means I own my life, time, the effects of my labor,

 

 

I dont follow. your statement , written out in logical form is:-

 

P) I own myself

therefore

C) I own my life, time , and effects of my labor

 

the conclusion C) does not logically follow from the premise P), so its either incorrect, or there are some other hidden premises there that need to be stated?  "own your life" and "own your time" also seem quite vague and undefined to me.

[Stagger Lee]

 

Ownership can mean two things

a)Being responsible for something

and

b)Having authority over something.

 

 

 

 

Where does this come from? I think your mistake my start with your definition of ownership.

[sdavio]

 

Not an argument!

 

Also, if your point is that to "have" a problem with an argument equates to private property, then I think the point I've been making in this thread applies: The "having" involved there is only a very meager concept of property (eg, it's a 'property' in the sense that a wall has the 'property' of being a certain colour) which seems to be miles from what an ancap philosophy needs to do with the concept of property. Property in the sense of a right attributed to someone which cannot be violated is not established simply by attributing something as being caused by the person.

 

"I caused X to come about, therefore, if you attempt interfere with X I'm justified in using force to stop you." -- The part after 'therefore' is not simply a paraphrasing of the first part. There's something new there which needs to be established.

 

The only way such a statement would properly contradict the ancap concept of property would be if the person said, "I have a problem with your argument, and if you try to stop me from having a problem with it I'll cut you... and I'll be objectively justified in doing it!" It's a different claim.

[Will Torbald]

Property in the sense of a right attributed to someone which cannot be violated is not established simply by attributing something as being caused by the person.

 

What cannot be violated is the objective reality of having caused an argument. When you argue against self ownership you are using your body, mind, time, to argue that you don't own your body, mind, and time while at the same time being the -sole owner/person in charge/responsible agent- for your body, mind, and time since nobody else can act on your body, mind, and time without the initiation of force - or your valid consent, which is in itself an exercise of self ownership. Therefore forceful self defense is the act of delimiting the self ownership of your body, mind, and time against another person's forceful attempt at taking them from you.

 

Having a problem with another person's argument is not a violation of your property rights. It's just a disagreement. I can't cut you for being wrong. I can cut you if you force me to believe in your wrong argument by force, but that's already self defense.

[labmath2]

What cannot be violated is the objective reality of having caused an argument. When you argue against self ownership you are using your body, mind, time, to argue that you don't own your body, mind, and time while at the same time being the -sole owner/person in charge/responsible agent- for your body, mind, and time since nobody else can act on your body, mind, and time without the initiation of force - or your valid consent, which is in itself an exercise of self ownership. Therefore forceful self defense is the act of delimiting the self ownership of your body, mind, and time against another person's forceful attempt at taking them from you.

 

Having a problem with another person's argument is not a violation of your property rights. It's just a disagreement. I can't cut you for being wrong. I can cut you if you force me to believe in your wrong argument by force, but that's already self defense.

You are not definiting ownership. You are assuming the thing you are trying to prove.

 

Another way of stating the argument is this. There are two forms of ownership, the descriptive and the philosophical. I get the sense people are getting the two confused. The descriptive says you produced or control something, while the philosophical says whether you should have special authority over it. That i control my body has nothing to do with whether i should have the right to control my body or that others should not interfere with that act. It is an instance of trying to derive an ought from an is.

[neeeel]

What cannot be violated is the objective reality of having caused an argument. When you argue against self ownership you are using your body, mind, time, to argue that you don't own your body, mind, and time while at the same time being the -sole owner/person in charge/responsible agent- for your body, mind,  and time

 

No, this is incorrect, unless you DO own your body time and mind.  You have presupposed that it already is that way.

 

That is, you are assuming that its true that you do own your body , time and mind, and using that as a fact to show that its contradictory to argue against self ownership

 

Its like assuming that santa is true, and then using that fact to show that people who dont believe in santa are wrong.

 

What you need to do is first show self ownership.

 

For example, it is theoretically possible that there is no owner of the body, time and mind, and that an argument is STILL made. In this case, there would be no contradiction or violation, 

[sdavio]

What cannot be violated is the objective reality of having caused an argument. When you argue against self ownership you are using your body, mind, time, to argue that you don't own your body, mind, and time while at the same time being the -sole owner/person in charge/responsible agent- for your body, mind, and time since nobody else can act on your body, mind, and time without the initiation of force - or your valid consent, which is in itself an exercise of self ownership. Therefore forceful self defense is the act of delimiting the self ownership of your body, mind, and time against another person's forceful attempt at taking them from you.

 

Having a problem with another person's argument is not a violation of your property rights. It's just a disagreement. I can't cut you for being wrong. I can cut you if you force me to believe in your wrong argument by force, but that's already self defense.

 

But how could I ever "violate a fact"? I can ignore a fact, or state that it isn't true, but when I say "I don't believe in you continuing to hold exclusive control over X, even though you caused it to come into its current state", I am not 'violating' the fact that you caused it to come into its current state. The idea that you should be able to continue controlling X exclusively, and the fact that you caused X to be as it is, are two separable statements, and I can deny one without dissolving the other. If I take away your control over an object, that doesn't retroactively change the fact that you built or paid for it. I may be a jerk for doing it, but that is irrelevant to the kind of purely logical relations between statements we're talking about here.

[Will Torbald]

But how could I ever "violate a fact"? I can ignore a fact, or state that it isn't true, but when I say "I don't believe in you continuing to hold exclusive control over X, even though you caused it to come into its current state", I am not 'violating' the fact that you caused it to come into its current state. The idea that you should be able to continue controlling X exclusively, and the fact that you caused X to be as it is, are two separable statements, and I can deny one without dissolving the other. If I take away your control over an object, that doesn't retroactively change the fact that you built or paid for it. I may be a jerk for doing it, but that is irrelevant to the kind of purely logical relations between statements we're talking about here.

 

I did say "objective reality", and ignoring objective reality is a delusion. Why follow delusions?

 

 

No, this is incorrect, unless you DO own your body time and mind.  You have presupposed that it already is that way.

 

That is, you are assuming that its true that you do own your body , time and mind, and using that as a fact to show that its contradictory to argue against self ownership

 

Its like assuming that santa is true, and then using that fact to show that people who dont believe in santa are wrong.

 

What you need to do is first show self ownership.

 

For example, it is theoretically possible that there is no owner of the body, time and mind, and that an argument is STILL made. In this case, there would be no contradiction or violation, 

 

You are assuming that you can show self ownership from a space without self ownership. First, you'd have to have a being without self ownership, and then show how self ownership when inserted into it makes it a different being. Since we're talking about humans, you would have to show a human without self ownership, then reinsert it back, and show two different states of being. Because that is what it would entail to "show" self ownership, I don't see how else. But I also don't see how it would even be possible to have a human without it. Since we are treading the boundaries of what is possible and impossible, I simply refrain to stay in the "that which is impossible simply must not be considered at all" like gods.

 

 

You are not definiting ownership. You are assuming the thing you are trying to prove.

 

Another way of stating the argument is this. There are two forms of ownership, the descriptive and the philosophical. I get the sense people are getting the two confused. The descriptive says you produced or control something, while the philosophical says whether you should have special authority over it. That i control my body has nothing to do with whether i should have the right to control my body or that others should not interfere with that act. It is an instance of trying to derive an ought from an is.

 

I did define it. I said "being the -sole owner/person in charge/responsible agent- for your body, mind" Since you are making the statement that it isn't true, you need to provide evidence of the contrary. Who is your co-owner? Or you whole owner? Who are you asking permission to breathe?

[Libertyblues]

What's wrong with Ayn Rand's property rights argument?

[square4]

It appears there are some hidden steps or assumptions made in the argument for self-ownership. Based on hints by people in other threads, I now think the complete argument (implicitly) goes like this:

1. Morality means acting according to universal and consistent principles.

2. Morality is not seen as something you "ought" to do, avoiding the Hume is-ought gap. The claim is: IF you want to be moral (that is, IF you want to act according to universal consistent principles), THEN, to reach that goal, you should do this or that.

3. Based on the idea of the subjectivity of value, that each person has its own arbitrary preferences, ethical theories cannot make any objective distinction between different actions, as long as they are not forced on another person.

4. Based on the idea that people are not fundamentally different, ethical theories cannot make an arbitrary distinction between people.

5. Any action (including speaking and debating) is consistent only with the principle that you have the right to do so, and generalizing based on point 3 and 4, that people own themselves.

6. Any violent action that denies the victim the possibility to control himself, would be in line with the principle that people own and do not own themselves, but that is inconsistent (or contradictory). Based on point 1, such an action would be immoral.

 

Please correct me if this reconstruction is wrong. Hopefully, this will help us to better critically examine the argument, and have a more productive discussion.

[neeeel]

 

 

You are assuming that you can show self ownership from a space without self ownership. First, you'd have to have a being without self ownership, and then show how self ownership when inserted into it makes it a different being. Since we're talking about humans, you would have to show a human without self ownership, then reinsert it back, and show two different states of being. Because that is what it would entail to "show" self ownership, I don't see how else. But I also don't see how it would even be possible to have a human without it. Since we are treading the boundaries of what is possible and impossible, I simply refrain to stay in the "that which is impossible simply must not be considered at all" like gods.

 

 

 

No. Either self ownership is true, or it isnt. If its true, you should be able to show it.

 

 

 

 

I also don't see how it would even be possible to have a human without it

 

 

Not sure what you mean? If self ownership isnt true, then you are already seeing how its possible to have humans without it.

[Will Torbald]

No. Either self ownership is true, or it isnt. If its true, you should be able to show it.

 

 

 

Not sure what you mean? If self ownership isnt true, then you are already seeing how its possible to have humans without it.

 

Because you are making an argument without physics. It's not about whether it's true or false, it's about if it can even be false at all. You are asking someone to prove a statement against the possibility of it being false without proving the premise that it can be false, and still have a working human being.

[neeeel]

Because you are making an argument without physics. It's not about whether it's true or false, it's about if it can even be false at all. You are asking someone to prove a statement against the possibility of it being false without proving the premise that it can be false, and still have a working human being.

 

Of course it can be false. I am not sure we are going to get anywhere with this discussion, and not sure how to proceed

 

edit: you talk about "inserting self ownership into a being" in your explanation. Can you tell me what this means? like is it a physical thing that gets inserted? Or what?

[labmath2]

I did define it. I said "being the -sole owner/person in charge/responsible agent- for your body, mind" Since you are making the statement that it isn't true, you need to provide evidence of the contrary. Who is your co-owner? Or you whole owner? Who are you asking permission to breathe?

I will ignore all uses of ownership in your deginition sine you cannot define a word with itself.

 

So self ownership is being the person in charge or responsible agent for your body and mind. You are not responsible for your body and by extension your mind, your parents are. If being in charge, which translates to controlling your body, is what you mean by ownership, then there is the problem of how it applies everywhere else. The car example clearly falsifies this claim. The controller of a car must be its owner. Another problem with the control case is that you assume something ought to be the case just because it is. Just because you control your body, does not allow you to bypass the argument for why it is moral for you to control your body.

[Will Torbald]

Of course it can be false. I am not sure we are going to get anywhere with this discussion, and not sure how to proceed

 

edit: you talk about "inserting self ownership into a being" in your explanation. Can you tell me what this means? like is it a physical thing that gets inserted? Or what?

 

Like a physical property. Imagine I say that magnets stick to fridges because they have a magnetic field. I explain and define the properties of the field and how it sticks to the fridge, and you say there's a possibility that the magnet could stick to the fridge without a magnetic field (glue or adhesive notwithstanding). Then I say that if it didn't have a magnetic field it wouldn't be a magnet in the first place. That's sort of where we are. A person is the magnet, a property of magnets is the magnetic field, and the sticking-to-a-fridge is an effect of the "self ownership" that causes the effects of people being responsible for their actions, their time, bodies, being able to self actuate on their own without being coerced, and so on. If you can remove a magnetic field from a magnet and tried to stick it to a fridge and it fell, it would prove that it sticks to a fridge due to the magnetic force. If you can remove self ownership from a human and still have it have sentience, and consciousness, and self awareness, and decision making, and moral capacity, and still have it be called "a human being" you could have an argument on how humans can exist as they are now and not have self ownership. But you can't, because that would be like taking the magnetic field off a magnet, and still call it a magnet even though it is no longer a magnet. It would just be a piece of metal or ore.