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

[square4]

Eardrums moving are an effect. It's not at all the same as a direct action such as raising your hand.

 

I would think indirectness does not matter when causation is certain. If someone produces an object without actually physically touching the object, but only working on it indirectly, does that mean he does not get ownership?

 

No, the argument is:

 

P1: You make claim X which stands opposed to A

P2: X necessarily implies A in order for the claim to be made

P3: X is a statement that denies A only in utterance, but wholly requires A in action

 

 

Suppose someone claims in a debate: People are free to use their body and property, but with certain restrictions, such as that they should share their abundance with those in need. Using his speaking faculty in an exclusive manner would not be in opposition to his claim, because we have only one body, so it is not in abundance.

[dsayers]

If someone produces an object without actually physically touching the object, but only working on it indirectly, does that mean he does not get ownership?

 

What are you talking about?

[Kevin Beal]

Even barring my criticism of the entire strategy as fallacious; the principle entailed in my form is simply that [someone's actions can be attributed to them], which, while contained inside the capitalist's property paradigm, is not the entire paradigm. Your strategy would only work if implied in my making the argument were all of the parts of the definition of property which is being challenged.

You've moved the goalpost. "all parts of the definition of property" is not a standard that makes any sense. Property is property is property.

 

You implicitly accept that people own themselves. In what respect people own themselves is another matter. You first have to acknowledge that people own themselves in order for this conversation to continue.

 

You didn't even know what the argument was, and you claimed it was the basis of UPB. And you didn't acknowledge that you got either one wrong.

 

It can only be a strawman that you are challenging. There is no other option.

[sdavio]

You've moved the goalpost. "all parts of the definition of property" is not a standard that makes any sense. Property is property is property.You implicitly accept that people own themselves. In what respect people own themselves is another matter. You first have to acknowledge that people own themselves in order for this conversation to continue.You didn't even know what the argument was, and you claimed it was the basis of UPB. And you didn't acknowledge that you got either one wrong.It can only be a strawman that you are challenging. There is no other option.

I have an issue with the 'ought' aspect of self-ownership. We all agree that a human being has attributes (ie blue eyes.) If this were *all* property was then I'd agree with it.However, there is a step of logic necessary to the person having a 'right' to themselves, and I don't see how it follows. This leap is necessary in order to justify owning external objects with the labour theory of property.

[JamesP]

Suppose someone claims in a debate: People are free to use their body and property, but with certain restrictions, such as that they should share their abundance with those in need. Using his speaking faculty in an exclusive manner would not be in opposition to his claim, because we have only one body, so it is not in abundance.

 

Who gets to define "abundance"?  And if somebody refuses to share their "abundance," are they evil and thus can be forced to share?

 

This, of course, entirely deflates the meaning of "share," which is always talked about as a voluntary action.

[Kevin Beal]

I have an issue with the 'ought' aspect of self-ownership. We all agree that a human being has attributes (ie blue eyes.) If this were *all* property was then I'd agree with it.However, there is a step of logic necessary to the person having a 'right' to themselves, and I don't see how it follows. This leap is necessary in order to justify owning external objects with the labour theory of property.

Okay. Then what do you need to be convinced?

[sdavio]

Okay. Then what do you need to be convinced?

A logical link from 'is' to 'ought'?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

A logical link from 'is' to 'ought'?

"Stef's" argument violates no such is/ought dichotomy. If you are looking for some objective ought then that's something YOU are adding as a criterion for accepting the argument.

Morality is a choice, not a commandment. 

[Kevin Beal]

A logical link from 'is' to 'ought'?

That's easy!

 

Should I make valid arguments and say things that are true? If yes, then you already implicitly accept this link from "is" to "ought", generally.

 

If you have a greater claim to your own body than I do, then I ought act accordingly, since we agree that what is true is what matters.

• We both accept that we ought make valid arguments because we both prefer truth over falsehood
• You have a greater claim to your body than I do
• It would be honest (true) of me to behave accordingly with these facts

 

We can deduce these things simply from the fact that you and I are arguing about it. And if you are going to deny it while necessarily accepting it, no debate is possible because first principles cannot be established. Also, it would be completely insane.

 

There are no ontologically objective "ought"s. They do not exist anywhere inside our atoms, or tissues, or systems, or even our brains. They are ontologically subjective, because they are observer relative. This is the same sense that money has value or that a field goal in american football is 6 points. These are true statements, but they requires minds to observe them.

 

Some ontologically subjective facts are the result of some consensus (like the point value of a field goal) and some are not at all arbitrary.

 

There is no objective scale of value for goods (despite the effort of the socialists), and yet we have praxeology and economics to describe these subjective values in an objective manner. We know that people value nice pens more than they value the 5 dollar bill in their wallets because they regularly do trade these things, which is why the asking price is around 5 dollars.

 

Likewise, there is no self ownership stamp in your body put there by Yahweh (or whatever description that could be comprehensible), and yet it's absolutely true that people do own themselves. You've practiced self ownership consistently and repeatedly in this thread:

• You responded to posts directed to you and not someone else
• You've acknowledged what position is your own and not mine
• You are using your eyeballs to read, your fingers to type

 

The only conceivable way out of this is to suggest that we do not act. That our consciousness is illusory and we are either controlled by somebody else (which just pushes the "problem" back), or by dumb blind forces (making this debate literally nonsensical).

[square4]

 

In your argumentation you stress the fact that people possess their body. But it is important to realize the fundamental difference between mere possession and rightful ownership. At some point, you seemed to conflate these two ideas.

- Mere possession: actually controlling something (an “is”)

- Rightful ownership: the right to control something exclusively (this implies an “ought” for all the non-owners)

Responsibility for past actions is based on the actual possession of our body, not on ownership. If someone controls something illegally, he is still responsible for what he causes. Suppose someone steals a car and causes an accident, then the thief is responsible for it, not the rightful owner of the car. Controlling your fingers or your car is only an expression of ownership if the possession is rightful, but that is what needs to be proven in the first place. Also, it focuses only the positive aspect, the right the control something, and not on the negative aspect of ownership, that others should not control it. I agree that self-ownership is intuitively right, but the point is, can we prove it?

 

You have a greater claim to your body than I do

 

 

I think the term "greater claim" needs clarification or elaboration. For it work, it must be possible to evaluate different ownership claims, and to decide, according to some criteria, which claim best corresponds to reality. For example, suppose a thief runs away with stolen property. Is it morally permissible for the owner to grab the thief to get back his property? Because by doing so, he would demonstrate that he thinks to have a better claim to control the body of the thief at that moment, compared to the thief himself. Or is your position that property rights (of things outside the body) should never be enforced? What would your criteria be to decide between conflicting ownership claims? Can you prove it is the right criteria to use?

[Kevin Beal]

I think the term "greater claim" needs clarification or elaboration.

I really don't think so. Is the question even remotely coherent? Good enough! Do you agree or don't you? If you don't agree, can you see why I might think that's just a tad insane?

 

But if you do agree, then the debate is over.

 

I'm simply appealing to what we can all agree on: first principles. We can nit pick into infinity, but philosophy is a little more important than an asterisks or an exception. When people nit pick, it's not really about the truth. It's about fogging people. And the vast majority of what is called philosophy is really about preventing philosophy.

 

There are serious psychological implications in believing that we don't have self ownership. We could just talk about that instead...

[dsayers]

Square4, are you trolling? You said something before in this thread, I sought clarification, and here you are posting again as if nobody asked you to elaborate on what YOU said.

[square4]

I'm simply appealing to what we can all agree on: first principles. We can nit pick into infinity, but philosophy is a little more important than an asterisks or an exception. When people nit pick, it's not really about the truth. It's about fogging people. And the vast majority of what is called philosophy is really about preventing philosophy.

 

 

Almost everyone agrees that in general people may have exclusive control over their own body. The problem is the exceptions and asterisks that people use to water it down. Some say: you may exclusively control your body except when you steal, others say: except when you sell illegal drugs, etc.. For the idea of self-ownership to fulfill a role of significance in the moral debate, as Stef and others want it to have, then its exceptions have to be defined or at least constrained in some way.

 

Square4, are you trolling? You said something before in this thread, I sought clarification, and here you are posting again as if nobody asked you to elaborate on what YOU said.

 

Dsayers, you seem to be rather quick to think about people that they might insincere, deceptive, trolling, etc. The reason I did not respond is 1) because it did not seem to matter in the current discussion anymore, because of the direction it had taken, and 2) because I was preparing to start a separate thread about indirect effects of actions in general. But to answer your question: I was talking about manufacturing things by using air / thermal / electrical flows, without directly touching the object that is manufactured.

[Kevin Beal]

Almost everyone agrees that in general people may have exclusive control over their own body. The problem is the exceptions and asterisks that people use to water it down. Some say: you may exclusively control your body except when you steal, others say: except when you sell illegal drugs, etc.. For the idea of self-ownership to fulfill a role of significance in the moral debate, as Stef and others want it to have, then its exceptions have to be defined or at least constrained in some way.

But in order for any kind of progress to be made in this discussion, an acknowledgement that we do have self ownership must be made. Because it's true, it's necessary to talk about people owning things in general and it's so monumentally obviously true

[dsayers]

I was talking about manufacturing things by using air / thermal / electrical flows, without directly touching the object that is manufactured.

 

If I put a brick through your window, I own that action even though I didn't touch your window directly. I was using the brick as a tool to amplify my force and/or range.

 

Using an intermediary is still investing value into an object to meaningfully alter it from a naturally occurring state. It has no bearing on the claim of ownership.

 

You can point the focus on me if you'd like, but it won't change the fact that you participated in a debate, offered a counterargument, and refused to provide clarity WHILE continuing to participate as if clarity wasn't sought. You didn't address it, when it was brought up, you didn't own it, and you even tried to divert attention away from it.

 

Sorry, but the conviction somebody has towards the truth is very important to me. I enjoy discussing challenging topics with people. Though I do not wish to waste my time discussing such things with people more interested in shoe-horning their position into reality instead of revising or abandoning their position when it's revealed to not accurately describe reality.

[sdavio]

That's easy!

You say it's easy to get from 'is' to 'ought', but your post - as far as I can tell - did no such thing. Instead you justify the 'ought' based on the same Tu Quoque fallacy citing the fact that it is common for people to assign responsibility for each others actions. In fact at some points you seem to imply that such an 'is-ought' leap is indeed impossible:"There are no ontologically objective "ought"s.""Likewise, there is no self ownership stamp in your body put there by Yahweh [...] You've practiced self ownership consistently and repeatedly in this thread"I've already explained my issue with this line of argument; barring the fact that it's a fallacy and assumes the very thing it purports to justify, the fact that I assign a person's statements to themselves as an abstracted entity doesn't in itself imply that I accept any moral rule whatever. Even if it did, it would imply it as a social construct, not as an intrinsic 'right' - the notion of which you yourself seem to reject.

[Kevin Beal]

You say it's easy to get from 'is' to 'ought', but your post - as far as I can tell - did no such thing. Instead you justify the 'ought' based on the same Tu Quoque fallacy citing the fact that it is common for people to assign responsibility for each others actions. In fact at some points you seem to imply that such an 'is-ought' leap is indeed impossible:

 

"There are no ontologically objective "ought"s."

 

"Likewise, there is no self ownership stamp in your body put there by Yahweh [...] You've practiced self ownership consistently and repeatedly in this thread"

 

I've already explained my issue with this line of argument; barring the fact that it's a fallacy and assumes the very thing it purports to justify, the fact that I assign a person's statements to themselves as an abstracted entity doesn't in itself imply that I accept any moral rule whatever. Even if it did, it would imply it as a social construct, not as an intrinsic 'right' - the notion of which you yourself seem to reject.

Yes. I understand what you are saying. You do not need to repeat yourself

 

So, I know this is a confusing issue, so I'm going to try and make a few distinctions and definitions, because I think I see better now where the error is that I believe you are making. Which I should have done sooner instead of repeat how obviously true what I'm saying is, which I confess is a lame thing to do. As if believing it more strongly myself is going to somehow change the beliefs in your head. Lame! Haha

 

 

Objective vs Subjective

Whether or not something is objective actually depends on the subject of the proposition. If the proposition concerns a physical object ("my body has hair growing out of it"), that is ontologically objective. If the subject of the proposition is not a physical object but rather a truth claim to do with knowledge ("my name is Kevin and I am a programmer for a living" or "2 plus 2 is 4") that is epistemically objective.

 

Subjectivity is something that tends to scare philosophers away, when it shouldn't. The value that my federal reserve note has compared to other goods is ontologically subjective. There is no encryption embedded that says what everyone will accept it in trade for. That is up to individuals and their subjective valuation. Despite this inherently subjective phenomena, we have the study of economics which takes an epistemically objective view of an ontologically subjective phenomena.

 

The claims that economics comes to about the value of goods is entirely objective. The claims ethics makes are objective in this same way.

 

 

Observer Relative vs Observer Independent

Some things are true regardless of who is there to say or know it ("the earth is spherical"), while other things are true only because people think it ("Obama is the president"). And even more interesting, some things are true in the very act of saying it ("the meeting is adjourned!").

 

Those things that are just simply true regardless of anything any person might think are observer independent, while on the flip side if nobody were to think that Obama were the president, then he would not be the president, that being observer relative.

 

 

Functions vs Features

I have a heart in my chest. It is a feature of my body. Bob serves a function in his capacity as a street sweeper, that is to clean the sidewalk. If we regarded newspaper, bubble gum and styrofoam coffee cups as being things that are desirable and clean, his sweeping them away would not fit the function we described "clean the sidewalk".

 

The same is true in base biology. Our heart pumps blood so that we can get oxygen to all our systems, but if we regarded staying alive and getting oxygen as being as bad as some cancer, it's function to pump blood would be dysfunctional.

 

The fact that we can say that it's functional or dysfunctional and for that distinction to be meaningful is because functions are observer relative. The features themselves are observer independent.

 

 

Collective Intentionality

The fact that money has the value it does is based on the fact that people believe that it does. It's observer relative in that if no one believed money was valuable, they wouldn't trade with it and it would in fact not be valuable (at least not in the sense we think of it as being valuable).

 

The meaning of words and sentences too is a collectively intentional phenomena since it's meaning is based on how other people are using the words. And yet it's an epistemically objective truth to talk about the word "ball" as describing spherical objects.

 

 

Status as True

The fact that I am a programmer, that this truck nearby is mine and that a guy named Tyler is my boss at my company are all status functions. They are true statements about the functions I perform by being me.

 

My status as the owner of my body and my truck is observer relative. My stamp isn't etched into the aether surrounding these things. Rather this only has meaning because you and I are here to think about it. This doesn't make it arbitrary, though.

 

What it means to own something is based on collective intentionality. I own my body because of what we collectively understand the concept of "property" to mean. I have been identified, and from there a certain set of features and functions too. I am Kevin, and I bought my truck from the previous owner.

 

In this case thinking it does make it so, but it must be epistemically true about this ontologically subjective claim. That is to say that buying it equates to owning it, and we all agree that it does.

 

 

Performative Contradictions

With the foundation we have now, we can see how this supposed fallacy is not a fallacy at all, and does prove the status, the ownership as true.

 

By confirming the status of ownership over your own body and of your actions and the results therein as you inevitably have to in order to argue against self ownership, you prove self ownership.

 

This is because the collective intentionality is the basis itself.

 

This is directly analogous to yelling at me saying "language has no meaning!!!" In order to be comprehensible at all, it has to be true that language has meaning.

 

Likewise, in order for the claim "there is no self ownership" to be comprehensible at all, it must be true that we have self ownership.

 

It's just a more complicated version of "there is no truth". That statement only being comprehensible because truth accurately describes things.

 

The definition is not the proof, rather this demonstration is the proof. That's what is meant by proving self ownership.

 

 

For more about these distinctions and definitions, and to listen to a great lecture, watch this video:

[square4]

If I put a brick through your window, I own that action even though I didn't touch your window directly. I was using the brick as a tool to amplify my force and/or range.

 

Using an intermediary is still investing value into an object to meaningfully alter it from a naturally occurring state. It has no bearing on the claim of ownership.

 

OK, I copied this into a new thread.

 

A logical link from 'is' to 'ought'?

 

We are examining the attempt by Stef and others to proof self-ownership, and you have pointed out the difficulty of bridging is/ought gap. But I think a similar argument applies to the opposite position as well. In a situation without conflicts between people, each person is controlling his own body. This is the default situation. People understandably prefer to be free from aggression from other people against their body, such as murder, rape, assault, imprisonment. When someone nevertheless commits aggression he is: 1) going against the default non-conflict situation, 2) going against a probably strong preference of the other, 3) assigning himself more than his victim (control over two bodies). Because of this, I think it is up to the aggressor to show that what he wants should take precedence over the desire of the victim to be safe from aggression. It is appropriate to place the burden of proof with the proponents of violence, instead of on peaceful people that want to be left alone. It is my expectation that it will be impossible for aggressors to justify their violence. This will in practice imply self-ownership.

 

In order for statements like "Taxation is violent and immoral" to hold, right to owning property must be a logical and natural extension of being human, rather than a utilitarian-style social construct.

 

It is a fact that taxation is enforced through violence. Although private property is arguably valid, even if it would be invalid, taxation proponents would still have to show that their property claim is valid and that violent enforcement of it would be justified. If it is difficult to proof that the man who has produced a chair with his own hands has property rights in what he has produced, how much more difficult will it be to show that other people would have a valid claim on the chair, enforceable through violence. I think they will not even come remotely close of showing this would be justified.

Edited March 4, 2014 by square4

[cynicist]

The proof for property rights I have seen Stefan Molyneux provide (specifically in the video "A Proof of Property Rights") is that one cannot argue against property without being a hypocrite. This seems an example of the logical fallacy 'Tu Quoque', because it is not logically sound to claim an assertion is true only on the grounds that a specific or theoretical opponent of the assertion would be a hypocrite. It would work as an aside, but this is purported to be a rational proof working from first principles. Am I mistaken in labelling this proof as a fallacy?

 

"[Tu Quoque] is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

 

Actually what you just did there is strawman his argument, because that's not what Stefan is saying. He is saying it is true on the grounds that you could only be making the argument against property by exercising ownership over your own body. It's a self detonating argument. I could try to argue that using my voice to communicate is impossible but if I use my voice to make that argument there is no need to disprove it, because I have done so in the utterance. (love that word)

[Vuk11]

It's that one cannot argue against property rights without using property rights. For example you are attributing the argument to Stef. It is HIS argument, made by him. 

There is an issue with this logic I have faced debating Ansocs, that responsibility over something IE responsibility for making an argument does not give one ownership.When I used the definition of property rights being: Self ownership -> Ownership of actions -> Owning the effects of the actions,The criticism that was levelled was that even if self ownership is true, responsibility for an action (being responsible for hitting some for example) doesn't give one ownership as a valid concept, but rather just responsibility. Does responsibility imply ownership? If one was to strike someone and own it like private property, can that then be given away? I would say no due to responsibility of instigation, but I see their criticism and am not sure how to answer it. Personally I've been redefining my definition of property rights to first validate the concept of ownership, before arguing who owns what through the above principle. The reason being is people like Ansocs don't actually use the term ownership, using possession and to use their words to illustrate: "We don't hold possession to be sacred in the way that ancaps hold property to be sacred rather, we hold equality of liberty to be sacred and thus wish to undermine hierarchy as much as possible". Obviously their view being that private property creates hierarchy and thus infringes on the liberty of all.

 

Ideas anyone?

Cheers in advance.

[Andrew79]

"We don't hold possession to be sacred in the way that ancaps hold property to be sacred rather, we hold equality of liberty to be sacred and thus wish to undermine hierarchy as much as possible".

Meaningless, feel-good nonsense.

 

Private property is freedom, it is the very essence of liberty, for if you don't have the highest claim over what you "possess" then it means someone else does.

 

And there's mass grave after mass grave filled with the results of that philosophy.

 

To help with your argument, here's a quick read by Hans-Herman Hoppe on private property:

 

The Ultimate Justification Of The Private Property Ethic

 

And here's his (free) book on the subject:

 

The Economics and Ethics of Private Property

 

And lastly, here's his book contrasting private property with the alternatives:

 

A Theory Of Socialism and Capitalism

[Vuk11]

Private property is freedom, it is the very essence of liberty, 

For them, the ability to own land and the means of production is the ability to take choice from people, to force them from circumstance into tenancy/hierarchy and thus infringe on their liberty(read: choice), that's the argument used.Thanks very much for the resources I'll get stuck into them.

 

Doesn't Hoppe talk about the basis for ownership or the concept of ownership being Objective Link?

[Andrew79]

For them, the ability to own land and the means of production is the ability to take choice from people, to force them from circumstance into tenancy/hierarchy and thus infringe on their liberty(read: choice), that's the argument used.

Yes, I understand their arguments.As I said in the part of the sentence you didn't quote, if you can't own property, if you can't decide what to do with property, then it must mean other people can.And having other people decide what you can or can't do is the very opposite of freedom.In a collectivist utopia, you still can't just walk into someone else's house and take their TV, or into a business and help yourself to a few chairs. Their concept of ownership is almost the same as private property - the difference is only who manages the property.Private property says the owner can manage it in all cases.The collectivists say people can manage their "personal property", such as their own house, car, etc. But for businesses, the workers must own the means of production.How do they do this? Through democracy. In other words, ultimately the best politicians, not the best producers, get control over business. Which leads to disaster. Historically we've repeatedly seen grinding poverty, mass starvation, and genocide.The idea that this is freedom is laughable, the theory crushes it, and real life has tragically proven the theory.Just because advocates of this head straight for the righteous, moral high-ground doesn't mean anything. Don't assume you need to prove your case to them when it's their ideas that always fail - they're the ones with zero credibility, not you.How people can seriously argue for it is beyond me. All I can think is that it's based in envy and hatred of the more successful.

Doesn't Hoppe talk about the basis for ownership or the concept of ownership being Objective Link?

That's one of his arguments.

[Vuk11]

How people can seriously argue for it is beyond me. All I can think is that it's based in envy and hatred of the more successful.

Straight from the horses mouth:

"Well, honestly, I was always extremely spiteful of businessmen, rich people, Wall street folks and the like."

 

 

Just because advocates of this head straight for the righteous, moral high-ground doesn't mean anything. Don't assume you need to prove your case to them when it's their ideas that always fail - they're the ones with zero credibility, not you.

 

It's that justification for violent expropriation of property that always gets me, almost compels me to reply and debate. An insecurity I doubt I'll soon lose.

[Noesis]

we can see how this supposed fallacy is not a fallacy at all, and does prove the status, the ownership as true.

 

By confirming the status of ownership over your own body and of your actions and the results therein as you inevitably have to in order to argue against self ownership, you prove self ownership.

 

This is because the collective intentionality is the basis itself.

 

This is directly analogous to yelling at me saying "language has no meaning!!!" In order to be comprehensible at all, it has to be true that language has meaning.

 

Likewise, in order for the claim "there is no self ownership" to be comprehensible at all, it must be true that we have self ownership.

 

It's just a more complicated version of "there is no truth". That statement only being comprehensible because truth accurately describes things.

 

The definition is not the proof, rather this demonstration is the proof. That's what is meant by proving self ownership.

 

I'd like to add my two cents, if I may.   

 

First, I will preface what I am about to say by agreeing that "self-ownership" (in the sense of "exclusive control over one's body" and in the sense of "being responsible for the actions of my body") is true, so that hopefully nobody will be confused about my meaning. 

 

Now, on to addressing this line of reasoning. I find it ineffectual for the same reason the other people in this thread find it so as well: 

 

Self-ownership (remember: exclusive control over your body/actions) is not the same as property ownership. They are different things, and so it is not sufficient, logically, to say that if I "own"—a better word would be "control"—myself that that somehow proves that I also am entitled (in the sense of having rights) to something that is not something that only I have exclusive use of (i.e. property). The concept of self-ownership ends where the self ends and the external world begins. So, here is the chain of logic as far as I understand it:

 

P1) I control myself exclusively (as nobody else can get inside my consciousness to control it).

P2) I am responsible for all my actions (since they are a result of my consciousness, which I control).

P3) I am responsible for the effects of my actions (because the window would not be broken if I hadn't shot at it). 

 

Now, here is the disconnect. The assertion that the above premises prove:

 

C1) I own (in the sense of having rights to the use and control of) the "effects of my actions", "results of my labour", or "unclaimed stuff I come across and lay claim to". 

 

There is no such proof for this contained in any of the three premises. They are merely talking about your inner consciousness and what that consciousness is responsible for in the external world. But responsibility for is not the same as ownership of. Those are two distinct things, requiring two distinct types of evidence. Even if I am responsible for the chair existing, all that means is that the result of my internal consciousness' choices led to the rearranging of some molecules in the physical, external world, through action. The exact same thing happens when I breathe air. Or walk along a beach. That does not imply or prove that there is an ought that exists that gives me ownership of that sand on the beach or the air that I am breathing. It simply means that I am using the sand, or the wood, or air, or whatever it is that I am interacting with. Using it—for whatever reason—does not mean I therefore own it.

 

As for society's understanding of "property rights", yes, that is quite a different matter. But it is entirely disconnected from the self-ownership argument put forth. If people believe that private property is a good concept to adhere to for a well-functioning society to prosper, and it is enforced or discouraged by some structured means, then you can say that you have a "right" to your property because everyone (or mostly everyone) believes that you do, according to the law or contract or whatever. But this has nothing to do with the self-ownership argument, as what people believe is not something derived through logic from reality. The self-ownership argument being used to try to prove that property ownership is true is therefore an incorrect use of the argument.

 

To make this extra clear: the way that the word "ownership" is used in the concept of "self-ownership" is to mean exclusive use of. To extend this concept of "ownership" to possessions in the physical world is misguided and non-sensical, as possessions like cars, wood, and land are not things that any human has an axiomatic exclusive control over. Any person could come along and steal it, or use it without us knowing (and if they are using it/controlling it, according to the misguided notion, they would now "own" it, which corrupts the concept of property entirely). And when we die, these things do not evaporate out of existence due to the fact that we "owned" them, used them, created them, or stumbled across them first. They have absolutely no tangible tie to our consciousness. Reality does not care or have a moral code embedded in it that requires that the person who's actions resulted in some change gets to profit upon that effort. That is entirely a human concept. It is not an objective, reality-based phenomenon, like gravity is. "Ownership" is not something that can be observed through physical evidence. Ever. And it is also not something that can be arrived at through reason/logic, as many philosophers have acknowledged via the Is-Ought Problem. 

 

I hope I didn't repeat myself or ramble. If anything is unclear to anyone, please let me know where the precise issue lies. 

 

Also, one last thing: It is entirely possible for someone to never write or utter the statement that "self-ownership or property rights do not exist", and yet they may not believe in the idea (for example, they may feel as if they are being controlled by voices in their head, by a witch, etc.). Then this person may go around stealing. At no point do they contradict themselves, since they have not made any claims. Therefore that argument is irrelevant. If you think that it doesn't matter that he has not made any claims, then clearly the over-used argument of someone acting in contradiction to their stated claim is an irrelevant argument, and so it should stop being repeated as if it has something to do with the matter at hand. No matter which position you take (you agree with me or disagree with me on this reasoning), that argument is irrelevant. 

[MMX2010]

Also, one last thing: It is entirely possible for someone to never write or utter the statement that "self-ownership or property rights do not exist", and yet they may not believe in the idea (for example, they may feel as if they are being controlled by voices in their head, by a witch, etc.).

My favorite counter-argument goes something like this, "If such a person really believe that property rights don't exist, then he can either ferry all of his money over to me, or pay my phone bill for me."  (Think about it.  If he doesn't believe in property rights, then he should have no objection to ferrying all of his money over to me, nor should he have any objections to paying my phone bill for me.  But the moment that person objects, he destroys his own argument that property rights don't exist.) 

 

Then this person may go around stealing. At no point do they contradict themselves, since they have not made any claims. Therefore that argument is irrelevant. If you think that it doesn't matter that he has not made any claims, then clearly the over-used argument of someone acting in contradiction to their stated claim is an irrelevant argument, and so it should stop being repeated as if it has something to do with the matter at hand. No matter which position you take (you agree with me or disagree with me on this reasoning), that argument is irrelevant. 

 

Not true, either.  Someone who doesn't believe in property rights would never use the word "stealing", because "stealing" is when you take someone else's property against their will.  Furthermore, "taking someone else's stuff" is not nearly as reliable a test of "Does this person really believe in the non-existence of property rights?"  Instead, the best possible test is, "Does that person complain when their own stuff is taken?" 

 

Once you apply those simple tests, you find that everyone who says, "I don't believe in property rights!" is bluffing. 

[Noesis]

My favorite counter-argument goes something like this, "If such a person really believe that property rights don't exist, then he can either ferry all of his money over to me, or pay my phone bill for me."  (Think about it.  If he doesn't believe in property rights, then he should have no objection to ferrying all of his money over to me, nor should he have any objections to paying my phone bill for me.  But the moment that person objects, he destroys his own argument that property rights don't exist.) 

 

Ah, allow me to clarify.

 

They believe that no objective right to property exists. They can (and should) believe that "property rights" as a human construct, however, does exist. Hence "stealing" is a specific circumstance that you can be caught and punished for, regardless of its moral status (or lack thereof) in reality. 

 

Also it is simply not sound to say that because I have no right to exclusive control to any possession that I cannot defend my ability to control it simply because I want to. I need to give absolutely no justification for it. If I do not believe that you have any moral rights to property, or that I have any, that means that we are on even ground. You may try to take it from me, and I may try to take things from you. That is a perfectly valid stance to hold even when you do not believe in the mystical "natural right" to property. 

 

 

Someone who doesn't believe in property rights would never use the word "stealing", because "stealing" is when you take someone else's property against their will.  Furthermore, "taking someone else's stuff" is not nearly as reliable a test of "Does this person really believe in the non-existence of property rights?"  Instead, the best possible test is, "Does that person complain when their own stuff is taken?" 

 

Once you apply those simple tests, you find that everyone who says, "I don't believe in property rights!" is bluffing.

 

"Taking someone's property against their will" isn't quite the correct definition for "stealing". It means "taking it without their permission, when they have the right to it, and you do not have that right". But the "rights" that are referred to, for example, in today's society are those that need not have any moral basis. Laws are laws, and rights within the law are fictions that are created and enforced, through the process of the system. These type of "rights" should not be confused with "natural rights" which are supposably derived through logic, merely by acknowledging facts of reality. If a law was made tomorrow that everyone has a right to take whatever they like from anyone, that would mean they now have the legal right to do so. It says nothing whatsoever of the moral right (if there is such a thing). 

 

I have every legal right to protect my stuff from you taking it, and I will do so. That does not mean that I am somehow implicitly acknowledging a moral right of mine to protect my stuff. I am not. I don't. I have no such moral right. But you also, in my view, have no moral right to just come and take my stuff. There is no basis for that, either. Hence it is the way things are in nature: it is a free-for-all. 

[dsayers]

To make this extra clear: the way that the word "ownership" is used in the concept of "self-ownership" is to mean exclusive use of. To extend this concept of "ownership" to possessions in the physical world is misguided and non-sensical, as possessions like cars, wood, and land are not things that any human has an axiomatic exclusive control over. Any person could come along and steal it, or use it without us knowing (and if they are using it/controlling it, according to the misguided notion, they would now "own" it, which corrupts the concept of property entirely).

 

I disagree. If we own ourselves, then we own the effects of our actions. Just as if you pick an object up off the ground, it has the energy you have given it by counteracting gravity. It follows.

 

If somebody uses your car, I think it's more accurate to say that they are exercising ownership over it. To determine if that behavior is valid and moral, we must seek a potential previous owner. Since cars do not exist in nature, we know that it has an owner. If the person currently using it is not the owner, did not seek permission from the owner, and is not fulfilling a voluntary positive obligation created by the owner, then the use is theft.

[Noesis]

I disagree. If we own ourselves, then we own the effects of our actions. Just as if you pick an object up off the ground, it has the energy you have given it by counteracting gravity. It follows.

 

If somebody uses your car, I think it's more accurate to say that they are exercising ownership over it. To determine if that behavior is valid and moral, we must seek a potential previous owner. Since cars do not exist in nature, we know that it has an owner. If the person currently using it is not the owner, did not seek permission from the owner, and is not fulfilling a voluntary positive obligation created by the owner, then the use is theft.

 

If you pick up an object, or move an object, then you are simply using your own energy. By what argument does the fact that you are producing an effect on the object thereby mean that you own the object? If this is the definition for "ownership" that you are using, then if someone produces an effect on a possession of yours, they would now own it, according to your own logic. You cannot have one definition for a word in one moment, and suspend it the next. 

 

What exactly is the distinction you are attempting to make between "ownership" versus "exercising ownership", and what reasons have you for drawing it? 

 

Where do you get this idea that applying energy to something means you have the right to keep, control, use (etc.) it? By what chain of logic can you reach that conclusion? If you could write out the premises as you understand them, that would be very useful. 

[Kevin Beal]

Heya Noesis! Long time no see, huh? Welcome back to the boards

 

As I see it, the actual physical link between me and my property is an ontologically subjective matter. Claims we make about how and what is my property is an epistemic matter.

 

And for sure, there is an element of "arbitrariness" (for want of a better word) in property as there is in money and other institutional facts. To take an example, money is money because we all believe that it is money. A dollar bill may be constituted with the same fibers and inks as another, they could be physically identical, and yet one is not considered money because it was printed by me in my underground lair of anarchic mischief (thus "counterfeit").

 

With property, there are things which are more or less "arbitrary" in that my own body is mine (I don't think I need to argue for this one). And let's say I build a mailbox out of my own boogers, that's a little less my body, but still I think very few people would argue that it's not mine. And then from there, it's harder to tell, which is why we have disputes that get resolved legally in some way. I think a free society would also have these kinds of disputes settled in ways that feel somewhat arbitrary. Like how many years does something need to be homesteaded in order for it to be considered my property, or whether or not the "finders keepers" clause works in this or that scenario.

 

But in any event, those things which could rationally be called "property" are tied at least in some way to my own self ownership, the effects of my intentions & actions, and my responsibility therein. In other words, I produced and manufactured my booger mailbox, me, and I'm responsible for it. You can't have it!

 

The basis for these things is a collective intentionality. If nobody recognized property rights, they wouldn't really exist beyond what is logically necessary: self ownership.

 

It's objectively true to say that money has value and that I function as a front-end developer at an insurance company. By accepting that I am a front-end developer, you bestow upon me certain institutional powers in the form of obligations, responsibilities, expectations, etc. And you also acknowledge property rights, since I produce something I'm responsible for, and which I trade for a salary. If I didn't own it, my pay would be unearned.

 

By just being me, producing outside of my role as a developer, economic exchanges like the one described above happen all the time in subtle ways that don't require dollar amounts, but are just me being responsible and exchanging the fruits of that with other people.

 

The proof of property rights is in accepting this sense in which I'm using "property" in order to argue against it. How exactly it breaks down is up for us to decide collectively in our contracts with each other. There is an inherent element of ontological subjectivity, but that doesn't make it false, unreal or invalid.

 

Hope that clears it up a bit

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

So, here is the chain of logic as far as I understand it:

 

P1) I control myself exclusively (as nobody else can get inside my consciousness to control it).

P2) I am responsible for all my actions (since they are a result of my consciousness, which I control).

P3) I am responsible for the effects of my actions (because the window would not be broken if I hadn't shot at it). 

 

Now, here is the disconnect. The assertion that the above premises prove:

 

C1) I own (in the sense of having rights to the use and control of) the "effects of my actions", "results of my labour", or "unclaimed stuff I come across and lay claim to". 

 

There is no such proof for this contained in any of the three premises. They are merely talking about your inner consciousness and what that consciousness is responsible for in the external world. But responsibility for is not the same as ownership of. Those are two distinct things, requiring two distinct types of evidence. Even if I am responsible for the chair existing, all that means is that the result of my internal consciousness' choices led to the rearranging of some molecules in the physical, external world, through action. The exact same thing happens when I breathe air. Or walk along a beach. That does not imply or prove that there is an ought that exists that gives me ownership of that sand on the beach or the air that I am breathing. It simply means that I am using the sand, or the wood, or air, or whatever it is that I am interacting with. Using it—for whatever reason—does not mean I therefore own it.

 

I find this to be the most frustrating part of demonstrating things like property rights. People have a tendency to miss the fact that property rights only become an issue when people interact. They tend to immediately start looking for external oughts because historically all our oughts have be inflicted from external sources.

In your chain of logic you put forward three descriptive premises and then a conclusion that does not follow. Fair enough.  Essentially the disconnect you're pointing out is an "is/ought" or fact/value" violation. But the disconnect is one you are creating yourself by leaving out a necessary step in the logic. That is that rights activate when humans interact. They do not and cannot exist independently as some external "ought". If you go from "here's some descriptive premises" to "here's a prescriptive conclusion" then of course there's going to be a disconnect. That's because you left out the premise were humans interact. If you argue property rights are not valid only using premises were no one interacts then you're setting up a straw-man (even though you don't mean to).

 

"Responsibility for" and "ownership of" are not entirely distinct things. If I murder someone I am responsible for the murder. I own that murder. That murder is my property. A murder has a distinct moral property from accidental killing. The murderer has more than just a causal responsibility, they have a moral responsibility. They chose to kill the person without a valid moral justification. Therefore the action was immoral. The accidental killer only has a causal responsibility. The murderer owns the murder. The accidental killer cannot own the accidental death. These distinctions exist objectively even though there is no external "ought" or "ought not" that exists. That "is/ought" thing is something you have to get away from if you want to grok property rights. 

[Andrew79]

Once you apply those simple tests, you find that everyone who says, "I don't believe in property rights!" is bluffing. 

I think for a lot of them, it's more accurate to say, "I don't believe in other people's property rights".

[Noesis]

I find this to be the most frustrating part of demonstrating things like property rights. People have a tendency to miss the fact that property rights only become an issue when people interact.

 

[...] Essentially the disconnect you're pointing out is an "is/ought" or fact/value" violation. But the disconnect is one you are creating yourself by leaving out a necessary step in the logic. That is that rights activate when humans interact. They do not and cannot exist independently as some external "ought". If you go from "here's some descriptive premises" to "here's a prescriptive conclusion" then of course there's going to be a disconnect. That's because you left out the premise were humans interact. If you argue property rights are not valid only using premises were no one interacts then you're setting up a straw-man (even though you don't mean to).

 

The Is-Ought Problem is not surmountable, which is the whole reason it is a problem. Just sticking in another step is not going to allow you to get a moral prescription from descriptive statements. So, sure, let's add in as a fourth premises your new statement:

 

P4) Humans are interacting with each other.

 

... What rights do you believe are "activated" from this occurrence, and why? Where do they come from?

 

"Responsibility for" and "ownership of" are not entirely distinct things. If I murder someone I am responsible for the murder. I own that murder. That murder is my property. A murder has a distinct moral property from accidental killing. The murderer has more than just a causal responsibility, they have a moral responsibility. They chose to kill the person without a valid moral justification. Therefore the action was immoral. The accidental killer only has a causal responsibility. The murderer owns the murder. The accidental killer cannot own the accidental death. These distinctions exist objectively even though there is no external "ought" or "ought not" that exists. That "is/ought" thing is something you have to get away from if you want to grok property rights. 

 

Why are you saying that you "own that murder"? That is a meaningless statement, because you are incorrectly using the word "own". The word "own" has a specific definition, and you cannot use it there as a synonym for "responsible for". I agree that you are responsible for the murder—and that is all. That is all you are saying and all you can say, without making an illogical leap. To use the word "own" is unnecessarily confusing, and you have no reason to introduce that word in this case. If you insist on continuing to use it, then please give me the definition of the word "own" which you are applying to this case of your action of murdering, since a past action is not something you can have control of or possess.

[MMX2010]

If a law was made tomorrow that everyone has a right to take whatever they like from anyone, that would mean they now have the legal right to do so. It says nothing whatsoever of the moral right (if there is such a thing). 

That's not true.  If such a law was made tomorrow, then everyone would know that their government has become officially (and literally) insane, to the point where none of its laws would have any legitimacy. 

 

I have every legal right to protect my stuff from you taking it, and I will do so. That does not mean that I am somehow implicitly acknowledging a moral right of mine to protect my stuff. I am not. I don't. I have no such moral right. But you also, in my view, have no moral right to just come and take my stuff. There is no basis for that, either.  Hence it is the way things are in nature: it is a free-for-all. 

 

You have an interesting definition of "free-for-all". 

 

My definition of "free-for-all" is "a world wherein everyone is allowed to do whatever they want, such that no negative consequences will befall them AND such that no one tries to influence anyone else's actions". 

 

But what you describe, where everyone tries to protect their stuff, and everyone tries to morally influence each other, IS NOT a "free-for-all". 

The Is-Ought Problem is not surmountable, which is the whole reason it is a problem. Just sticking in another step is not going to allow you to get a moral prescription from descriptive statements.

In this case, I think the "Is-Ought" problem is easily surmounted by ignoring it. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The Is-Ought Problem is not surmountable, which is the whole reason it is a problem. Just sticking in another step is not going to allow you to get a moral prescription from descriptive statements. So, sure, let's add in as a fourth premises your new statement:

 

P4) Humans are interacting with each other.

 

... What rights do you believe are "activated" from this occurrence, and why? Where do they come from?

 

 

Why are you saying that you "own that murder"? That is a meaningless statement, because you are incorrectly using the word "own". The word "own" has a specific definition, and you cannot use it there as a synonym for "responsible for". I agree that you are responsible for the murder—and that is all. That is all you are saying and all you can say, without making an illogical leap. To use the word "own" is unnecessarily confusing, and you have no reason to introduce that word in this case. If you insist on continuing to use it, then please give me the definition of the word "own" which you are applying to this case of your action of murdering, since a past action is not something you can have control of or possess.

It doesn't matter if the is/ought problem is surmountable because the arguments for property rights you're addressing are not attempting to surmount it. What you're doing is creating an is/ought violation in your presentation of the arguments and then saying "see, this argument for property rights violates the is/ought dichotomy". At no point has anyone argued that there's a magical external ought. YOU are injecting that into the argument and I described how you're doing it; by presenting the logic of the argument as some descriptive premises followed directly by a fallacious jump to a prescriptive conclusion. 

 

 Look at all your premises and your conclusion. They all start with "I". No one else exists in the chain of logic but it's necessary for other people to exist/interact in order for the ethics to manifest. That's the biggest problem with Hume's is/ought" nonsense. It's Hume sitting in a chair on his own wondering how, without god, what fact compels him to scratch his nose any more than destroy the world. Other people don't even seem to come into it. It's this kind of thinking that's constantly short-circuiting you. 

P4 would not just be "humans are interacting with each other" because that doesn't tell you if they're interacting in some relevant way. It's a bit too broad. The further premises could go as follows.

P4: Someone else wants restitution for the effects of my actions (the person who's window I shot).

P5: As the breaking of the window was an effect of my voluntary actions and the window's existence is an effect of their time/ labor I have taken their time/labor

P6: Any justification for that action (breaking the window) will face insurmountable logical contradiction as I am arbitrarily claiming a right I deny another (taking their time/labor against their will while asserting my time/labor cannot be taken in such a way).

P7:  Thus I am claiming the right (behavior for which there's no moral prohibition) to the other person's time/labor and as such ownership over the effects of my actions (Breaking the others window is an effect of my actions and I have a right to break the other persons window)

 

Getting from the facts of self-ownership to property rights is not that hard if you stop looking for those rights in the external world but rather look for them in the logic of human interaction (and I'm not just referring to praxeolgoy).

 

 

You should probably tell me what specific definition of "own" you're using and how I'm misusing it. Other than the fact that "own" is not commonly used to refer to things like ownership of wrong doing, etc I see no misuse. The only illogical leap is the one you are creating by constantly framing how we get from self-ownership to property rights as a fact/value violation. 

It's not necessarily the ACTION of murdering that I would claim ownership over. Actions are just movements in space and time. It's the murder. The moral violation. I would have chosen the wrong-doing and have ownership of it whether I like it or not. One could also say that I have responsibility for the murder and in certain contexts they may mean the same thing. But these words are often used as synonyms for each other for a reason. It's because self-ownership is directly related to property and often there is no clear distinction.