Help me Understand Stefan's Definition of 'Ownership' (vs 'Direct Control')

[labmath2]

 

It is an argument because I have defined the terms I'm using and proven these definitions are valid by supporting them with empirical evidence. 

Self-ownership (I own myself, you own yourself) is exclusive control of of ones body. It is a fact of reality that I control my body, therefore self-ownership is a fact. The effects of my voluntary actions are owned by me. I maintain and use my body to create these effects. YOU are assigning ownership of these effects TO me when you wrongly claim that I'm just "asserting" an argument. 

It's because of these things that logically follow from having exclusive control of one's self that the term self-ownership or ownership is applied. 

Correct me where i am wrong.

Instance

Exclusive control of ones body is by definition self ownership

Generalized

Exclusive control of x is by definition x ownership.

Instance

Exclusive control of car is by definition car ownership

(The person driving the car must be the owner of the car)

The car thief becomes the owner the moment he drives away in it

[logic32]

 

It is an argument because I have defined the terms I'm using and proven these definitions are valid by supporting them with empirical evidence. 

Self-ownership (I own myself, you own yourself) is exclusive control of of ones body. It is a fact of reality that I control my body, therefore self-ownership is a fact. The effects of my voluntary actions are owned by me. I maintain and use my body to create these effects. YOU are assigning ownership of these effects TO me when you wrongly claim that I'm just "asserting" an argument. 

It's because of these things that logically follow from having exclusive control of one's self that the term self-ownership or ownership is applied. 

I think Friedman meant that people are exercising self ownership and have homesteaded in order to argue the truth of propositions regardless of the society. Even slaves require self-ownership to do this. I suspect the critics think that violating self-ownership means removing it or part of it; like if someones is forcibly claiming ownership of you, you can't have full self-ownership. It might be a bit like arguing that if a woman is repeatedly being raped then she no longer has a full vagina. 

 

Self ownership as exclusive control of one's body does not entail that 'human beings own themselves as private property', which you also claimed, as if the two were equivalent. So whilst it might be a fact of reality that you control your body, this does nothing to show that you fully own yourself as private property.

 

So if you want your argumentation to be relevant to libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism forget about bodily control, and instead prove your claim that human beings fully own themselves as private property. Since bodily control is compatible with communism, social democracy, etc. since it is not the same thing as full private property ownership of oneself. "This is because a conservative could easily concede that people control their bodies while nonetheless insisting that the state ought to prevent people from engaging in homosexual acts, or a social democratic could concede that people control their bodies while arguing that private companies ought to be regulated by the state. It is because of this that anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians must make sure to not conflate the ‘is’ of bodily control with the ‘ought’ of self-ownership."

 

Friedman is explicitly arguing against argumentation ethics in that extract, he thinks argumentation ethics fails.http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/On_Hoppe.html You have to remember that all libertarians except Stefan think 'self-ownership' means full private property rights in your body. And if the state is violating those rights, you are not enjoying full private property rights in your body. As Friedman points out, argumentation ethics entails that, since Hoppe et al are not in ancap societies, their self-ownership and homesteading are being violated, hence they cannot be arguing. Which is absurd, since they clearly are.

 

I'll quote him again.

 

"2. In order to argue about the truth of proposition we must have absolute self ownership and ownership of scarce means, defined in objective, physical terms and obtained via homesteading.

 

...

 

As to 2, note that if it is literally true nobody, including Hoppe, has ever argued about the truth of propositions, since there are no completely libertarian societies in which they could do so. That is obviously not true--and neither is the proposition from which it follows. One can think of an enormous number of non-libertarian ethics and non-libertarian societies consistent with people being able to argue in their defense."

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Correct me where i am wrong.

Instance

Exclusive control of ones body is by definition self ownership

Generalized

Exclusive control of x is by definition x ownership.

Instance

Exclusive control of car is by definition car ownership

(The person driving the car must be the owner of the car)

The car thief becomes the owner the moment he drives away in it

It's a kind of illegitimate ownership called theft. The car is a manifestation of the rightful owner's time and labor. The thief cannot logically claim ownership of that. 

[labmath2]

It's a kind of illegitimate ownership called theft. The car is a manifestation of the rightful owner's time and labor. The thief cannot logically claim ownership of that. 

 

So the logic is sound, the syllogism, just not the conclusion? Or is ownership not exclusive control?

To make the logic clearer

Exclusive control of x is by definition x ownership 

The car thief exclusively controls the car

Therefore, the car thief owns the car.

[logic32]

It's a kind of illegitimate ownership called theft. The car is a manifestation of the rightful owner's time and labor. The thief cannot logically claim ownership of that. 

We've already established that 

 

"Instance

Exclusive control of ones body is by definition self ownership

Generalized

Exclusive control of x is by definition x ownership."

 

So where are you getting this concept of the 'rightful owner' from? If ownership is just an 'is-claim' determined by exclusive control, who can the 'rightful owner' of x be apart from the person in exclusive control of x? It sounds like you're suggesting there's some other way of determining who the owner is other than exclusive control. So how do we square this with Stefan's statement that self-ownership is just the descriptive claim of exclusive control and NOT a rights claim? (From the 'Ethics, Rights, And Society' conversation)

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Self ownership as exclusive control of one's body does not entail that 'human beings own themselves as private property', which you also claimed, as if the two were equivalent. So whilst it might be a fact of reality that you control your body, this does nothing to show that you fully own yourself as private property.

 

So if you want your argumentation to be relevant to libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism forget about bodily control, and instead prove your claim that human beings fully own themselves as private property. Since bodily control is compatible with communism, social democracy, etc. since it is not the same thing as full private property ownership of oneself. "This is because a conservative could easily concede that people control their bodies while nonetheless insisting that the state ought to prevent people from engaging in homosexual acts, or a social democratic could concede that people control their bodies while arguing that private companies ought to be regulated by the state. It is because of this that anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians must make sure to not conflate the ‘is’ of bodily control with the ‘ought’ of self-ownership."

 

Friedman is explicitly arguing against argumentation ethics in that extract, he thinks argumentation ethics fails.http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/On_Hoppe.html You have to remember that all libertarians except Stefan think 'self-ownership' means full private property rights in your body. And if the state is violating those rights, you are not enjoying full private property rights in your body. As Friedman points out, argumentation ethics entails that, since Hoppe et al are not in ancap societies, their self-ownership and homesteading are being violated, hence they cannot be arguing. Which is absurd, since they clearly are.

 

I'll quote him again.

 

"2. In order to argue about the truth of proposition we must have absolute self ownership and ownership of scarce means, defined in objective, physical terms and obtained via homesteading.

 

...

 

As to 2, note that if it is literally true nobody, including Hoppe, has ever argued about the truth of propositions, since there are no completely libertarian societies in which they could do so. That is obviously not true--and neither is the proposition from which it follows. One can think of an enormous number of non-libertarian ethics and non-libertarian societies consistent with people being able to argue in their defense."

Self ownership DOES entail human beings own themselves as private property. Private property is practically a synonym for self ownership. Your body is your property and it is private. You can’t get much more private than the property of your self. People can voluntarily damage, enslave or destroy that property but they will be affirming self-ownership and private property to do so.

I’m not conflating the “is” of bodily control with the “ought” of self-ownership. You are doing that by projecting your view of self-ownership as a solely normative claim onto the argument. Self-ownership is a fact. It doesn’t just stop at “bodily control”. It is a fact that I own the effects of my voluntary actions. I am responsible for them and they can be attributed to me. They are mine. I own them. It is a fact that I own myself. It cannot be any other way.

 

"Friedman is explicitly arguing against argumentation ethics in that extract"

 

Well then Friedman’s the silly one. You don’t have to be in an ancap society to have “full” self ownership. That’d be like saying because you have to have full self ownership to fully own property then because you do not live in a society that permits you to own property therefore you do not have full self ownership. Even a slave has full self-ownership. That’s WHY it’s slavery and not legitimate use of property.

If you really believe that “that all libertarians except Stefan think self ownership means .. whatever you said” then how do you explain the libertarians you’re talking to? To sorta quote Kevin, “What are we? Chopped liver?”

So the logic is sound, the syllogism, just not the conclusion? Or is ownership not exclusive control?

To make the logic clearer

Exclusive control of x is by definition x ownership 

The car thief exclusively controls the car

Therefore, the car thief owns the car.

The thief is IN control of the physical car but does not control the car in the sense that he does not control the time and labor that went into the car. The thief has taken THAT but he does not control it. The thief can never be the person who created the car and as such can never have legitimate ownership of the car. That's why he's a thief.

Remember, ownership entails control but control does not necessarily entail ownership.

We've already established that 

 

"Instance

Exclusive control of ones body is by definition self ownership

Generalized

Exclusive control of x is by definition x ownership."

 

So where are you getting this concept of the 'rightful owner' from? If ownership is just an 'is-claim' determined by exclusive control, who can the 'rightful owner' of x be apart from the person in exclusive control of x? It sounds like you're suggesting there's some other way of determining who the owner is other than exclusive control. So how do we square this with Stefan's statement that self-ownership is just the descriptive claim of exclusive control and NOT a rights claim? (From the 'Ethics, Rights, And Society' conversation)

You answered this question by pointing out "we already established that". 

Control of X does not necessarily mean always IN control of X. That's an stupifiyingly literal interpretation. 

The person who created the car owns the car. They have that relationship to the car that no one else has. It is an extension of themselves. But it can never be an extension of the thief's self. He can never have rightful ownership of it because rightful ownership must come from self ownership. 

I do not wish to go watch a video to refresh myself on the context of that particular statement of Stef's. In certain contexts it might be a rights claim, in others not. What IS a rights claim anyway? A thief in a sense makes an implicit kind of rights claim when he steals your car. He claims a right to own the car even if he makes no explicit normative claim. 

[labmath2]

The thief is IN control of the physical car but does not control the car in the sense that he does not control the time and labor that went into the car. The thief has taken THAT but he does not control it. The thief can never be the person who created the car and as such can never have legitimate ownership of the car. That's why he's a thief.

Remember, ownership entails control but control does not necessarily entail ownership.

 

Glad we got past the first hurdle, now you will have to explain in what sense control of our bodies is sufficient for self ownership but not sufficient for property ownership. In what sense the thief is in control of the car, but does not control it. I prefer if you start be defining the terms "control" and  "in control." In what sense does the manufacturer or legitimate owner control the time and labor that went into the car in the present. After we deal with the topic of control, then we also have to deal with role of time and labor in ownership which is another beast (to give you a glimpse, think about the children).

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Glad we got past the first hurdle, now you will have to explain in what sense control of our bodies is sufficient for self ownership but not sufficient for property ownership. In what sense the thief is in control of the car, but does not control it. I prefer if you start be defining the terms "control" and  "in control." In what sense does the manufacturer or legitimate owner control the time and labor that went into the car in the present. After we deal with the topic of control, then we also have to deal with role of time and labor in ownership which is another beast (to give you a glimpse, think about the children).

Your body is created by you (and your parents who ideally relinquished control at an appropriate time). If someone violates it then that person is claiming a right over your body which they simultaneously deny you. They do not own those parts of you that they're violating but they are controlling them to some degree. Similarly the car is created by you and is an extension or part of yourself. It is a manifestation of your time and labor, etc just as much as your body/mind is. When the thief steals it he is violating you as the car is part of you. He claims ownership of the car but does not HAVE legitimate ownership of the car. Control does not equal ownership. When we say "Self-ownership is control over your body" we don't just mean you happen to be IN control of it at some given time or moment. There's much more to it. 

If you want to make the "product of time/labor = property. Baby = product of time and labor, therefore baby equals property. Property can be destroyed therefore baby can be destroyed" kind of argument then go ahead. 

[labmath2]

Your body is created by you (and your parents who ideally relinquished control at an appropriate time). If someone violates it then that person is claiming a right over your body which they simultaneously deny you. They do not own those parts of you that they're violating but they are controlling them to some degree. Similarly the car is created by you and is an extension or part of yourself. It is a manifestation of your time and labor, etc just as much as your body/mind is. When the thief steals it he is violating you as the car is part of you. He claims ownership of the car but does not HAVE legitimate ownership of the car. Control does not equal ownership. When we say "Self-ownership is control over your body" we don't just mean you happen to be IN control of it at some given time or moment. There's much more to it. 

If you want to make the "product of time/labor = property. Baby = product of time and labor, therefore baby equals property. Property can be destroyed therefore baby can be destroyed" kind of argument then go ahead. 

 

Would you in light of your statement then agree that ownership is not an is claim, but a normative claim of "legitimate ownership."

 

PS. i noticed you did not define "control" or "in control."

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Would you in light of your statement then agree that ownership is not an is claim, but a normative claim of "legitimate ownership."

Why can't it be both?

[labmath2]

Why can't it be both?

Because is and ought are mutually exclusive.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

PS. i noticed you did not define "control" or "in control."

I guess "in control" would refer to the specific moment of active engagement with Property X to the exclusion of others. Control would be more broad and refer to past, present and future. 

Because is and ought are mutually exclusive.

 I don't think so. One can make an is claim that is also an ought claim. If I say this is my book that I authored then that is an IS claim. But it can also have oughts embedded in it. Like "so you ought not claim YOU wrote it".  Maybe you are in some dispute and you shout "This is my book!". That's a factual statement but it may also contain an implicit claim that the person I'm shouting at ought not say otherwise. 

Is and ought are only mutually exclusive in terms of the Humean fallacy. 

 

With the car example it might be helpful to imagine the car as a person working for 6 months (that's how long to earn to money for the car). Instead of imagining the thief stealing the car imagine them stealing the time and labor. The thief has stolen and taken control of the fruits of that labor. So the work you did in the past was, unbeknownst to you, actually for THEM. The theft is essentially an act of slavery. 

This makes sense when you put slavery on the same continuum as rape, theft, murder and assault. They are all degrees of the same thing; property violations. The closer to the self the more egregious the violation.

[labmath2]

I guess "in control" would refer to the specific moment of active engagement with Property X to the exclusion of others. Control would be more broad and refer to past, present and future. 

 I don't think so. One can make an is claim that is also an ought claim. If I say this is my book that I authored then that is an IS claim. But it can also have oughts embedded in it. Like "so you ought not claim YOU wrote it".  Maybe you are in some dispute and you shout "This is my book!". That's a factual statement but it may also contain an implicit claim that the person I'm shouting at ought not say otherwise. 

Is and ought are only mutually exclusive in terms of the Humean fallacy. 

 

With the car example it might be helpful to imagine the car as a person working for 6 months (that's how long to earn to money for the car). Instead of imagining the thief stealing the car imagine them stealing the time and labor. The thief has stolen and taken control of the fruits of that labor. So the work you did in the past was, unbeknownst to you, actually for THEM. The theft is essentially an act of slavery. 

This makes sense when you put slavery on the same continuum as rape, theft, murder and assault. They are all degrees of the same thing; property violations. The closer to the self the more egregious the violation.

 

The only problem i have with the instances where you make is claims that have ought embedded in them is that you are using an IS claim to describe something that isn't really there. That i wrote a book or control my body confers no obligation to others. After all, they can go around saying they wrote the book or attach some contraption to my body to control it. However, when i say i own that book, it tells others anyone who wishes to use the book should consult me first, in the same way when i say i own my body it tells others anyone who wishes to engage with my body should consult me first.

 

I could be wrong, but for me the rule of thumb is this, if there is a clearer word (verb) as opposed to own, then that word is a criteria for ownership, but is different from ownership. Ownership often refers to the right to x (the clearer word). So with many things, like car or ones body, ownership entails the right to control/use.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The only problem i have with the instances where you make is claims that have ought embedded in them is that you are using an IS claim to describe something that isn't really there. That i wrote a book or control my body confers no obligation to others. After all, they can go around saying they wrote the book or attach some contraption to my body to control it. However, when i say i own that book, it tells others anyone who wishes to use the book should consult me first, in the same way when i say i own my body it tells others anyone who wishes to engage with my body should consult me first.

 

I could be wrong, but for me the rule of thumb is this, if there is a clearer word (verb) as opposed to own, then that word is a criteria for ownership, but is different from ownership. Ownership often refers to the right to x (the clearer word). So with many things, like car or ones body, ownership entails the right to control/use.

That problem you have is a problem you have created. It's not that that I'm using an "is" claim to describe something that isn't there but that YOU are describing something that isn't there in the argument. This "obligation to others" thing is something you imported. 

That I own the car is a fact. Your acknowledgement of that fact doesn't confer any obligation on you. Obligations are chosen.

[labmath2]

That problem you have is a problem you have created. It's not that that I'm using an "is" claim to describe something that isn't there but that YOU are describing something that isn't there in the argument. This "obligation to others" thing is something you imported. 

That I own the car is a fact. Your acknowledgement of that fact doesn't confer any obligation on you. Obligations are chosen.

 

I can understand why you think it is a problem i created, but i think it is a problem of ambiguity. I can say i own myself, but that gives you no information about me. If i tell you i own the car you are looking at, if it confers no obligation, then fact that i own it tells you almost nothing about it. I can equally use a less ambiguous phrase, i control my body or i paid for the car. The problem of using own is that, as you define it, it means i control myself or control that car. When i then ask you to define control, you give this answer

I guess "in control" would refer to the specific moment of active engagement with Property X to the exclusion of others. Control would be more broad and refer to past, present and future. 

 

which is also ambiguous.