Am I seeing this right?

[MarkIX]

In the video/podcast Titled “ The Origin of Sexual Fetishism” he uses as a refutation of Anarcho-Communism the argument that the body is just like any other matter i.e. that it is “just a thing”. If this is true how do you preserve ownership? Because if there are only things how can one thing own another thing. Remembering that this statement is a denial of “different categories” of things with respect to their ability to be owned. This leaves only two possibilities, that no thing is owned by any thing which dismisses ownership or that every thing is owned by all things which is more An-Com than An-Cap but still pretty useless.

Of course there is the possibility that he meant It is no different owning your “body thing” than owning “a thing” but this comes up against problems. First of all the operation of the ownership are very different empirically and if I own my “body thing” by the same rules that I own “a thing” how does that preclude owning more than one “body thing”, or more germane owning certain parts of someone else's “body thing” individually or as part of a collective that “controls the means of production”. The only way you can avoid this is to create a special category that can't be owned that isn't “a thing” that in fact can't be a thing or it will be subject to ownership, something like a soul. But this won't save the argument because any exceptions you introduce are obviously available to the other side as well. By no stretch of logic can this be seen as a refutation of Anarcho-Comunism. Now a few of you might respond with the presumption that I'm an An-Com but that's not true it's too in-egalitarian and anti-intellect for me,yes its argument by adjective but only because my ideological perspectives are at best peripheral to this matter of logic.

 

While the above argument is, I believe, flawed the is another argument that I would like to offer a different perspective on that being “the wife as employee”. I would like to suggest “the wife as investor” instead. In the partnership called marriage both (or all) members bring assets to the relationship. The ones that could be considered primary being for the men earnings/earnings potential and for the women sexual attractiveness/fecundity. A problem is that over the life of the relationship the magnitude of these “assets” is diametrically opposed. As men age their earnings normally increase while women loose their beauty and ability to bear children, while at the same time the act of rearing children reduces(at least) the ability to obtain marketable skills for the period after her fecundity has ended. In this situation “getting a job” is counter productive and personally undesirable whereas “investing your assets for a return” is productive and desirable. This perspective in no way supports alimony or any other product of the state. It is just a substitution of a partnership for the employer/employee relationship inherent in Stefan's argument. A substitution that more closely parallels the biological realities of the situation.

 

Does anyone see any flaws with my logic?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I cannot follow your argument. Why is it a "denial of different categories"? What categories is it denying? Did Stef say "just a thing"? The body IS matter and energy. Why would everything be owned by all things? 

If I was listening to you in person I'd have to stop every sentence to clarify. Could you state precisely what Stef's argument was and state without ambiguity why it was wrong. 

[MarkIX]

The argument can be found here 

I cannot follow your argument. Why is it a "denial of different categories"?

Stef made the argument that everything, including the body is property hence lumping everything into one category equating his eyeballs and various other body parts with his toothbrush

What categories is it denying?

There are obvious differences between parts of my body and my toohbrush. Yes they are merely matter but they behave in such different way that to classify both as property in the same way renders the concept of property irrelevent

Did Stef say "just a thing"? The body IS matter and energy.

Yes he did or more precisely "a thing"

Why would everything be owned by all things?

because if you apply only one category, that of property, then all "things" must share all the characteristics of that category. in other words the toothbrush can own the man just as much as the man can own the toothbrush. But how do you determine that? the only way is to apply universal non ownership or universal full ownership no other state can be determined.

If I was listening to you in person I'd have to stop every sentence to clarify. Could you state precisely what Stef's argument was and state without ambiguity why it was wrong.

The process by which the human body is owned is exactly the same by which anything else is owned therefore vice versa.If this is true then there is no categorical difference between the human body and any other property.Consciousness renders this obviously false.

[TheRobin]

The process by which the human body is owned is exactly the same by which anything else is owned therefore vice versa.

If this is true then there is no categorical difference between the human body and any other property.Consciousness renders this obviously false.

I think you've just answered your own question here, though, no?

[Wuzzums]

I'm afraid I don't follow either. I don't see a contradiction in what you're saying or what Stef said.

You assert that matter cannot own other matter because there's no distinction between them.

Then you say that the body falls in the same category thus leading to the conclusion that the body cannot own anything.

Then you say the body has a consciousness that makes it different from other kinds of matter.

Thus the body can own property.

 

No quarrel here.

 

But Stef didn't say anything different than what you yourself said. He never said that the body has no consciousness, that would be a self-defeating statement.

[Pepin]

Ownership is a concept which applies to molecules, but only applies to particular sets of molecules with particular properties and behaviors. These properties and behaviors are incapable of being applied to any set of molecules, yet only sets which such properties and behaviors can be identified.

 

Ownership requires consciousness, that is the ability for a set of molecules to relate its behaviors of itself and all other sets of molecules accordingly. Humans are conscious beings which are able of identifying and differentiating internal processes from external processes. As I type through movement of my fingers, I am able to rationally relate the behavior to my conscious will, which is to say that I have executive control over my body and my mind. Through an understanding of what I am and what I am not, I am able to determine what I do not have executive control, such as your reaction to this post, or a cup of coffee.

 

Ownership of the body is gained through homesteading. The process of homesteading is not particular only to the body, but to all matter which is not already owned. There is no particular difference between process of homesteading when applied to the body, and when applied to matter outside the body.

 

Homesteading is not an argument I feel comfortable expanding upon, as I have not had much practice, but there are plenty of resources on mises.org which cover the topic in detail. Though I do not quite understand your argument, I am somewhat certain that the fallacy you are committing is a syllogistic one.

 

A has property X

A is comprised of Y

Y has property X

 

Humans have self-ownership

Humans are comprised of atoms

Atoms have self-ownership

 

Though the conclusion is valid when applied to humans, it is logically invalid because it assumes the atomic nature is the determinant of self-ownership. To make this more clear, self-ownership is not a measurement of atoms, yet rather the capability of matter to control itself and to understand what it is and what it is not. In attributing self-ownership to any entity, the definitional requirements must be met, as opposed to the unrelated commonalities.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The argument can be found here 

Stef made the argument that everything, including the body is property hence lumping everything into one category equating his eyeballs and various other body parts with his toothbrush

There are obvious differences between parts of my body and my toohbrush. Yes they are merely matter but they behave in such different way that to classify both as property in the same way renders the concept of property irrelevent

Yes he did or more precisely "a thing"

because if you apply only one category, that of property, then all "things" must share all the characteristics of that category. in other words the toothbrush can own the man just as much as the man can own the toothbrush. But how do you determine that? the only way is to apply universal non ownership or universal full ownership no other state can be determined.

The process by which the human body is owned is exactly the same by which anything else is owned therefore vice versa.If this is true then there is no categorical difference between the human body and any other property.Consciousness renders this obviously false.

You've misunderstood. The body and toothbrush are both matter/energy and such can both be property. You have extrapolated a claim that they are the same in every way. In the context of the argument they are both property. He didn't say in ALL contexts they are precisely the same. He didn't apply "only one category". 

[MarkIX]

I think you've just answered your own question here, though, no?

No.The question is not what put them in different categories, the question is why Stef claims they are not.

 

I'm afraid I don't follow either. I don't see a contradiction in what you're saying or what Stef said.

You assert that matter cannot own other matter because there's no distinction between them.

Then you say that the body falls in the same category thus leading to the conclusion that the body cannot own anything.

Then you say the body has a consciousness that makes it different from other kinds of matter.

Thus the body can own property.

 

No quarrel here.

 

But Stef didn't say anything different than what you yourself said. He never said that the body has no consciousness, that would be a self-defeating statement.

I say that Stef claims that body parts and Toothbrushes are in the same with regards to "ownability". I don't think they are.

I say that the argument put forward by Stef supports his definition of Anarcho-Communisim rather than rebutting it.

I say that Bodies and other "things" are categorically different is terms of their behaviour as property. I think it should be obvious why I say that

 

Ownership is a concept which applies to molecules, but only applies to particular sets of molecules with particular properties and behaviors. These properties and behaviors are incapable of being applied to any set of molecules, yet only sets which such properties and behaviors can be identified.

 

Ownership requires consciousness, that is the ability for a set of molecules to relate its behaviors of itself and all other sets of molecules accordingly. Humans are conscious beings which are able of identifying and differentiating internal processes from external processes. As I type through movement of my fingers, I am able to rationally relate the behavior to my conscious will, which is to say that I have executive control over my body and my mind. Through an understanding of what I am and what I am not, I am able to determine what I do not have executive control, such as your reaction to this post, or a cup of coffee.

 

Ownership of the body is gained through homesteading. The process of homesteading is not particular only to the body, but to all matter which is not already owned. There is no particular difference between process of homesteading when applied to the body, and when applied to matter outside the body.

 

Homesteading is not an argument I feel comfortable expanding upon, as I have not had much practice, but there are plenty of resources on mises.org which cover the topic in detail. Though I do not quite understand your argument, I am somewhat certain that the fallacy you are committing is a syllogistic one.

 

A has property X

A is comprised of Y

Y has property X

 

Humans have self-ownership

Humans are comprised of atoms

Atoms have self-ownership

 

Though the conclusion is valid when applied to humans, it is logically invalid because it assumes the atomic nature is the determinant of self-ownership. To make this more clear, self-ownership is not a measurement of atoms, yet rather the capability of matter to control itself and to understand what it is and what it is not. In attributing self-ownership to any entity, the definitional requirements must be met, as opposed to the unrelated commonalities.

We can discuss homesteading another time ( after it ceases to be magical thinking) I will just ask what is doing the homesteading?

No. syllogism requires two propositions I am only dealing with one.

"My toothbrush is owned in the same way I own my eyeball"

Universalized as "The Properties with regard to ownership of X are the same as The Properties with regard to ownership of Y"

Px=Py so therefore Py=Px

Under this formulation you could sell me your children and I could break them down for parts.

You've misunderstood. The body and toothbrush are both matter/energy and such can both be property. You have extrapolated a claim that they are the same in every way. In the context of the argument they are both property. He didn't say in ALL contexts they are precisely the same. He didn't apply "only one category". 

If they are property based on the same criteria how can their "ownability" be different?

If the are different then An-Comms can use that difference to discriminate "the means of production of material goods" from "the means of production of babies".

To sum up:

Either there is not a categorical difference in states of property and I can sell my children for parts or less horrendously gain a rationale for the An-Comm position

or:

There is a categorical difference which is equally available to An-Comms and therefore this fails as a refutation of their position on the means of production.

[cynicist]

The body is owned like any other property. The difference between them is that the body is also the origin of ownership itself.

[MarkIX]

The body is owned like any other property. The difference between them is that the body is also the origin of ownership itself.

Can you sell me your body just like you sell me a toothbrush, after I have bought it can I break it down for parts?

[cynicist]

You can't transfer ownership of your own body while remaining in it, since you are your body. You can destroy yourself but selling ownership of your whole body is not something you can physically do. (although obviously you can do that with parts of yourself, like selling a kidney for example)

 

The question you are asking is equivalent to, "Can I sell you the idea of a toothbrush that you can then use to brush your teeth?". It's nonsensical.

[MarkIX]

You can't transfer ownership of your own body while remaining in it, since you are your body. You can destroy yourself but selling ownership of your whole body is not something you can physically do. (although obviously you can do that with parts of yourself, like selling a kidney for example)

 

The question you are asking is equivalent to, "Can I sell you the idea of a toothbrush that you can then use to brush your teeth?". It's nonsensical.

So while they are both property they are not property in the same way. Is that what you are saying?

[Pepin]

We can discuss homesteading another time ( after it ceases to be magical thinking) I will just ask what is doing the homesteading?

No. syllogism requires two propositions I am only dealing with one.

"My toothbrush is owned in the same way I own my eyeball"

Universalized as "The Properties with regard to ownership of X are the same as The Properties with regard to ownership of Y"

Px=Py so therefore Py=Px

Under this formulation you could sell me your children and I could break them down for parts.

If they are property based on the same criteria how can their "ownability" be different?

 

I would suggest that you spend some time working on improving your ability convey your thoughts and ideas through argumentation. I am not comprehending your posts, and others seem to be having the same experience. This isn't a criticism of your ideas, as I do not understand what they are, yet rather of your delivery. Online debates require very clear and concise language, as even the simplest points can be lost.

 

I don't say this as an insult, yet rather a reflection of my reading of your posts. Right now, if I were to continue the debate, I would risk spending hours of my time reading and rereading your posts to make sure I understand and typing up a response, only to find I was replying to an argument that was not your's. This isn't preferable for either of us.

[MarkIX]

@Pepin 

Perhaps you could inform me what part of the passage you quoted is  incomprehensible to you?

[cynicist]

So while they are both property they are not property in the same way. Is that what you are saying?

 

Yes, just like both a computer and a sandwich can be my property but I can only consume one of them for nourishment. Or how I can own a pool and a car but can only swim in the former. Property can have different characteristics. My body happens to be property that is not transferable. At the same time, ownership is similar in all these cases. I act to acquire or sustain things through trade, maintenance, or improvement and I am responsible for the results of that behavior.

[MarkIX]

Yes, just like both a computer and a sandwich can be my property but I can only consume one of them for nourishment. Or how I can own a pool and a car but can only swim in the former. Property can have different characteristics. My body happens to be property that is not transferable. At the same time, ownership is similar in all these cases. I act to acquire or sustain things through trade, maintenance, or improvement and I am responsible for the results of that behavior.

I'm not talking about the attributes that are specific to the individual pieces of property, I'm talking about the differences in the ownership. It seems obvious to me that if something cannot be sold it is not owned in the same way as something that can be sold it is categorically different do you think that is true?

[cynicist]

I'm not talking about the attributes that are specific to the individual pieces of property, I'm talking about the differences in the ownership. It seems obvious to me that if something cannot be sold it is not owned in the same way as something that can be sold it is categorically different do you think that is true?

How is that obvious? You mean just because you can sell many other things that you own? If you include 'ability to be sold' as a criteria for ownership that would be true, otherwise no. If you accept that an individual has ownership of their actions and the effects thereof, then by this idea I should be able to sell my responsibility for a crime away to someone else.

[MarkIX]

How is that obvious? You mean just because you can sell many other things that you own? If you include 'ability to be sold' as a criteria for ownership that would be true, otherwise no. If you accept that an individual has ownership of their actions and the effects thereof, then by this idea I should be able to sell my responsibility for a crime away to someone else.

That's exactly how its obvious! If all ownership is categorically the same, which is the opposite of what I'm arguing, then why wouldn't you be able to sell you actions. Again it seems obvious to me that ownership of actions is categorically different from ownership of your body which is again categorically different to ownership of other things.

 

Perhaps I am failing to make clear the meaning of "categorically different" Lets take the example of two humans one is twenty years old with normal brain function and the other is twenty weeks old with normal brain function. While they are both human they are categorically different in terms of moral agency. Now take two other people one it a twenty year old with normal brain function and the other is Steven Hawking, while Steven Hawking is physically nearly as helpless as a baby he ,obviously, has moral agency that no one sane would attribute to the baby. Just like Humans can belong to different categories WRT moral agency property or ownership can be categorically different At least three of which have been introduced "Things" which you can sell, Your body which you can't sell along with other peoples bodies which you can't buy, and your actions which aren't actually tangible. 

[Pepin]

In the video/podcast Titled “ The Origin of Sexual Fetishism” he uses as a refutation of Anarcho-Communism the argument that the body is just like any other matter i.e. that it is “just a thing”. If this is true how do you preserve ownership? Because if there are only things how can one thing own another thing?

 

The introduction to the thought is good. More of an expansion is needed to demonstrate your understanding of the claim, and to fill those who are unfamiliar with the claim in on the details.

 

Remembering that this statement is a denial of “different categories” of things with respect to their ability to be owned.

 

What does this mean? This sort of language works if you are internally dialoging or talking to someone who is familiar with your thoughts and ideas, but this feels unrelated and random. Furthermore, the sentence is incomplete, or not written well. Did you mean to say:

 

"I was confused by this statement, but I then reasoned that this statement fits the criteria of a denial of different categories, with the denial in this case being the ability to be owned".

 

The above might not be what you meant, but it is the best guess I have. Again, this sentence might be understood by those are familiar with your thoughts and ideas, but when presenting these ideas to a new audience, the ideas need to translated into a form that anybody can understand.

 

This leaves only two possibilities, that no thing is owned by any thing which dismisses ownership or that every thing is owned by all things which is more An-Com than An-Cap but still pretty useless.

 

Why? What only leaves two possibilities? Is there a line of reasoning that I missed in the last sentence that ruled out all but two possibilities? If so, what were the criteria for ruling out the other possibilities? I can assume that this relates to the previous statement, but how?

 

The statement that "one thing can own another thing" is a denial of different categories

This eliminates all but two possibilities, that no thing can own another thing, or that everything are owned by all things

 

How do you expect someone who is reading this to follow this train of thought? This isn't a matter of intelligence, but a matter of filling in the gaps of the reason and evidence you ought to have filled us in on. Someone may guess correctly what your reasoning was, but this probability is quite low, and it is far more likely to have nothing to do with what you meant.

 

The focus on this being a refutation of Anarcho-Communism is irrelevant and confusing because you want to talk about the validity of ownership as opposed to the validity of Anarcho-Communism. In conveying ideas with a short amount of text, it is important to leave out any material which may confuse the audience. 

 

To make something clear, I am not at all refuting your argument in this post, rather it is to show that any refutation I would make would require large amount of guessing, which is very likely to be wrong.

 

Of course there is the possibility that he meant It is no different owning your “body thing” than owning “a thing” but this comes up against problems. First of all the operation of the ownership are very different empirically and if I own my “body thing” by the same rules that I own “a thing” how does that preclude owning more than one “body thing”, or more germane owning certain parts of someone else's “body thing” individually or as part of a collective that “controls the means of production”.

 

The first sentence gets the point across, though some expansion is needed to make it clear to the audience what you are talking about exactly. In philosophy there is an issue of technical and confusing wordings that can be somewhat difficult to decipher. Though what is being said can be understood and makes sense, philosophers realize that the wording will trip people up, so they provide some simple examples of the concept.

 

The second sentence needs to be broken up and expanded a lot. For instance, why is the operation of ownership different empirically? Are you to provide reason and evidence to support this claim? Or is it a claim which is thrown at the audience to figure out? Is it something the audience should just accept because it ought to be obvious?

 

Even if you do provide some reason and evidence in support of the claim later, the structure would just be incredibly confusing. The sentence doesn't build, it just reads like a number of unconnected thoughts on a similar subject put next to eachother.

 

To repeat, connecting back to anarcho-communism is just confusing. You are saying too much in too little space.

 

The only way you can avoid this is to create a special category that can't be owned that isn't “a thing” that in fact can't be a thing or it will be subject to ownership, something like a soul.

 

It is very difficult to follow how you got here. When I first read your post, this seemed like it came out of nowhere and had nothing to do with anything previous.

 

I can go on, but I hope this is enough. It may be the case that english is not your first language, in which case it is important to be even more clear and expansive in your writing. The conveyance of ideas, especially philosophical ones, is incredibly difficult.

 

When I make complex philosophical arguments, or even simple ones, I try to frame them in a way which those are unfamiliar with my ideas can understand. I of course have a far more technical and off the cuff way of discussing philosophy, but I can only take that approach with myself or those who are familiar with my philosophy, or in a long article or book where the method of thought can be learned.

[cynicist]

That's exactly how its obvious! If all ownership is categorically the same, which is the opposite of what I'm arguing, then why wouldn't you be able to sell you actions. Again it seems obvious to me that ownership of actions is categorically different from ownership of your body which is again categorically different to ownership of other things.

 

Perhaps I am failing to make clear the meaning of "categorically different" Lets take the example of two humans one is twenty years old with normal brain function and the other is twenty weeks old with normal brain function. While they are both human they are categorically different in terms of moral agency. Now take two other people one it a twenty year old with normal brain function and the other is Steven Hawking, while Steven Hawking is physically nearly as helpless as a baby he ,obviously, has moral agency that no one sane would attribute to the baby. Just like Humans can belong to different categories WRT moral agency property or ownership can be categorically different At least three of which have been introduced "Things" which you can sell, Your body which you can't sell along with other peoples bodies which you can't buy, and your actions which aren't actually tangible. 

 

That's funny. So you are saying categorically different where I was saying that different objects have different properties which results in differences in their ownership. The danger here is that we are talking about differences in type that result from the attributes of the property in question, not degree. (which is why your comment about attributes didn't make sense to me)

[MarkIX]

@ Pepin

Thank you that was very helpful. I can see now why people would find arguing iswith me frustrating.

I will attempt to restate my argument in a more coherent fashion.

 

In  a recent video Stefan made and argument against Anarcho-Communism that argument is here

 

My contention is that the argument put forward by Stefan fails to refute the Anarcho-Communist position because of significant flaws.

 

In the argument Stefan conflates the production of material goods with the production of babies, he does this by claiming that the body is another thing made of matter that is owned in the same way as any other matter.

 

If he is not claiming that a person's body Is the same with respect to ownership as any other thing then his argument is not a refutation of the stated Anarcho-Communist position, any difference will also serve the Anarcho-Communist position and they can't therefore  be described as rapists who should be pepper sprayed on the basis of this argument.

 

So he must actually mean that the body and any other matter fall into the same category of ownership. Since they are the same category of property anything that applies to one entity in the category applies to all entities. So a body can be bought and sold like a toothbrush but it gets worse as they are the same with respect to ownership abilities a body could be bought and sold by a toothbrush. This make no sense but it is a logical conclusion to draw if all things are consigned to one category of property. 

 

does that make more sense now?

That's funny. So you are saying categorically different where I was saying that different objects have different properties which results in differences in their ownership. The danger here is that we are talking about differences in type that result from the attributes of the property in question, not degree. (which is why your comment about attributes didn't make sense to me)

Well we seems to have cleared that up. So do you think that anything made of matter is of a similar enough type to be placed in the same category with respect to property. Is your body enough like your toothbrush that it can be said you own them in exactly the same way?

[cynicist]

In the argument Stefan conflates the production of material goods with the production of babies, he does this by claiming that the body is another thing made of matter that is owned in the same way as any other matter.

 

Yes, in that the body can be privately owned by an individual. He is not saying that the body is the same as a toothbrush in any other way besides that it can be privately owned. Just like the claim he makes when he says we own our actions and their effects.

 

So he must actually mean that the body and any other matter fall into the same category of ownership. Since they are the same category of property anything that applies to one entity in the category applies to all entities. 

 

Ownership is specifically about having control/possession of something. You are deliberately adding other attributes to make your point. Just because a toothbrush is property and you can sell it doesn't mean that logically everything that is property must have that attribute. (That is just like saying that a sandwich is property and you can eat it to nourish yourself therefore all property is edible in order to sustain your life)

Well we seems to have cleared that up. So do you think that anything made of matter is of a similar enough type to be placed in the same category with respect to property. Is your body enough like your toothbrush that it can be said you own them in exactly the same way?

 

You own them the same way that you own your actions. 

[MarkIX]

Yes, in that the body can be privately owned by an individual. He is not saying that the body is the same as a toothbrush in any other way besides that it can be privately owned. Just like the claim he makes when he says we own our actions and their effects.

So can I own your body?  

 

Ownership is specifically about having control/possession of something.

That is not the only criteria required for ownership other wise the workers would own the means of production by default

 

You are deliberately adding other attributes to make your point.

What attributes was I adding?

 

Just because a toothbrush is property and you can sell it doesn't mean that logically everything that is property must have that attribute. (That is just like saying that a sandwich is property and you can eat it to nourish yourself therefore all property is edible in order to sustain your life)

Edibility is irrelevant but its axiomatic that you can't sell something you don't own. Selling can't exist without ownership, and ownership that exists without selling is categorically different to ownership with selling. 

 

You own them the same way that you own your actions.

If Stefan's argument is a refutation of the Anarcho-Communist position it requiresthat their be no difference between a woman's body and a factory if you say there is a difference then any Anarcho-Communist can use the same differences to rebut Stefan's argument. I'm also arguing that if Stefan is correct with his argument that the consequences are undesirable. So the argument is either a moral failure or an argumental failure.

[cynicist]

So can I own your body?

 

Not while I am inhabiting it. Saying that a body is or can be privately owned by an individual is not the same as saying it can be owned by any individual. 

 

What attributes was I adding?

 

Ability to be sold. 

 

Edibility is irrelevant but its axiomatic that you can't sell something you don't own. Selling can't exist without ownership, and ownership that exists without selling is categorically different to ownership with selling.

 

Yes, ownership of the body and actions are exempt from being sellable. So what? The body is just another material object that can be owned, even if it can't be sold or traded or owned by someone apart from the current inhabitant. (while the inhabitant is living)

 

If Stefan's argument is a refutation of the Anarcho-Communist position it requiresthat their be no difference between a woman's body and a factory if you say there is a difference then any Anarcho-Communist can use the same differences to rebut Stefan's argument. I'm also arguing that if Stefan is correct with his argument that the consequences are undesirable. So the argument is either a moral failure or an argumental failure.

 

Or you are simply misinterpreting what he means.

[MarkIX]

Not while I am inhabiting it. Saying that a body is or can be privately owned by an individual is not the same as saying it can be owned by any individual.

Exactly! the ownership of your body is not universally applicable, the ownership of the toothbrush is. You can never sell your body but you can sell your toothbrush the conditions or attributes of ownership are different  

Ability to be sold.

Are you saying that the ability to sell is never an attribute of ownership. if so good luck with that. If you are saying that that the ability to sell is not always present and since the ability to sell is dependent on ownership, could it not be said that the attributes of ownership are different when it is present to when it is absent?  

Yes, ownership of the body and actions are exempt from being sellable. So what?

So, it is owned differently from property that can be sold it is missing an attribute that is derived from ownership

The body is just another material object that can be owned, even if it can't be sold or traded or owned by someone apart from the current inhabitant. (while the inhabitant is living)

Why does whether its a material object matter? You claim that you own your actions and the effects of your actions which are intangible, if they are all the same category then being a material object is irrelevant  

Or you are simply misinterpreting what he means.

Maybe you are right. But I don't think so.

[cynicist]

Why does whether its a material object matter? You claim that you own your actions and the effects of your actions which are intangible, if they are all the same category then being a material object is irrelevant

 

It doesn't matter, relative to ownership. I own my body, I own my toothbrush, I own my actions. My body is not transferable so I cannot sell it, but that has no impact on my ownership of my body. My actions are intangible so I can't sell those either, but I own them just the same. 

 

The properties of these things matter when it comes to what I can physically do with them, but that is a separate issue from ownership. The ownership bit is derived from the same place, namely my body. Even my actions, which are intangible, are only possible through the exercise of my ownership of my body. You can almost look at it like a chain or web. If I claim to own the planet Mars we don't take that claim seriously, but if I were out there terraforming it then we would see the claim's validity.

 

I don't see these categorical differences in ownership you are speaking of. There are differences in the attributes of property which change the way we interact with it, but fundamentally it all comes down to the same thing. (the body) So yes, ownership of actions is not the same as ownership of material objects, but only because of the differing properties of actions and material objects, it doesn't have anything to do with ownership in particular.

 

Does that make sense?

[MarkIX]

It doesn't matter, relative to ownership. I own my body, I own my toothbrush, I own my actions. My body is not transferable so I cannot sell it, but that has no impact on my ownership of my body. My actions are intangible so I can't sell those either, but I own them just the same. 

 

The properties of these things matter when it comes to what I can physically do with them, but that is a separate issue from ownership. The ownership bit is derived from the same place, namely my body. Even my actions, which are intangible, are only possible through the exercise of my ownership of my body. You can almost look at it like a chain or web. If I claim to own the planet Mars we don't take that claim seriously, but if I were out there terraforming it then we would see the claim's validity.

 

I don't see these categorical differences in ownership you are speaking of. There are differences in the attributes of property which change the way we interact with it, but fundamentally it all comes down to the same thing. (the body) So yes, ownership of actions is not the same as ownership of material objects, but only because of the differing properties of actions and material objects, it doesn't have anything to do with ownership in particular.

 

Does that make sense?

No it doesn't make any sense or it makes just as much sense as being able to kill when you put on a blue or camoflage uniform, because after all they are different "attributes" so is still counts right , Sheesh.

It's obvious I'm wasting my time, If someone doesn't value evidence what evidence are you going to use to convince them. So, I'm done with this.

[cynicist]

That's disappointing.