Self-ownership, here take mine.

[bugzysegal]

Ok so, I'll ask where does property come from and I'm under the impression that the answer is "from the exercise of self-ownership." So external property rights come from the exercise of internal self-ownership. Ok, I say, where does self-ownership come from? I'll get responses mirroring these ideas on page 76 of UPB.

 

"Now the first “property” that must be dealt with is the body. “Ownership” must first and foremost consist of control over one’s own body, because if that control does not exist, or is not considered valid, then the whole question of morality – let alone property – goes out the window"

 

This denotes the nature of all other property rights stemming from self-ownership.

 

"Thus the very act of controlling my body to produce speech demands the acceptance of my ability to control my speech – an implicit affirmation of my ownership over my own body."

 

This reflects the factual ability to control, and the exercise of that control somehow implying self-ownership. <that implication is the part that needs explanation. Stefan seeks to do this in surrounding statements:

 

"Clearly, the body cannot entirely control itself, but rather must be to some degree under the direction of the conscious mind.. What this means is that a man is responsible for the actions of his body, and therefore he is responsible for the effects of those actions"

 

"responsible" is used here not in the way that we say that the drought was responsible for the lower yield of crops this year. That's fine, but notice by doing this, Stefan smuggles the morality into the conversation. Before that we have a-moral facts: conscious minds exist, bodies exist, and consciousness sends electric impulses to extremities resulting in motor control. No problem. Which of those is a "moral" fact? Once you use "responsibility" in the way that Stefan does here...:

 

"If I say to you: “Men are not responsible for the actions of their bodies,” it would be eminently fair for you to ask me who is working my vocal chords and mouth. If I say that I have no control over my speech – which is an effect of the body – then I have “sustained” my thesis at the cost of invalidating it completely"

 

...the argument has been concluded before being made.

 

Stefan then moves the argument to say that if you deny the action or the causal link, you are denying the as of yet unexplained underlying moral premise. Since the former part of that sentence is contradictory, so would the second part.  The problem is the unexplained underlying morality of the situation. 

 

One day we may be able to relinquish motor and speech control. These events at the level of the brain are being better understood every day. How then, is absolute slavery not possible? Even if, after a while, you were screaming in your head "no! no!! no!!!" What would that mean for your self-ownership? What is free-will worth if it affects nothing?

 

This might seem really simple for all of you, but for some reason it's like Greek to me. ( .) (. )

[BaylorPRSer]

 

Ok so, I'll ask where does property come from and I'm under the impression that the answer is "from the exercise of self-ownership." So external property rights come from the exercise of internal self-ownership. Ok, I say, where does self-ownership come from? I'll get responses mirroring these ideas on page 76 of UPB.

 

"Now the first “property” that must be dealt with is the body. “Ownership” must first and foremost consist of control over one’s own body, because if that control does not exist, or is not considered valid, then the whole question of morality – let alone property – goes out the window"

 

This denotes the nature of all other property rights stemming from self-ownership.

 

"Thus the very act of controlling my body to produce speech demands the acceptance of my ability to control my speech – an implicit affirmation of my ownership over my own body."

 

This reflects the factual ability to control, and the exercise of that control somehow implying self-ownership. <that implication is the part that needs explanation. Stefan seeks to do this in surrounding statements:

 

"Clearly, the body cannot entirely control itself, but rather must be to some degree under the direction of the conscious mind.. What this means is that a man is responsible for the actions of his body, and therefore he is responsible for the effects of those actions"

 

"responsible" is used here not in the way that we say that the drought was responsible for the lower yield of crops this year. That's fine, but notice by doing this, Stefan smuggles the morality into the conversation. Before that we have a-moral facts: conscious minds exist, bodies exist, and consciousness sends electric impulses to extremities resulting in motor control. No problem. Which of those is a "moral" fact? Once you use "responsibility" in the way that Stefan does here...:

 

"If I say to you: “Men are not responsible for the actions of their bodies,” it would be eminently fair for you to ask me who is working my vocal chords and mouth. If I say that I have no control over my speech – which is an effect of the body – then I have “sustained” my thesis at the cost of invalidating it completely"

 

...the argument has been concluded before being made.

 

Stefan then moves the argument to say that if you deny the action or the causal link, you are denying the as of yet unexplained underlying moral premise. Since the former part of that sentence is contradictory, so would the second part.  The problem is the unexplained underlying morality of the situation. 

 

One day we may be able to relinquish motor and speech control. These events at the level of the brain are being better understood every day. How then, is absolute slavery not possible? Even if, after a while, you were screaming in your head "no! no!! no!!!" What would that mean for your self-ownership? What is free-will worth if it affects nothing?

 

This might seem really simple for all of you, but for some reason it's like Greek to me. ( .) (. )

 

"responsible" is used here not in the way that we say that the drought was responsible for the lower yield of crops this year. That's fine, but notice by doing this, Stefan smuggles the morality into the conversation."

 

How is it different?  The drought is a cause in that scenario, and in a human action scenario such as murder, the mind operating the body is the cause.  Also, could you unpack the "smuggles morality into the conversation" a bit more?  I don't understand what you're saying.

[David Ottinger]

To put it shortly:

 

The concept of property rights begins with possession.   Possession leads to an abstraction called 'ownership'.  Ownership is a concept that denotes a claim of right.  Thus, self-ownership is a concept derived from the realization that no one can be in possession of you.  You are your *own* being.  

[bugzysegal]

"responsible" is used here not in the way that we say that the drought was responsible for the lower yield of crops this year. That's fine, but notice by doing this, Stefan smuggles the morality into the conversation."

 

How is it different?  The drought is a cause in that scenario, and in a human action scenario such as murder, the mind operating the body is the cause.  Also, could you unpack the "smuggles morality into the conversation" a bit more?  I don't understand what you're saying.

What I mean is that in the scenario of the drought, their is no moral connotation. "ownership" is a moral concept. We don't say the drought owns the poor yield. I don't deny that things might be different when you get a conscious entity in the mix, but the transformation of the a-moral causal connection between mind and act, becoming moral or being inherently moral must be explained. The whole point is to search for a theory of self-ownership. I'd like to know where the morality arises from. "smuggles" might be a bit fast and loose, but what I mean is that by using the term "responsible" in stead of "caused" Stefan embeds morality into the conversation without explaining how it got there. 

To put it shortly:

 

The concept of property rights begins with possession.   Possession leads to an abstraction called 'ownership'.  Ownership is a concept that denotes a claim of right.  Thus, self-ownership is a concept derived from the realization that no one can be in possession of you.  You are your *own* being.  

How do I possess myself? Notice that when Stefan defends this notion, he time and time again references the causal relationship between a conscious actor and its host body. You can look at the whole of his arguments. It begins on page 75 and I believe runs all the way through 76. Conscious beings exist. Fact. Bodily actions occur. Fact. The two are causally connected. Fact. Where's the morality? No one can be in possession of you? What about the sci-fi scenario I suggest above?

Also "possession leads to abstraction" I would like to see fleshed out, as I don't really know what that means. Am I in control of my body? Sure. This is achieved through the bit of tissue at the back of my neck called the brain stem. What is so special about that?

[David Ottinger]

Possession of the self is innate, hence your autonomy.   This is all empirical.   "I think, therefore I am."   And, we're not talking about morality here.   This is basic self-awareness. 

[dsayers]

Which of those is a "moral" fact?

Facts have no moral component. Morality refers to behaviors that are binding upon others.

 

How then, is absolute slavery not possible? Even if, after a while, you were screaming in your head "no! no!! no!!!" What would that mean for your self-ownership?

Slavery is possible now. Slavery is only possible BECAUSE people own themselves. I'm sure one day the technology will exist where people could be remotely controlled. In this scenario, a person would choose to use their body to deny somebody else choice over their own body. In other words, the perpetrator is telling you with his very actions that his actions aren't principled.

 

I've pointed this contradiction out to you and in your presence a couple dozen times in the past week alone. Please stop pretending it's never been pointed out. Maybe it's Greek to you because you're intentionally ignoring it.

[labmath2]

Facts have no moral component. Morality refers to behaviors that are binding upon others.

 

Slavery is possible now. Slavery is only possible BECAUSE people own themselves. I'm sure one day the technology will exist where people could be remotely controlled. In this scenario, a person would choose to use their body to deny somebody else choice over their own body. In other words, the perpetrator is telling you with his very actions that his actions aren't principled.

 

I've pointed this contradiction out to you and in your presence a couple dozen times in the past week alone. Please stop pretending it's never been pointed out. Maybe it's Greek to you because you're intentionally ignoring it.

 

May I interject. 

I own my body because i control it.

If someone else did control it, they are acting immoral.

If control=own, then the more apparent interpretation is if someone else controls it, they own. 

The confusion then stems from the link between control and moral claim. Since control itself is not sufficient for moral claim, something else must be going on. 

 

You may have answered this in another thread, but this is the problem as it appears to me here.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Self-ownership is a self-evident fact like existence. You are in control of and responsible for your voluntary actions. That's self ownership.

If you make a comment here then it's logical to attribute that comment to you. You're responsible for it. Let's say that comment was a malicious lie that caused someone to get fired then you own the effects of those actions. Any restitution legitimately falls on you. 

If you commit a murder then you own that murder. Not only are you causally responsible but you are morally responsible. You own the effects of your actions because you have self-ownership. That's why a vicious dog or a lightning strike can not be a murderer; because although they may be causally responsible they cannot be morally responsible for the effects of their actions. 

 

Let's say you build a house using your own labor, time, etc. That house will be made using your labor, time, etc and not someone else's, right? So you house has a relationship to you that it does not have with others. You own the house. Everyone else does not own the house. See?

 

The reason it's like Greek to many people is that you were not raised to understand property from first principles. Much property in society (all government property) is founded on violations of property and self ownership. The government declares ownership through the initiation of force and then teaches others that property can only exist if there's a government.  Self-ownership can never be taught in schools and parents know little or nothing about it. It's a language you were never exposed to but it's incredibly simple an obvious. 

[bugzysegal]

Facts have no moral component. Morality refers to behaviors that are binding upon others.

 

Slavery is possible now. Slavery is only possible BECAUSE people own themselves. I'm sure one day the technology will exist where people could be remotely controlled. In this scenario, a person would choose to use their body to deny somebody else choice over their own body. In other words, the perpetrator is telling you with his very actions that his actions aren't principled.

 

I've pointed this contradiction out to you and in your presence a couple dozen times in the past week alone. Please stop pretending it's never been pointed out. Maybe it's Greek to you because you're intentionally ignoring it.

In the scenario I describe person A relinquishes motor and speech control to person B willingly for an undisclosed period of time. So far, everyone has merely acted voluntarily. From that point on,  there's no force because it is impossible for person A to communicate with us. A doesn't want their body engaging in yoga any more, but B controls A's body and is under the impression that everything is gravy. Who's to say B acted wrongly, yet A acts against his will.  At what point is their a contradiction? At least you drive right down the line and say there are no moral facts. Even in standard contractual slavery, one can break contract, though perhaps with penalties. In this future world, there is no breaking contract and nothing anyone can do about it. 

Self-ownership is a self-evident fact like existence. You are in control of and responsible for your voluntary actions. That's self ownership.

If you make a comment here then it's logical to attribute that comment to you. You're responsible for it. Let's say that comment was a malicious lie that caused someone to get fired then you own the effects of those actions. Any restitution legitimately falls on you. 

If you commit a murder then you own that murder. Not only are you causally responsible but you are morally responsible. You own the effects of your actions because you have self-ownership. That's why a vicious dog or a lightning strike can not be a murderer; because although they may be causally responsible they cannot be morally responsible for the effects of their actions. 

 

Let's say you build a house using your own labor, time, etc. That house will be made using your labor, time, etc and not someone else's, right? So you house has a relationship to you that it does not have with others. You own the house. Everyone else does not own the house. See?

 

The reason it's like Greek to many people is that you were not raised to understand property from first principles. Much property in society (all government property) is founded on violations of property and self ownership. The government declares ownership through the initiation of force and then teaches others that property can only exist if there's a government.  Self-ownership can never be taught in schools and parents know little or nothing about it. It's a language you were never exposed to but it's incredibly simple an obvious. 

Self-ownership and existence are quite distinct. Existence is undeniable because the language you would use to deny it, denotes some kind of existence. It doesn't denote the material world people assume is real, but it denotes something. That is, you can assert we are in the matrix, but you can't assert that nothing is real, because someone's got to be existent to be in the matrix ...so on and so forth. Self-ownership simply doesn't strike me in that same sense. In other words, what other conditions about property have  to be true because self-ownership exists such that asking questions is non-sense? Imagine for a second that free will doesn't exist(not saying it doesn't but it's useful here) because consciousness doesn't exist. We are simply complex biological computers synthesizing nutrients and stimuli to produce complex behaviors(hypothetically). The actions of these automatons would not generate property would they? Hurricanes don't own the trees they break.  Introduce free-will and bam, you say self-ownership exists. What I want to know is how? I understand the roles of assigning blame, but these are relational moral concepts merely bind moral concepts to one another.

 

Stefan draws the analogy between morality, science, and mathematics. The latter two are not merely evaluative, the strength of science comes, in part, from its ability to make predictive claims about the world we live in. Mathematics functions similarly. Self-ownership doesn't add any predictive power to the set of human discourse. Just because a definition of some abstraction you come up with is internally consistent, doesn't mean we should accept it. 

Possession of the self is innate, hence your autonomy.   This is all empirical.   "I think, therefore I am."   And, we're not talking about morality here.   This is basic self-awareness. 

One's own existence is undeniable, but you have to do extra work to embed possession into that awareness.......

May I interject. 

I own my body because i control it.

If someone else did control it, they are acting immoral.

If control=own, then the more apparent interpretation is if someone else controls it, they own. 

The confusion then stems from the link between control and moral claim. Since control itself is not sufficient for moral claim, something else must be going on. 

 

You may have answered this in another thread, but this is the problem as it appears to me here.

Exactly right! "This reflects the factual ability to control, and the exercise of that control somehow implying self-ownership. <that implication is the part that needs explanation."

[David Ottinger]

 

One's own existence is undeniable, but you have to do extra work to embed possession into that awareness.......

 

 

I don't see why that is.  The "extra work" is simply exercising one's will power -- which, again, is innate.  Just like you can't deny your own existence, you cannot also deny your own agency.  What do you think 'possession' means?  Possession does not mean ownership.  

[bugzysegal]

I don't see why that is.  The "extra work" is simply exercising one's will power -- which, again, is innate.  Just like you can't deny your own existence, you cannot also deny your own agency.  What do you think 'possession' means?  Possession does not mean ownership.  

I would define it as my right to use something, over all other persons. I'm questioning where that right comes from. you say it is innate, and I say innate in what? You say in exercising power or agency. And I say why?

[David Ottinger]

I would define it as my right to use something, over all other persons. I'm questioning where that right comes from. you say it is innate, and I say innate in what? You say in exercising power or agency. And I say why?

 

Ok, this is where the misunderstanding lies.  'Possession' is not expressing a right.  Possession refers to the ability to exert one's will power over something, i.e. control.        

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Self-ownership and existence are quite distinct. Existence is undeniable because the language you would use to deny it, denotes some kind of existence. It doesn't denote the material world people assume is real, but it denotes something. That is, you can assert we are in the matrix, but you can't assert that nothing is real, because someone's got to be existent to be in the matrix ...so on and so forth. Self-ownership simply doesn't strike me in that same sense. In other words, what other conditions about property have  to be true because self-ownership exists such that asking questions is non-sense? Imagine for a second that free will doesn't exist(not saying it doesn't but it's useful here) because consciousness doesn't exist. We are simply complex biological computers synthesizing nutrients and stimuli to produce complex behaviors(hypothetically). The actions of these automatons would not generate property would they? Hurricanes don't own the trees they break.  Introduce free-will and bam, you say self-ownership exists. What I want to know is how? I understand the roles of assigning blame, but these are relational moral concepts merely bind moral concepts to one another.

 

Stefan draws the analogy between morality, science, and mathematics. The latter two are not merely evaluative, the strength of science comes, in part, from its ability to make predictive claims about the world we live in. Mathematics functions similarly. Self-ownership doesn't add any predictive power to the set of human discourse. Just because a definition of some abstraction you come up with is internally consistent, doesn't mean we should accept it. 

Self-ownership and existence are not distinct in this context. The reason they are the same is because the argument is in the context of human interaction (not metaphysics). In that context self-ownership is just as necessary an axiom as existence is in order for your arguments and propositions to be be logically coherent. Although existence is a metaphysical necessity and self-ownership is not, both are logically necessary for our interaction.

If, as in your example, we are just biological machines without free will then you should stop attributing self-ownership (control over and responsibility for one's voluntary actions) to everyone here. It is logically impossible for you to rationally put forward the argument self-ownership does not exist when we can observe you exercising self-ownership and holding other responsible for their voluntary actions. Are you going to argue that you did not exercise control over your body to create your responses and are not responsible for them? If so then who's doing it? Deterministic forces? The wind? God?

 

No one argued that because self-ownership is internally consistent you should accept it. So I'm not sure why you're saying that. 

Self-ownership is just a foundational fact of certain human interaction. Your comment you make to me in response (assuming you do) will be your comment and not anyone else's comment. You will be responsible for it and any moral implications will fall on you. 

Similarly when you use your time, labor etc to create value then it's your time and labor in that value and no one else's. You own it and no one else does. If someone steals it then they are taking your time and labor (retroactively enslaving you). These are objective and demonstrable things.

In the scenario I describe person A relinquishes motor and speech control to person B willingly for an undisclosed period of time. So far, everyone has merely acted voluntarily.

This further demonstrates self-ownership. The person relinquishing their entire ability to control their body has to own their body in the first place in order to voluntarily offer it. 

[labmath2]

I think i will add this comment then stop. You say do you control yourself (in this moment) and I say yes. Then you say you are demonstrating self ownership. So a lightbulb goes off in my head, i own anything i control. I yank the first person i see hook him up to a machine that restraines his movement and profess my ownership of his body. You turn to me and say that is immoral. I ask what you mean and you explain that i am forcefully controlling his body agaist his will. I respond, you mean i am controlling my body against his will. You say no its his body. I say, but i control it so its mine. At this point you school me in the meaning of self ownership.

[NotDarkYet]

Do you lock your doors?

 

If yes, why?

 

If not, why not.... and what's your address?

[dsayers]

If someone else did control it, they are acting immoral.

If control=own, then the more apparent interpretation is if someone else controls it, they own.

This is like saying a car thief owns whatever car he takes. When you say somebody else controls it, you're leaving out that it is already owned, so controlling it requires consent. Also, for somebody else to control your body, they are controlling their own body while denying you the very same. This is the very contradiction I just spoke of. They're telling you with their very actions that it is unprincipled.

 

In the scenario I describe person A relinquishes motor and speech control to person B willingly for an undisclosed period of time.

Undisclosed period of time doesn't sound like a valid contract to me. I missed this scenario. I guess I don't get the question then. If consent is present, where's the confusion?

[labmath2]

This is like saying a car thief owns whatever car he takes. When you say somebody else controls it, you're leaving out that it is already owned, so controlling it requires consent. Also, for somebody else to control your body, they are controlling their own body while denying you the very same. This is the very contradiction I just spoke of. 

I assume they cannot control your body in the same sense and at the same time that they control their body, so law of non contradiction is not triggered. The red part has an implicit definition of ownership that goes beyond control. However, you do not explicitly state what that it.

[bugzysegal]

Self-ownership and existence are not distinct in this context. The reason they are the same is because the argument is in the context of human interaction (not metaphysics). In that context self-ownership is just as necessary an axiom as existence is in order for your arguments and propositions to be be logically coherent. Although existence is a metaphysical necessity and self-ownership is not, both are logically necessary for our interaction.

If, as in your example, we are just biological machines without free will then you should stop attributing self-ownership (control over and responsibility for one's voluntary actions) to everyone here. It is logically impossible for you to rationally put forward the argument self-ownership does not exist when we can observe you exercising self-ownership and holding other responsible for their voluntary actions. Are you going to argue that you did not exercise control over your body to create your responses and are not responsible for them? If so then who's doing it? Deterministic forces? The wind? God?

 

No one argued that because self-ownership is internally consistent you should accept it. So I'm not sure why you're saying that. 

Self-ownership is just a foundational fact of certain human interaction. Your comment you make to me in response (assuming you do) will be your comment and not anyone else's comment. You will be responsible for it and any moral implications will fall on you. 

Similarly when you use your time, labor etc to create value then it's your time and labor in that value and no one else's. You own it and no one else does. If someone steals it then they are taking your time and labor (retroactively enslaving you). These are objective and demonstrable things.

This further demonstrates self-ownership. The person relinquishing their entire ability to control their body has to own their body in the first place in order to voluntarily offer it. 

I am not denying that I have the ability to do any of those things. What I am curious about is why you think controlling some sack of cells results in this foundation of morality, I understand the mechanics of how you attribute ownership to actions, but not why. You can repeat, "when you exercise control, then morality" or "who else would own" and my response is why not no one? Are you literally saying that conscious creatures would be un-able to causally affect the world around them, without self-ownership? If so, why? Saying something is self-evident, or necessary to make arguments, doesn't make it so. Could robots not make arguments? What are viruses if not the spreading of information(malicious information, yeah, but information none the less)?

This is like saying a car thief owns whatever car he takes. When you say somebody else controls it, you're leaving out that it is already owned, so controlling it requires consent. Also, for somebody else to control your body, they are controlling their own body while denying you the very same. This is the very contradiction I just spoke of. They're telling you with their very actions that it is unprincipled.

 

Undisclosed period of time doesn't sound like a valid contract to me. I missed this scenario. I guess I don't get the question then. If consent is present, where's the confusion?

Someone asks me if the can rent my car for an indefinite period for x amount of dollars to be paid each time y amount of time elapses. Sounds like a contract to me. Does it make a difference to you that you bank account is piling up, as you are imprisoned in your own body?

I think i will add this comment then stop. You say do you control yourself (in this moment) and I say yes. Then you say you are demonstrating self ownership. So a lightbulb goes off in my head, i own anything i control. I yank the first person i see hook him up to a machine that restraines his movement and profess my ownership of his body. You turn to me and say that is immoral. I ask what you mean and you explain that i am forcefully controlling his body agaist his will. I respond, you mean i am controlling my body against his will. You say no its his body. I say, but i control it so its mine. At this point you school me in the meaning of self ownership.

Hahaha. Ending it with a joke. Nice.

[Romulox]

As I understand it, in order for an action to be considered moral or immoral, one needs to make a choice; that is, one has the option of either pursuing that action, pursuing a different action, or doing nothing.  In what way can you choose to pursue any action that impacts other conscious beings without using your body?  Without use of your body, you are left only with the "do nothing" option, at which point all choice, and therefore moral responsibility, is removed. 

 

If you agree, then the existence of morality requires that people own their own bodies, since this is the only means by which they can carry out actions that affect other conscious beings. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I am not denying that I have the ability to do any of those things. What I am curious about is why you think controlling some sack of cells results in this foundation of morality, I understand the mechanics of how you attribute ownership to actions, but not why. You can repeat, "when you exercise control, then morality" or "who else would own" and my response is why not no one? Are you literally saying that conscious creatures would be un-able to causally affect the world around them, without self-ownership? If so, why? Saying something is self-evident, or necessary to make arguments, doesn't make it so. Could robots not make arguments? What are viruses if not the spreading of information(malicious information, yeah, but information none the less)?

 

The reason it results in a foundation of morality is because you are responsible for the effects of your actions. You own the effects of your voluntary actions. If you murder someone then the punishment and restitution would legitimately fall on you. If you did not have self-ownership then it would not. I find this to be obvious and I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.

 

If no one owns their actions (no one had any control for or responsibility for their actions) then stop attributing ownership to people. 

Yeah, robots could make arguments but they can't be anything other than causally responsible for the effects of those arguments. Robots, by definition, are just programmed. I specified that ownership does not just involve causal responsibility when I compared the a person killing someone to a tree, dog, etc killing someone.

 

I didn't just "say" it was self-evident or just "say" it was logically necessary. I made arguments. So please do not imply that my position is that just saying it makes it so. That's annoying, especially after I just made a bunch of arguments, half of which you're not even attempting to rebut. 

[bugzysegal]

If some other ethical system is true, and not one that is rooted in ownership, then the wrongness of those actions(theft, murder, etc.) would come from that system. To say that these things can't be wrong unless  you accept self-ownership is a fair bit stronger than saying "If there is self-ownership, then theft, murder, and rape are wrong." I suspect you endorse both of those statements though, no? My question then is, can't ownership theory be just as wrong about the source of morality as every one before it? Also, what you are essentially saying then, is ownership is inseparable from those moral wrongs.

 

I disagree. Murder is wrong because it destroys one's choice to continue to live, or commit suicide. Rape is wrong, because it destroys the choice to have consensual sex. Maximizing choice is always moral. An alternate justification that doesn't rely on the fact that we own anything. Do we have a variety of abilities at our disposal, yeah but where did property come into the discussion there? Why choice? Well rational actors inherently value choice. Nozick's experience machine tells us that. What's fun is that it ends up at the same place voluntarism does.

[dsayers]

Someone asks me if the can rent my car for an indefinite period for x amount of dollars to be paid each time y amount of time elapses. Sounds like a contract to me.

I pointed to something vague and called it vague. You added in specifics and said it's not vague. I pointed to something 1 sided and said it isn't a contract. You added in a 2nd side and said that's a contract. It's appalling after all the interaction you and I have had that you think I can be bowled over so easily that this bullshit would go unnoticed.

[bugzysegal]

I pointed to something vague and called it vague. You added in specifics and said it's not vague. I pointed to something 1 sided and said it isn't a contract. You added in a 2nd side and said that's a contract. It's appalling after all the interaction you and I have had that you think I can be bowled over so easily that this bullshit would go unnoticed.

I wasn't saying it should have been obvious what I meant the first time. What I meant was the argument is easily remedied to preserve my original point. We think differently (we are vollying arguments back and forth) so it's foolhardy for me to assume you will do a better job of building my argument, than I would. I will do my best to forward the strongest version of my arguments and pay closer attention. Keep in mind I am making many of these statements for the first time, because I havn't had  to flesh out the arguments this far before.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If some other ethical system is true, and not one that is rooted in ownership, then the wrongness of those actions(theft, murder, etc.) would come from that system. To say that these things can't be wrong unless  you accept self-ownership is a fair bit stronger than saying "If there is self-ownership, then theft, murder, and rape are wrong." I suspect you endorse both of those statements though, no? My question then is, can't ownership theory be just as wrong about the source of morality as every one before it? Also, what you are essentially saying then, is ownership is inseparable from those moral wrongs.

 

I disagree. Murder is wrong because it destroys one's choice to continue to live, or commit suicide. Rape is wrong, because it destroys the choice to have consensual sex. Maximizing choice is always moral. An alternate justification that doesn't rely on the fact that we own anything. Do we have a variety of abilities at our disposal, yeah but where did property come into the discussion there? Why choice? Well rational actors inherently value choice. Nozick's experience machine tells us that. What's fun is that it ends up at the same place voluntarism does.

Who are you responding to here? 

[dsayers]

Keep in mind I am making many of these statements for the first time, because I havn't had  to flesh out the arguments this far before.

I can DEFINITELY appreciate this. I remember when I was new to some of the ideas, I took a lot of time to chew on them before I starting speaking outwardly about them. Even then (and still today), I'm learning new ways to communicate them more precisely and with less distraction.

 

So going back to the point of contention, can you see how "person A relinquishes motor and speech control to person B willingly for an undisclosed period of time" is different from "rent my car for an indefinite period for x amount of dollars to be paid each time y amount of time elapses" in the ways I mentioned? (vague vs specific, 1 sided vs 2 sided)

 

I assume they cannot control your body in the same sense and at the same time that they control their body, so law of non contradiction is not triggered.

On what basis would you assume they wouldn't have control over their own body, yet possess the means to control yours? Take matter out of the equation if it's easier: By controlling you, they are CHOOSING to take CHOICE from you. Same contradiction.

[bugzysegal]

So going back to the point of contention, can you see how "person A relinquishes motor and speech control to person B willingly for an undisclosed period of time" is different from "rent my car for an indefinite period for x amount of dollars to be paid each time y amount of time elapses" in the ways I mentioned? (vague vs specific, 1 sided vs 2 sided)

Right, and yes these are different. I would then modify the body control scenario to better fit the analogy. So then A signs a contract with B such that B will control A's body for an indefinite amount of time and deposit x amount of dollar to be paid each time y amount of time elapses.  At that point you have for all intents and purposes relinquished all property rights. You may never even be able to use that money. You've created a contract that can't be voided, violated, or nullified, because we would have no way of knowing A's desire for any of those things. Is it only immoral if/when B doesn't put money in the bank? 

[dsayers]

A signs a contract with B such that B will control A's body for an indefinite amount of time and deposit x amount of dollar to be paid each time y amount of time elapses.

At this point, your claim of indefinite amount of time is inaccurate as denoted by finite amount of time Y. Each interval, consent would have to be secured once again. Present day, this CAN happen implicitly as a feature of the inaction of not cancelling the service in question. However, since in this example, consent is not possible, the contract would likely be set up in such a way as you can control my body for 3 weeks, then I get a week to consult with people I trust to re-evaluate whether I wish to continue our arrangement or not. And of course since control is fully relinquished, we could expect that the process would be subject to 3rd party oversight, as well as A assigning a power of attorney to somebody who would remain conscious and withdraw consent by proxy. Which leads to:

 

You've created a contract that can't be voided, violated, or nullified, because we would have no way of knowing A's desire for any of those things.

There is no valid contract that doesn't have clauses for pre-mature termination. Just as it would have a clause for the hypothetical scenario whereby B didn't honor the contract and continued to control A as outline above. Which I hope did a sufficient job of outlining how such an arrangement might look like.

 

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that there would have to be parameters in place as to what actions were allowable while control was temporarily relinquished. Obviously you wouldn't consent to somebody using your body to rob a bank. So I'd even go so far as to say, in the context of 3rd party oversight and external PoA mentioned above, and also in the context of a world where remote control humans is possible, that the 3rd party/PoA would have the ability to track your body and see what you see in order to ensure there was no breach of such parameters.

 

Just to be clear, I don't think that having a sound grasp of property rights makes any of this far-fetched or challenging. Me saying it doesn't make it correct obviously. My point is that I think it's more beneficial to focus on property rights in the absolute. Then various "what ifs" become clearer.

[Des]

 

Ok so, I'll ask where does property come from and I'm under the impression that the answer is "from the exercise of self-ownership." So external property rights come from the exercise of internal self-ownership. Ok, I say, where does self-ownership come from? I'll get responses mirroring these ideas on page 76 of UPB.

My approach to ethics goes like this:

 

I prefer to stay alive.

I am not alone in that preference.

If I and people who share that preference, made a pact to do-no-murder, that pact would have to expand into a do-no-evil pact (because 100 people randomly [or in co-ordination] taking my stuff or assaulting me could have me just as dead as one person murdering me).

Whether or not anyone ever signs such a pact, all that which the pact must include as evils, can be said to be evil.

 

The above implies that evil and ethical standards come into existence because of [your and my] capacity to trade [my] abstention from evil for [your] abstention from evil. This seems okay to me, because I can't do that trade with an animal or a vegetable, but I can do it with you. It also seems good to me that even if one of us is a psychopath, we can still do the ethics trade to mutual benefit.

 

Property then comes from my need to have sustenance on which to survive, which is why, for the pact to be rationally of benefit to me, it must cast theft as an evil, and the definitions of theft and property have to be what they need to be for that rational benefit (my survival) to emerge from the do-no-evil pact.

[bugzysegal]

At this point, your claim of indefinite amount of time is inaccurate as denoted by finite amount of time Y. Each interval, consent would have to be secured once again. Present day, this CAN happen implicitly as a feature of the inaction of not cancelling the service in question. However, since in this example, consent is not possible, the contract would likely be set up in such a way as you can control my body for 3 weeks, then I get a week to consult with people I trust to re-evaluate whether I wish to continue our arrangement or not. And of course since control is fully relinquished, we could expect that the process would be subject to 3rd party oversight, as well as A assigning a power of attorney to somebody who would remain conscious and withdraw consent by proxy. Which leads to:

 

There is no valid contract that doesn't have clauses for pre-mature termination. Just as it would have a clause for the hypothetical scenario whereby B didn't honor the contract and continued to control A as outline above. Which I hope did a sufficient job of outlining how such an arrangement might look like.

 

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that there would have to be parameters in place as to what actions were allowable while control was temporarily relinquished. Obviously you wouldn't consent to somebody using your body to rob a bank. So I'd even go so far as to say, in the context of 3rd party oversight and external PoA mentioned above, and also in the context of a world where remote control humans is possible, that the 3rd party/PoA would have the ability to track your body and see what you see in order to ensure there was no breach of such parameters.

 

Just to be clear, I don't think that having a sound grasp of property rights makes any of this far-fetched or challenging. Me saying it doesn't make it correct obviously. My point is that I think it's more beneficial to focus on property rights in the absolute. Then various "what ifs" become clearer.

Such requirements would in deed be wise, but would they be necessary for a valid contract? (as you said this is more of an intellectual curiosity when it comes to contract theory)

 

The real question revolves around the fact that who controls our body is merely an accident of nature. The "ability" that generates, or is itself, "responsibility" is assigned arbitrarily through biology. Moreover responsibility, as you see it, is supervening on that ability. This axiomatic base seems, 1 implausible, 2 not how we use words like "property", and 3 doesn't seem to account for intrinsic value. By that last bit, I mean that thought experiments like the experience machine, or drowning scenarios, will highlight the fact that rational actors intrinsically value certain things (choice and life).

[dsayers]

The real question revolves around the fact that who controls our body is merely an accident of nature.

If by accident of nature, you mean that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, then I think that's a fair assessment. However, in what way is this useful in identifying that controlling one's self while denying control to another is internally inconsistent?

[labmath2]

If by accident of nature, you mean that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, then I think that's a fair assessment. However, in what way is this useful in identifying that controlling one's self while denying control to another is internally inconsistent?

What do you mean by controlling one's self while denying control to another is internally inconsistent?

The previous answer is that you are asserting and denying self ownership. The problem there is that self ownership is described as self control. Which translates to control is ownership. If that is true, then both of these statements are true:

1. You own what you control

2. You control what you own.

Since its much easier to check control (control can be checked empirically), then i just need to see if you control something to know if you own it. However, you have repeatedly rejected this conclusion, but i still do not know where the logic is incorrect. I imagine you reject the proposition that self control is self ownership. If self control is self ownership, but ownership is not control, then i am not very good at english. If the two subsequent statements i wrote are not true, then i am not very good at logic. If i am not very good at logic or english, please correct me so i can stop making the same mistakes.

[bugzysegal]

If by accident of nature, you mean that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, then I think that's a fair assessment. However, in what way is this useful in identifying that controlling one's self while denying control to another is internally inconsistent?

It is the arbitrary nature of emergent conscious control, demonstrated by the fact that such control can be relinquished, which makes me doubt that there is some objective ought about who should control. Thus if an ought is true from arbitrary circumstances, then some contradiction that might arise from the violation of said ought is equally trivial.

You can say, sure moral axioms arent themselves proved, but they are necessary for moral conclusions and tracing human behavior(descriptive). Fine. Science is equally necessary, but for predicting the behavior of matter. UPB and property as a subset is, after all, evaluative. However, what you cant say is that some other moral system with equal or greater descriptive power than the property model, couldnt be asserted, so long as it explained the reason speech acts and voluntary behavior were moral. Without some other theory and moral conclusions to explain, you go with what you have. But that doesn't make that moral framework necessarily "True", just the best. Property might be the best theory we've got, but it isn't contradictory to assert that it might not be the best theory possible.

[dsayers]

That didn't answer my question. In fact, it just raises a similar question: In what way does this challenge that theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent?

 

It was once believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Then we had better technology and found a more accurate way to describe reality. That possibility is always there. This doesn't change the fact that you accept property rights in the mere contemplation that property rights might not be accurate. To that end, you seem to make a great deal of effort in this regard. Have you stopped for a moment to reflect on why that might be?

[bugzysegal]

That didn't answer my question. In fact, it just raises a similar question: In what way does this challenge that theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent?

 

It was once believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Then we had better technology and found a more accurate way to describe reality. That possibility is always there. This doesn't change the fact that you accept property rights in the mere contemplation that property rights might not be accurate. To that end, you seem to make a great deal of effort in this regard. Have you stopped for a moment to reflect on why that might be?

In the first bit, fair charge. It doesn't do anything to address why the exercise of control and the prevention of that exercise in another would be internally inconsistent. What it is an attempt to do, is to highlight the possibility that self-ownership might not be the source of that inconsistency. 

 

To your second charge, I'm saying the theory of property rights is like the old Aristotelian version of the elements, and that I've got Bohr's model and Newtonian physics in the pocket. You heard me right. For a while now, I've been chugging along developing an alternate theory that would not only have the same power of a self-ownership founded theory, but is even better at addressing objections than the self-ownership theory. If you were suggesting that I have some deep seeded emotional disturbance, unconsciously or consciously pushing me to forward silly objections or resist solid arguments for bad reasons, I would say no. Self-ownership strikes me as intuitively lacking. I only accept property rights in order to contemplate the accuracy of property rights, if I have no other account of how one might do so. Do I have an ulterior motive? Yes. Am I required to accept your theory, well no so long as my theory is accurate. The whole purpose of this was to open up the line for discussion of alternate versions of UPB. 

 

Would you accept a moral theory if it did the following: Explained why you and only you have the right to do with your body and external bodies over which you exert control, what you will?

 

Gave a robust defense of the market, such that all transactions (exchanges of benefits) were voluntary.

 

Resulted in a respect for the NAP, voluntarism, anarchy etc...

 

Was internally consistent, universalizable, and adhered to the laws of logic.

 

Did not invoke self-ownership as the foundation of the above(despite not seeing how such a thing could be done without this).

 

I suppose if you answer no, in light of the last feature, I'm not sure what I'd have to say in response other than, What other requirements of a moral theory would you have?

As a quick follow up, I'd be happy to disclose that theory to you in private correspondence. The reason for doing it that way is 1. It's not done yet lol. and 2. as I have learned from my interactions on these boards, a robust theory is hard to defend while trying to navigate multiple attacks simultaneously. Obviously, it must be able to withstand them, but I think it's best that I work through the major objections as they come from private correspondence. 

[dsayers]

As others have pointed out, I think self-ownership is axiomatic. You continue to engage in with the very action of imagining that you don't, as I've already pointed out. I literally see no way of escaping this, hence the axiomatic categorization. However, if a way of more accurately describing the real world were presented, of course what we currently hold as true would be superseded.

 

Here's the problem though. "Theft, assault, rape, and murder." Considering we're talking about the sum of human history, behavior, and potential, that phrase is EXTREMELY concise. I personally do not see how any moral theory can include that, include more stuff, yet somehow be more efficient.

 

This is really important to understand and why you might here me often reference humanity's prior belief in the Earth being the center of the universe. As I understand it, in order to make that conclusion fit, they had to come up with all kinds of exceptions and addendums. The moment you point out the sun is the center of our solar system, everything else fits.

 

I grew up same as many: parents who used aggression in lieu of reason, religion that used aggression in lieu of reason, government schools that used aggression in lieu of reason, governments that used aggression in lieu of reason. And in each case of artificial authority, elaborate systems of explanation as to how all that aggression was justified were present. Then you look at self-ownership, universalizing that, and how it boils everything down to "theft, assault, rape, and murder," EVERYTHING becomes SO clear.

 

So clear that you can see right through everything people say to try and resist this and WHY. In a world where everybody subscribes to all the various narrative that's been piled onto everything, it's like being superhuman by comparison, and so much easier. Since I've accepted reality, I've been happier, my relationships have been more fruitful, the amount of suffering I experience at the hands of my aggressors is reduced, any lack of sleep I encounter is easier to work with, I even have a new found resistance to cold and over all higher constitution health-wise. It's because my conscious is freed up from having to go through all the fluff to make Earth the center. My subconscious is freed up from having to show me all the ways my conscious isn't processing these things accurately.

 

None of that last paragraph is a proof of any kind. But it should help to explain why I'm married to simplicity when it comes to determining what is truth. If you can beat "theft, assault, rape, and murder," by all means, lay it on us. If you can't, then you either have to accept it or reveal that the truth isn't what you seek at all. In which case, we have nothing to discuss since I'll be speaking from reality while you're speaking from a fantasy world.