Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

The Legitimacy Of Self-Ownership

TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 11:10:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was skimming through an abortion debate Grape did, and it was mentioned that because humans have control over their own bodies, that serves as a justification for a legitimate property right, which therefore should not be violated. However, isn't this sort of the Naturalistic Fallacy? Just because humans do control their own bodies, I don't think that means that sort of property is "justified"..

Also, I think it sort of boils down to a might makes right argument, though that may be an incorrect interpretation. Because we have the power to control our own bodies, that justifies our right to do what we will with them. But, other humans have control over other humans' bodies in that sense as well, so would that grant them some amount of ownership too?
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 11:24:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://mises.org...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:23:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 11:10:05 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
I was skimming through an abortion debate Grape did, and it was mentioned that because humans have control over their own bodies, that serves as a justification for a legitimate property right, which therefore should not be violated. However, isn't this sort of the Naturalistic Fallacy? Just because humans do control their own bodies, I don't think that means that sort of property is "justified"..

Also, I think it sort of boils down to a might makes right argument, though that may be an incorrect interpretation. Because we have the power to control our own bodies, that justifies our right to do what we will with them. But, other humans have control over other humans' bodies in that sense as well, so would that grant them some amount of ownership too?

Opinion: Ownership is a creation of the conscious mind. You can only own what you can defend. If you can defend your body, then you own it until you can no longer defend your claim of "ownership". If someone wants to control your claim to ownership or take your ownership, then they would have to attack and conquer your defense.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:28:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:23:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/17/2011 11:10:05 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
I was skimming through an abortion debate Grape did, and it was mentioned that because humans have control over their own bodies, that serves as a justification for a legitimate property right, which therefore should not be violated. However, isn't this sort of the Naturalistic Fallacy? Just because humans do control their own bodies, I don't think that means that sort of property is "justified"..

Also, I think it sort of boils down to a might makes right argument, though that may be an incorrect interpretation. Because we have the power to control our own bodies, that justifies our right to do what we will with them. But, other humans have control over other humans' bodies in that sense as well, so would that grant them some amount of ownership too?

Opinion: Ownership is a creation of the conscious mind. You can only own what you can defend. If you can defend your body, then you own it until you can no longer defend your claim of "ownership". If someone wants to control your claim to ownership or take your ownership, then they would have to attack and conquer your defense.

So a rapist "owns" his victim?

just kidding, I fully agree with that (not that it is morally right, but naturally right). You only "own" what you can defend (by any means, often forcefully).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:30:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Where do other types of ownership come from?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:37:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:30:12 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Where do other types of ownership come from?

It comes from human imagination, since it is made up by humans.

Though, from the thoughts of property ownership, it comes down to what you can and are willing to defend. That is probably the most natural form of ownership (i.e. most in line with nature).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:45:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 11:24:14 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
http://mises.org...

Well, I read through it, and I'm still not seeing the connection. Argumentation presupposes free discourse, and so, to argue in favor of force is to be implicitly contradictory. I don't really agree with that all the way because someone's support for force, under certain circumstances, does not mean they must be using force every second of their lives in order to be consistent, but I at least get where it's coming from.

And yeah, maybe self-ownership is presupposed by argumentation, although that too seems questionable, but that still doesn't lend an *objective justification* for such property. It all goes back to the Naturalistic Fallacy, and even though Rothbard claimed this issue to be solved by Hoppe, he didn't actually elaborate on that - he just sort of said it.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:47:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:30:12 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Where do other types of ownership come from?

The same sort of thing, I believe. If you legitimately own yourself, then you own your labor, which when mixed with land, justifies your ownership of that too, and so on.

That's an extremely crude way of putting it, though. You'd get a more detailed, concise answer from some of the An-Caps on the site who understand the concept better.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:55:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:23:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/17/2011 11:10:05 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
I was skimming through an abortion debate Grape did, and it was mentioned that because humans have control over their own bodies, that serves as a justification for a legitimate property right, which therefore should not be violated. However, isn't this sort of the Naturalistic Fallacy? Just because humans do control their own bodies, I don't think that means that sort of property is "justified"..

Also, I think it sort of boils down to a might makes right argument, though that may be an incorrect interpretation. Because we have the power to control our own bodies, that justifies our right to do what we will with them. But, other humans have control over other humans' bodies in that sense as well, so would that grant them some amount of ownership too?

Opinion: Ownership is a creation of the conscious mind. You can only own what you can defend. If you can defend your body, then you own it until you can no longer defend your claim of "ownership". If someone wants to control your claim to ownership or take your ownership, then they would have to attack and conquer your defense.

What then of a parentdefending their young? Or a stranger defending another by proxy?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:57:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 11:10:05 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
I was skimming through an abortion debate Grape did, and it was mentioned that because humans have control over their own bodies, that serves as a justification for a legitimate property right, which therefore should not be violated. However, isn't this sort of the Naturalistic Fallacy? Just because humans do control their own bodies, I don't think that means that sort of property is "justified"..

Also, I think it sort of boils down to a might makes right argument, though that may be an incorrect interpretation. Because we have the power to control our own bodies, that justifies our right to do what we will with them. But, other humans have control over other humans' bodies in that sense as well, so would that grant them some amount of ownership too?

I view "ownership" more along the lines of association than with control.

My life is associated with my body. It belongs to me first by association,... and all the other aspects come thereafter.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 11:02:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 10:57:45 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/17/2011 11:10:05 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
I was skimming through an abortion debate Grape did, and it was mentioned that because humans have control over their own bodies, that serves as a justification for a legitimate property right, which therefore should not be violated. However, isn't this sort of the Naturalistic Fallacy? Just because humans do control their own bodies, I don't think that means that sort of property is "justified"..

Also, I think it sort of boils down to a might makes right argument, though that may be an incorrect interpretation. Because we have the power to control our own bodies, that justifies our right to do what we will with them. But, other humans have control over other humans' bodies in that sense as well, so would that grant them some amount of ownership too?

I view "ownership" more along the lines of association than with control.

My life is associated with my body. It belongs to me first by association,... and all the other aspects come thereafter.

That's your view of it, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm looking for an objective justification for self-ownership. You'd have to prove that you do have legitimate ownership of yourself, which I believe to be impossible because I believe Nihilism is right - it's all subjective.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 11:05:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 11:02:04 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:57:45 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/17/2011 11:10:05 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
I was skimming through an abortion debate Grape did, and it was mentioned that because humans have control over their own bodies, that serves as a justification for a legitimate property right, which therefore should not be violated. However, isn't this sort of the Naturalistic Fallacy? Just because humans do control their own bodies, I don't think that means that sort of property is "justified"..

Also, I think it sort of boils down to a might makes right argument, though that may be an incorrect interpretation. Because we have the power to control our own bodies, that justifies our right to do what we will with them. But, other humans have control over other humans' bodies in that sense as well, so would that grant them some amount of ownership too?

I view "ownership" more along the lines of association than with control.

My life is associated with my body. It belongs to me first by association,... and all the other aspects come thereafter.

That's your view of it, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm looking for an objective justification for self-ownership. You'd have to prove that you do have legitimate ownership of yourself, which I believe to be impossible because I believe Nihilism is right - it's all subjective.

Do you own YOUR life, AA?

Doesn't your life belong to your body even on the most basic level (by association)?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 11:20:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 11:05:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/18/2011 11:02:04 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

That's your view of it, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm looking for an objective justification for self-ownership. You'd have to prove that you do have legitimate ownership of yourself, which I believe to be impossible because I believe Nihilism is right - it's all subjective.

Do you own YOUR life, AA?

Doesn't your life belong to your body even on the most basic level (by association)?

To an extent, yes. I can order it around with my mind, but that is where it ends. To say that makes such ownership legitimate goes back to the is/ought fallacy. For example, animals kill and rape each other all the time in the wild, and humans weren't much different at one time. But, that doesn't mean murder and whatnot is justified, does it?

In other words, you can't say it's wrong for me to kidnap you because there's nothing that justifies your ownership of yourself - it's all subjective.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 11:51:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course not. The justification of anything can ultimately be tracked back to some fallacy or another.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 12:21:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 11:51:44 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The justification of anything can ultimately be tracked back to some fallacy or another.

Justify this.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 12:32:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/19/2011 12:21:49 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/18/2011 11:51:44 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The justification of anything can ultimately be tracked back to some fallacy or another.

Justify this.

Justify asking him to justify this.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 12:38:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/19/2011 12:21:49 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/18/2011 11:51:44 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The justification of anything can ultimately be tracked back to some fallacy or another.

Justify this.

I do that all the time with great absurd pleasure, dontchya know.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 12:43:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 11:05:30 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Do you own YOUR life, AA?

Doesn't your life belong to your body even on the most basic level (by association)?

Happy 100th post! You're an official regular!
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 10:13:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Hoppe idea that since you control your actions, you own yourself is more than just a naturalistic fallacy. Everyone should know the control =/= ownership. Not on an objective level, and not even on a common subjective level. I control this computer that I use, but it is owned by the company I work for, not for me.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 11:03:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/19/2011 12:21:49 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/18/2011 11:51:44 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The justification of anything can ultimately be tracked back to some fallacy or another.

Justify this.

Logic can be used to deduce true consequences from true premises. However we have no absolutely true premises, except ones we define to be true (i.e., 2 + 2 = 4).
President of DDO