Defining freedom

[Kshartle]

Mixed in there is some arbitrary basis on what constitutes as "your property," what kind of stewardship is implied, why people who are mentally ill but will never recover have rights, why animals don't have rights but are property that we should be good stewards of, some position on when the use of force to defend ourselves and our property is warranted, and what good stewardship implies upon the morality of actions taken towards others.

We've gone over all this stuff at length. I haven't just glossed over it. I've written a ton on it. A ton on every one of those topics.

And none of it makes any sense, IMHO. Whenever those topics are brought up, you usually start by claiming that everybody knows the answer and it's so obvious that we should skip it. When pressed on this, you will sometimes clumsily attempt to defend this position, and then when the contradictions, inconsistencies, and other issues in your arguments are pointed out, you dismiss them out of hand.

This does indeed constitute going over these things again and again, but only because IMHO you can't seem to make a self-consistent argument on these points or admit that the argument you do make is totally inconsistent and based on a different set of moral principles than NAP/self-ownership.

None of it? No consistent points that make any sense? So then you disagree that you own yourself? What do you actually think PS? Do you think it's possible for another person to have the right to control you and you don't have that right for yourself? Are some people born with rights that other people don't have?

I thought you were an anarchist. It sounds like you're a nihlist. Ve believe in nosing Lebowski.

If you think my arguments are inconsistent and based on a different set of moral principles than NAP/self-ownership.......how come you never help out by pointing out where? Can you actually point out where I'm inconsistent?

[Mountaineer]

Geeeezzzzeeee guys!  Take a deep breath and come up for air!

From my perspective, none of us own anything.  It is just on loan to us for a while to use appropriately (stewardship) and leave for those who come after us.  Even what I eat turns into food for the dung beetles.  For me, and I'm not trying to convert anyone to Christianity, that is why this whole line of reasoning is a bit moot; if we could just love God and love our neighbor, then many of these issues just go away. 

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Geeeezzzzeeee guys!  Take a deep breath and come up for air!

From my perspective, none of us own anything.  It is just on loan to us for a while to use appropriately (stewardship) and leave for those who come after us.  Even what I eat turns into food for the dung beetles.  For me, and I'm not trying to convert anyone to Christianity, that is why this whole line of reasoning is a bit moot; if we could just love God and love our neighbor, then many of these issues just go away. 

... Mountaineer

Do you not even own yourself Mountaineer? Do you not own the effects of your actions?

If you don't own them.....what grounds does God have for putting you in a lake of fire for your sins?

"hey God, lay off man, those aren't my sins, I was just....borrowing them "

[Mountaineer]

Geeeezzzzeeee guys!  Take a deep breath and come up for air!

From my perspective, none of us own anything.  It is just on loan to us for a while to use appropriately (stewardship) and leave for those who come after us.  Even what I eat turns into food for the dung beetles.  For me, and I'm not trying to convert anyone to Christianity, that is why this whole line of reasoning is a bit moot; if we could just love God and love our neighbor, then many of these issues just go away. 

... Mountaineer

1. Do you not even own yourself Mountaineer?

2. Do you not own the effects of your actions?

3. If you don't own them.....what grounds does God have for putting you in a lake of fire for your sins?

"hey God, lay off man, those aren't my sins, I was just....borrowing them "

1. No.

2. No.  I'm responsible.

3. He will not do that.  My sins are forgiven.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

None of it? No consistent points that make any sense? So then you disagree that you own yourself?

See, this is where you go astray, IMHO. You make the assumption that if a person believes in self-ownership, then everything else you claim follows from that and must be true and anyone who doesn't agree therefore must not actually believe in self-ownership. It's like you believe it's all a house of cards and pulling one out will cause the whole philosophy to collapse.

What do you actually think PS? Do you think it's possible for another person to have the right to control you and you don't have that right for yourself? Are some people born with rights that other people don't have? I thought you were an anarchist. It sounds like you're a nihlist. Ve believe in nosing Lebowski.

I have many beliefs, all for different contexts. For example, at a fundamental level, I believe that rights are things we humans invented to constrain each other's bad behaviors in a social context. I think "might makes right" is the guiding principle underpinning all of nature and that we humans have difficulty overcoming this impulse even though as higher-thinking creatures, we really want to. So we invent rights and rules and laws and all manner of other social constructions designed to help us imagine that we're not as animalistic as we we truly are at our core. When the rubber meets the road, we revert to violent animal behavior when survival is at stake and the social institutions that keep us from this state of nature are stripped away.

Within the context of a human social society, I believe in self-ownership, very strongly so. And I also believe in property ownership as a net social good as a result of our inherent biologically-based desires. All human societies have had the concept of property, and those that have developed the concept better and protected it more have historically done better than others. There is something very deep within us that wants to own things, and the more our societies' social institutions are set up to allow us to do this in a net-positive way, the happier we are, the the more prosperous our societies become, and the more our natural conditions of want and fear and poverty and insecurity are stripped away, allowing us to act in less animalistic, more civilized ways.

However I don't pretend that property and self-ownership are the two concepts that explain everything. I think that there are a lot of situations we humans are familiar with that strain the boundaries of these concepts' ability to result in moral decisions. For example, children, the mentally ill, addicts, and animals. These are complicated subjects and I don't personally believe that you can just say, "well we own ourselves and our actions and our property" and call it a day. What's commonly believed to be the morally correct courses of action don't logically flow from the principle, not at all. We have to peer down a different well to find the answer to those kinds of questions, IMHO. And a lot of situations are hard, such that reasonable people can disagree on what the morally correct course of action is.

If you think my arguments are inconsistent and based on a different set of moral principles than NAP/self-ownership.......how come you never help out by pointing out where? Can you actually point out where I'm inconsistent?

I do this all the time, and I think it's quite telling that you don't notice it.

[moda0306]

We own ourselves and our actions, and therefore property, and nobody has a right to that property but us, so any attempt to control a person or his/her property is immoral. 

Do you believe that stuff is true? Do we actually disagree on this, or are you just put off when I say I am 100% convinced of it?

I think we own ourselves, but I can't prove it with certainty.

As for the connection of that morality to the world around us, I think there is some loose connection, but it's tighter the more personal the item is.  If it's something in your back pocket that you fashioned from wood or stone, or an apple off a tree, I think that has a natural moral connection to you.  Beyond that, the connection is extremely weak, and "property" at that point has just become a convenient way of allocating yourself some power from nature, which has some immoral aspects to it, as it is taking considerably from others, but from a social engineering standpoint, might be required to ensure a more harmonious, private society.

These are extremely vague, subjective concepts.  Mainly, I see self-ownership as the ideal, but earth as one big moral dilemma, where it's impossible to obtain, since it's the equivalent of putting people on a deserted island together.  They HAVE to work together.  Any attempt to assign oneself a large share of the resources is simply force by another name.

But that's just the way I interpret the dilemma we're in.  Even if what I stated did sound like a One Moral Truth, it certainly isn't the only reasonable way to interpret our situation. I think some are better than others, and yours isn't even that bad when you state a clear position, but it's just one interpretation of many. 

So, it does in fact boggle my mind moreso the level of certainty you apply to every argument you make, yes.  We still probably disagree, but it's less about that than the certainty of your position that you have.


And regarding religion, if there is a God, this would significantly reduce the case for self-ownership.  If we are created by someone else, then we are the affect of someone else's actions, and therefore are owned by them.  I'm surprised you allow for the possibility of a God yet still feel comfortable being 100% certain of self-ownership.

[Lowe]

I'm not sure what self ownership is, exactly.  The freedom from other people enslaving you?

If I am granted that freedom, then I get to keep all the products of my labor, since otherwise whoever was taking them would be enslaving me, partially.

...

Clearly I don't have that freedom, since the products of my labor are taken all the time.  Is self ownership the philosophical source that one appeals to, in claiming I ought to have that freedom?  Sounds right, but I'd have thought that source was morality.  Not something in myself, but something in the facts.  The way numbers are in the facts.

[moda0306]

Lowe,

Some people think that there are fundamental moral truths.  Others seem to think that these are just man-made concepts to help us get along better and  enjoy life more.

I tend to be more of the former, but not so far as to say that we can "prove" it out like a math equation.

[Lowe]

Math is not the best analogy, I guess, since it apparently lives inside the fundamental particles.  Morality can't live there too, since particles don't know about decisions, which is what morality is about.

Biology is a better analogy.  There is truth in biology, but it's statistical, and not absolute like mathematics and particle physics.  Statistical truth is almost as good, though.  You'd not take it seriously if someone said "That's not a dog, it's just some breathing, eating thing you'd arbitrarily labeled."

[Kshartle]

I'm not sure what self ownership is, exactly.  The freedom from other people enslaving you?

If I am granted that freedom, then I get to keep all the products of my labor, since otherwise whoever was taking them would be enslaving me, partially.

...

Clearly I don't have that freedom, since the products of my labor are taken all the time.  Is self ownership the philosophical source that one appeals to, in claiming I ought to have that freedom?  Sounds right, but I'd have thought that source was morality.  Not something in myself, but something in the facts.  The way numbers are in the facts.

The question Lowe is what does it mean to have ownership?

There are people here who will admit that they own something...their computer...maybe their shirt....but they won't admit they own themself. How can you own a pencil if you don't own your own freaking body and life. Every single measure of what ownership represents is exhibited by your relationship to yourself. I'd like for someone to make the case that they own a pencil and explain why and then turn around and say they don't own their own body and life.

After the realization comes that you actually are the owner of your life........you have to admit when others use force to compel you to do things you don't want or prevent from doing things you do want (that aren't violating the rights of others), or steal your property, they are violating your rights. There are about three dots that need connecting to see this.

[Kshartle]

Lowe,

Some people think that there are fundamental moral truths.  Others seem to think that these are just man-made concepts to help us get along better and  enjoy life more.

I tend to be more of the former, but not so far as to say that we can "prove" it out like a math equation.

Can you prove that you own anything Moda? Do you think anything is yours? Is your argument even yours? When you make it should I respond to it as if Benko made it?

[moda0306]

K,

There's a difference between "thinking" that something is mine, or that morality exists and I know mostly what's required of me, and constantly asserting that I know with absolute certainty exactly what my rights and duties are, and what those of every living being around me are. 

I hope that sufficiently answers your question.

[Kshartle]

K,

There's a difference between "thinking" that something is mine, or that morality exists and I know mostly what's required of me, and constantly asserting that I know with absolute certainty exactly what my rights and duties are, and what those of every living being around me are. 

I hope that sufficiently answers your question.

It doesn't even come close. You are employing the "having your cake and eating it too argument". It's a cousin of "failure to state", another popular one.

Of course you know it doesn't answer my question. What you're really saying is "please don't ask that question, my ego won't let me answer it."

Saying "I think I own something but I can't prove that I do" is just a way to avoid having to defend what you believe. You must avoid stating it or defending it because it will expose your other arguments as unsuportable. Ego won't allow you to admit the obvious so you have to try and confuse with conflicting statements....."I believe X but I can't tell you why and don't know it for sure so therefore no one knows it so therefore you must be wrong yada yada".

Is there anything you think you own? If so why do you think you own it?

Stop trying to make this about me and answer the question. If you have some real insight then maybe you can help us learn. Stop hiding from the answers please man. We have an opportunity to learn from each other here let's not get so caught up with our egos that we squander it. 

[Xan]

Ego won't allow you to admit the obvious so you have to try and confuse with conflicting statements.....

I think you just broke the irony meter!

[moda0306]

K,

It has nothing to do with ego. It has to do with lack of certainty.  I think your premises lend evidence to self-ownership, but don't prove it.  I think self-ownership lends inductive logical evidence to certain forms of property, but there is no deductively certain connection to my self-ownership and the world around me and the "affects of my actions" on that world. Or how we can defend those positions.  Or what rights animals may have.  Or what duties of "stewardship" we have.

You think you've figured it all out, and I'm simply stating what most philosophy professors would also state... None of this stuff is perfect not logically provable.

About 7 of us have tried to explain to you why your conclusions don't NECESSARILY follow your premises, but your ego won't allow you to be a critical analytic of your own logical structure, or lack thereof.

The thing is, when you are asserting something is deductive, certain logic, you've made your job extremely difficult compared to mine.  All I have to do is explain why your premises aren't 100% true or properly defined, or (moreso) that your conclusions don't necessarily follow your premises, an I've done all I need to do to win the argument (that your assertions aren't deductively provable).  The burden of proof is on the one claiming to have the perfect answers, so you've dug yourself into quite the hole, and made our job extremely easy.

I could say that I believe what I do because I believe in self-ownership of humans (but not animals), and a similar connection to the world around us (property), and a duty of stewardship, etc.  but if I don't think it's logically provable, we are going to be in disagreement.  And for good reason... 100% certainty about morality, property, etc is quite a claim.

[moda0306]

Ego won't allow you to admit the obvious so you have to try and confuse with conflicting statements.....

I think you just broke the irony meter!

Exactly.  Apparently my answer wasn't sufficient, not because there's no way to be certain about morality, but because my ego won't let me be wrong... Let me try again.

Lowe,

Some people think that there are fundamental moral truths.  Others seem to think that these are just man-made concepts to help us get along better and  enjoy life more.

I tend to be more of the former, but not so far as to say that we can "prove" it out like a math equation.

Can you prove that you own anything Moda? Do you think anything is yours? Is your argument even yours? When you make it should I respond to it as if Benko made it?

I can't prove I own anything, as it is a moral assertion of morally valid control over a thing, which I, nor anyone else, has been able to prove.

I do think I own some things.  My car.  My body.  My home (even though I would fully acknowledge there may be some quasi-valid challenges to that claim... that I knowingly purchased stolen land and my home is not my property).  I can't prove I own these things, though.  I can maybe come close to proving moral ownership of my body, but any connection beyond that is loose at best, as involves things outside of me.  Things I may have an affect on, but by no means have total control over, nor, maybe, have any moral right to control.

I think my argument is mine (in the sense that I build some aspects of the rhetoric in my mind), but I can't prove it's MINE.  I believe I concocted it in my head (after lots of reinforcement through reading up and taking classes on philosophy).  Does the fact that I concocted my argument (if that is even true) prove with deductive certainty that I own the argument?  Not even close.  I'd love for someone to walk away from this board and use my arguments against his anarcho-capitalist buddy (if he even knows one... they're so rare).  Even if I didn't approve of him using my argument, I couldn't really prove it was mine to deny others to use.  Like most property, it's a nebulous concept.  Is my argument against you my own intellectual property?  Should I hunt down doodle if he tries to use it against someone, but heard it from me first?  I believe in intellectual property as a concept (though not 100% deductively provable), but I can't tell you where it starts and stops, and DEFINITELY can't tell you that it exists as a matter of deductive logic.

On another connected note, I don't even know what ownership can truly mean if I'm forced to comply with some arbitrary, subjective measurement of "stewardship."  If I have the moral right to control a thing, then who is to enforce stewardship, under what authority, and where does that duty (of mine) or right (of the enforcer) come in the first place?  Even if I believed to my absolute core in NAP, your vision of property, and your version of "force" upon myself or my property, as well as what my retaliation/defense rights are, I see no connection to any reasonable duty of stewardship.  If I want to blow up my car on my 40-acres of land (assuming I can establish provable "ownership" over those items), why do I have a "duty" to do anything with my property other than what I want?  Why can't I blow up the car?  Can I throw away milk one day past the expiration date?  Can I put a fart-can muffler and spinner hub caps on my 1994 Honda Civic, even if it brings down the fair-market value?  On a flip side, can I slow-bleed my hogs if it makes them more tender and more valuable(saw something regarding this on House of Cards.... great show)?  Do I have a duty to maximize the productive market value of everything I supposedly "own," or simply a duty not to deteriorate it?

Feel free to respond as if Benko made these comments.  You make little sense no matter who you are addressing, which is enough for me .

I almost feel bad for you, K.  You're job is so much more difficult than mine.  You are tasking yourself with producing a deductive equation to prove a moral code, and all I have to do is poke holes in your premises and the logical necessity of the conclusion following those premises, which is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Maybe you'd do better for yourself and your cause if you made a list of "Top 10 specific Roles/institutions/actions of Government That I Hate," and another of "Top 10 specific Roles/institutions/actions of Government most likely to be affected by my involvement."  Where those lists overlap, be an advocate for those causes.  Join groups to champion those causes. Maybe it's prison sentences for non-violent offenders.  Maybe it's police brutality.  Maybe it's mandatory public schooling.  Try to avoid conversations about abolishing government or any form of force altogether, because it'll never happen.  However, you could make a difference in your community.

Hell, maybe be a mentor to young boys affected by domestic violence, trying to stop violence in its tracks at a young age as much as you can.  Forget about government, maybe... go right to the source... people... especially ones who are young and impressionable enough to look at a mentor with positivity, rather than having already withdrawn from trusting people, and taking it out on their kids.

It'll make you feel better than trying to deductively prove a moral code, it'll make me feel like a dick for rhetorically berating a guy with such a big heart and willingness to back his words with actions that will actually make a difference, and definitely will do more for your cause, at least locally in your community.

[Pointedstick]

Maybe you'd do better for yourself and your cause if you made a list of "Top 10 specific Roles/institutions/actions of Government That I Hate," and another of "Top 10 specific Roles/institutions/actions of Government most likely to be affected by my involvement."  Where those lists overlap, be an advocate for those causes.  Join groups to champion those causes. Maybe it's prison sentences for non-violent offenders.  Maybe it's police brutality.  Maybe it's mandatory public schooling.  Try to avoid conversations about abolishing government or any form of force altogether, because it'll never happen.  However, you could make a difference in your community.

Hell, maybe be a mentor to young boys affected by domestic violence, trying to stop violence in its tracks at a young age as much as you can.  Forget about government, maybe... go right to the source... people... especially ones who are young and impressionable enough to look at a mentor with positivity, rather than having already withdrawn from trusting people, and taking it out on their kids.

+ a bajillion squintillion

[moda0306]

Maybe you'd do better for yourself and your cause if you made a list of "Top 10 specific Roles/institutions/actions of Government That I Hate," and another of "Top 10 specific Roles/institutions/actions of Government most likely to be affected by my involvement."  Where those lists overlap, be an advocate for those causes.  Join groups to champion those causes. Maybe it's prison sentences for non-violent offenders.  Maybe it's police brutality.  Maybe it's mandatory public schooling.  Try to avoid conversations about abolishing government or any form of force altogether, because it'll never happen.  However, you could make a difference in your community.

Hell, maybe be a mentor to young boys affected by domestic violence, trying to stop violence in its tracks at a young age as much as you can.  Forget about government, maybe... go right to the source... people... especially ones who are young and impressionable enough to look at a mentor with positivity, rather than having already withdrawn from trusting people, and taking it out on their kids.

+ a bajillion squintillion

It sounds condescending to suggest to people "quit making your ridiculous argument and go volunteer," but I'd feel like hell if someone told me that it was my life's work to prove a moral code deductively.  It would just suck so incredibly hard to attempt to PROVE something like that.  I'd much rather find the most digestible aspects of it and affect change in ways that actually make me happy and do the most actual good for said moral code.

Hell, in the time we've debated the NAP and self-ownership, Kshartle and I could have probably been a mentor to a couple of kids who would be less likely to end up in prison as a result, even if for non-violent offenses.  Of course, mine would torture puppies and his would be rescuing people from walking into moving traffic, so maybe I'll leave it to him to do the volunteer work, and I'll stay here and preach coercion and violence to newcomers .