Gyroscopic Investing

I've been thinking about this for a while. I'm a bit perplexed by Kshartle's assertion that he is not 100% certain that there is no god, but he is 100% certain that we DO "own" ourselves.

This seems odd, because the existence of a god implies that we don't truly own ourselves. I mean, if we were created by an omniscient, omnipotent being, aren't we essentially his property?  And isn't to lay claim to the earth that he also created a bit arrogant as well?

Sorry that these are in the form of questions. If it's not clear, I'm asserting that the existence of a God would probably be the single largest argument against self-ownership and this idea of "private property."

moda0306 wrote: I've been thinking about this for a while. I'm a bit perplexed by Kshartle's assertion that he is not 100% certain that there is no god, but he is 100% certain that we DO "own" ourselves.

This seems odd, because the existence of a god implies that we don't truly own ourselves. I mean, if we were created by an omniscient, omnipotent being, aren't we essentially his property?  And isn't to lay claim to the earth that he also created a bit arrogant as well?

Sorry that these are in the form of questions. If it's not clear, I'm asserting that the existence of a God would probably be the single largest argument against self-ownership and this idea of "private property."

+1 This is a very good question, but it requires a leap that I don't think takes into account the rationale for the concept of self-ownership. The existence of God does not imply that he owns us. The basis for self-ownership is the human ability to be responsible and exercise control over their actions (free will). It is evident that we own ourselves and even if God made the original humans, he gave them the ability to choose for themselves and be responsible for themselves and their actions. Humans have exercised the rights of self-ownership ever since they were able to, whether created by God or cosmic accident.

Even if he has the ability to torture us if we deny his existence...that only demonstrates his power to violate us. This will open a whole can of worms into the morality of God that will take us down a road we probably shouldn’t go.

Even if God molded Adam and Eve or whoever, he didn’t make me. My parents got drunk (clearly) and nature took its course. And just because they made me….they certainly don’t own me. If I choose to do evil (now that I’m mature enough to choose) they aren’t responsible for what I do. Maybe they are to blame partially for how I turned out, but it certainly doesn’t absolve me. They also don’t control.

If God wants to claim ownership of me then he needs to take responsibility for my actions and show me how he controls me. As far as I can see he’s not doing that. If you say well he is, we just can’t tell….well this is not proof of anything, and it’s just a belief based on faith. It might be right but it’s not a valid argument because we can’t even test it.

If you read Genesis (and I realize now I’m just talking about Christianity and Judaism and possibly Islam), God gave dominion of the Earth to the humans. We are the stewards/owners and expected to act as such.

In conclusion, despite the excellent question which forced me to think about these concepts, I’m still 100% certain we own ourselves, even if I’m only 99.9% certain there is no omnipotent being watching over this zoo.

moda0306 wrote: Sorry that these are in the form of questions. If it's not clear, I'm asserting that the existence of a God would probably be the single largest argument against self-ownership and this idea of "private property."

Why do think that Moda? It's one thing to say it, but another to support it. Is it strictly because he created us?

Moda,

"the existence of a god implies that we don't truly own ourselves. I mean, if we were created by an omniscient, omnipotent being, aren't we essentially his property?"

I'm coming into the end of a LONG thread, but I'm not sure where that conclusion came from i.e. I don't think many conventionally religious people would agree with it.

Out of curiosity, are you an atheist?

Benko wrote: Moda,

"the existence of a god implies that we don't truly own ourselves. I mean, if we were created by an omniscient, omnipotent being, aren't we essentially his property?"

I'm coming into the end of a LONG thread, but I'm not sure where that conclusion came from i.e. I don't think many conventionally religious people would agree with it.

Out of curiosity, are you an atheist?

The other problem that this line of thinking creates, is it clearly makes the case of ownership over what you create. The idea that if God exists then he owns everything because he created it demonstrates that if you don't believe in God you should definately believe that people have ownership right. Good luck proving that God exists, people have been trying that I'm sure since we were living in caves and it hasn't happened yet. Arguing that people don't own stuff because God owns it all really really requires you to prove that he exists and owns it all. If you think the non-ability to dissprove God exists justifies the idea that we don't own anything including ourselves.....that is insane.

If you are arguing that the possibility of God's existance is the strongest case against human self-ownership and ownership of property......then the case is incredibly weak, at least from my perspective.

Kshartle,

Well as I've stated before, I think there are some moral links we have to the world around us, but I don't think it's clear cut exactly how those links are established. (Hunt on land?  For how long?  What if you leave it and come back?  Do you need to put a structure on it to on it?  Etc, Etc.)  But one pretty easy one is if you create something out of nothingness or near-nothingness (write a symphony), one could easily establish a moral link to that piece of "property."  So if God made us out of nothingness, as well as the world around us, it seems to me that it's increasingly difficult to 1) claim the world around us as "our property," and 2) maybe even difficult to establish self-ownership.  If we can take ownership over cattle, how can we claim self-ownership over ourselves when we have an omnipitent and omniscient creator that created both us and the world we live on.

We're essentially renting this world from him, then.

Benko,

I am agnostic bordering on atheist.  I'm not certain that there is no God.  I understand that most religios people would disagree with that statement, but I think most of them contradict themselves (no offense... just my observation).  For the reasons mentioned above, it's very inconsistent to make broad claims about how God created the world and us, and especially if he has a "plan," and then say with a straight face that we own ourselves and anything we touch/alter in this world, especially if we are altering to the detriment to the natural ecology that "God built."

I truly think that most people develop their position on God, property, the role of government, etc based on what's convenient for them and popular in their social circle.  Most people pick their religion based on what their parents believed (less and less now, though), and most people's opinions on how they should interact with the enviornment and how government should interact with them is often quite convenient to their individual situation.

So I really have given up on basing my opinion on what "most people" think, unless there's sound logic, historical perspective, or behavioral observation to it... you kindof have to if you're asserting deficits are good .

Kshartle wrote:

Benko wrote: Moda,

"the existence of a god implies that we don't truly own ourselves. I mean, if we were created by an omniscient, omnipotent being, aren't we essentially his property?"

I'm coming into the end of a LONG thread, but I'm not sure where that conclusion came from i.e. I don't think many conventionally religious people would agree with it.

Out of curiosity, are you an atheist?

The other problem that this line of thinking creates, is it clearly makes the case of ownership over what you create. The idea that if God exists then he owns everything because he created it demonstrates that if you don't believe in God you should definately believe that people have ownership right. Good luck proving that God exists, people have been trying that I'm sure since we were living in caves and it hasn't happened yet. Arguing that people don't own stuff because God owns it all really really requires you to prove that he exists and owns it all. If you think the non-ability to dissprove God exists justifies the idea that we don't own anything including ourselves.....that is insane.

If you are arguing that the possibility of God's existance is the strongest case against human self-ownership and ownership of property......then the case is incredibly weak, at least from my perspective.

I'm not saying that the possiblity of a God means that we don't "own ourselves," and have a rationally-based extension of that ownership into property around us.  I'm saying that IF God exists, then we have a weak case for self-ownership.  We also have a weak case for external property ownership.  This isn't entirely useful, because we can't prove his existence, but the purpose of my post wasn't to dismantle our rights via the assertion that God MIGHT exist, or even that he does exist, it's that if you're not 100% sure there is NOT a God, then it's a bit ridiculous to state that you're 100% certain that we DO have property rights and that we "own ourselves."

So by all means, we should NOT have to prove God doesn't exist before trying to develop a moral framework about ourselves and the world around us, but to apply 100% certainty to our "rights" of ownership is a stretch.

Kshartle,

If it is annoying to you that I ask more questions than make assertions, I think we have to accept one of two possibilities:

- I am being either purposefully dense, or simply don't want to have to "think too hard."  It's "easier" to shoot down your premises with questions rather than "state my case."  I'm just trying to confuse the issue of the legitimacy of government by mixing in with it the legitimacy of claiming non-private (in my opinion) assets as being a natural extension of one's individual sovereignty.  I have decided beforehand that government is legitimate (in some or all of its forms), and I'm building a logical framework to defend that position by poisoning your position of individual sovereignty (and an extension of that sovereignty to the world around us... called "prvate property"). 

- Morality is unprovable, just like the existence of God is.  "My case" is that there is no 100% certainty to any of this, and there are huge implications to this in a world where we have obtained the ability to grossly modify the world around us in very unnatural ways that can harm the very ecological framework that we exist because of.  I ask questions because if you don't question your premises, you'll always continue to make loaded assumptions about our moral rights, and the burden of proof is on the person making what they believe to be deductive logical statements that their premises are correct.  You don't like questions because your inability to address them with a thorough answer means your premise may be false (I know you say you have answered them, but you've admitted that there are "complications" to claims on property, which implies that invalid enforcement of rights that don't exist is going to be a part of our world with or without a centralized government).  This is not fun to think about, because any logic built on a false-premise is invalid, and therefore a good chunk of what you've come to believe and lecture about could be incorrect.  It's simply not fun to be wrong, and your brain has built some very effective subconscious defense-mechanisms to having to admit that you might be wrong, or even that it's very likely that you're wrong in building such simple logic around premises that simply are not or could not be true.  In the end, no government isn't really "no government."  It's a bunch of governments of one, or a few, or whatever pops up in society without your prior approval due to the human condition desiring a government-esque structure around them.  Because we all have differing views on what our moral relation to the world around us entails, and what rights we have, and we have to defend, or try to defend, what we think to be true, and if we're not correct (very few of us probably are, if there is one moral definition of "what is our property," as we all have very different feelings about what someone can do with "their property," or what it even consists of), that means we're no different than a government stealing from others.   

And you can say that "a government of one is better than a government of thousands, or millions, or billions," but that's a value judgement, not a fundamental moral difference in theory as to the validity of force.  If I claim something that isn't morally mine IS mine, then I'm exerting illegitimate force.  You said exerting illegitimate force is wrong, and any acceptance of exerting illegitimate force is morally bankrupt.  But you're essentially saying "moda, my preferred society of millions/billions of little governments exerting force is better than your big governments (US, State, local) exerting force, and if I could I would force you and others to accept my preferred governmental arrangement, against the will of 99% of the population that isn't an anarcho-capitalist and agrees with my definitions of what is legitimate vs illegitimate force."

So you're essentially "poisoning the well" with your premise that anyone who approves of government is making a uniquely forceful claim, and that your definition of property and individual sovereignty, and the defense thereof, are the ONLY legitimate instances of force.  It's an awful convenient place to put yourself, because it allows you to deflect any opinion besides yours as morally tainted (without having to make a clear case for what moral claims we have (I finally realize that you HAVE said that property claims can be vague, unclear or complex... though I would probably assert that they're more complex than you would)).  You're esentially advocating for a much more decentralized govermental structure on the premise that all government is illegitimate.  This is logically flawed.  If you want to argue for smaller government on the basis that it historically results in less force, or that for some reason a certain sized government is legitimate, or that it's more fair for some reason, then state that and we can discuss from there, but to argue it on the basis that "government is illegitimate" gets us nowhere, because it puts us both in the wrong before we ever start an argument.  Because government is nothing more than an agent of enforcement.  If that agent is the individual, then we've just decentralized the use of "enFORCEment," not eliminated it.

moda0306 wrote: Kshartle,

If it is annoying to you that I ask more questions than make assertions, I think we have to accept one of two possibilities:

I was just curious why you think the existance of God calls into question our self-ownership. It was an assertion you made rather than a question and I was was curious what is was based on.

This is what you said "This seems odd, because the existence of a god implies that we don't truly own ourselves."

My question is why do you think that?

moda0306 wrote: the burden of proof is on the person making what they believe to be deductive logical statements that their premises are correct.  You don't like questions because your inability to address them with a thorough answer means your premise may be false (I know you say you have answered them, but you've admitted that there are "complications" to claims on property, which implies that invalid enforcement of rights that don't exist is going to be a part of our world with or without a centralized government). 

I have made the arguments and you haven't show the flaws in my thinking, you just keep repeating that it's impossible for me to prove what I've attempted to. You've closed off that possibility. You're doing it in this very post and accusing me of being the close-minded one or whatever. I've made my case, over and over. If you disagree please point out where. Repeating that it's not provable or it's complicated therefore invlaid isn't an argument, at least not the way I recognize one. How many times do I need to re-word my argument or find other ways to express it or answer questions when you are explicitly saying you will never agree?

Listen, if you can show me where I'm wrong about human self-ownership I will give up on it as a false belief. I will give you an electronic high-five for teaching me something monumental. I've made the case for it. Please make the case against it or at least show where my case is self-contradicting or I've made a logically false statement.

There is no such thing as invalid enforcement of rights that don't exist. If a right exists its enforcement is valid. If it doesn't you're not enforcing you're just forcing. Not be nitpicky but I think it's an important distinction. I think what you're saying is people will steal and murder with or without government. Ok. Agreed. I'm not arguing against goverment. I'm arguing against the stealing and the murder. It just so happens that government is an expression of that behavior. We should personally reject that behavior as a choice for ourselves and what we promote to others as a solution to problems. Just because some will still choose it doesn't validate the behavior. It might be valid but not for that reason, it's 100% circular. 

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Kshartle,

If it is annoying to you that I ask more questions than make assertions, I think we have to accept one of two possibilities:

I was just curious why you think the existance of God calls into question our self-ownership. It was an assertion you made rather than a question and I was was curious what is was based on.

This is what you said "This seems odd, because the existence of a god implies that we don't truly own ourselves."

My question is why do you think that?

I was referring to other instances where you've expressed annoyance at me asking questions to argue with you... but...

If God exists, and he created us and the Earth from nothingness, how can we make a case for self-ownership or especially private property?  We are literally the equivalent of an ant to an all-knowing all-powerful entity, and to lay claim to a forest he created, plow it down and plant crops that aren't part of the ecological machinations that keep the natural order in that area running smoothly, how can we say with a straight face that we're anywhere close to 100% positive that he approves of this use of something HE created.

Maybe "implies" was the wrong word.  But the existence of a God would certainly call into question my case for self-ownership, and DEFINITELY the degree to which I could apply any level of self-ownership to the world around me that an all-powerful being designed a certain way.

At the very least, even if we're just being lazy intellectually, doesn't the existence of a God call into question any moral claim at all?  If he says eating pork is "wrong," is eating pork wrong?

moda0306 wrote: So by all means, we should NOT have to prove God doesn't exist before trying to develop a moral framework about ourselves and the world around us, but to apply 100% certainty to our "rights" of ownership is a stretch.

Would you settle for 99.9%? 

I am willing to settle there. 

moda0306 wrote: 1. But the existence of a God would certainly call into question my case for self-ownership, and DEFINITELY the degree to which I could apply any level of self-ownership to the world around me that an all-powerful being designed a certain way.

2. At the very least, even if we're just being lazy intellectually, doesn't the existence of a God call into question any moral claim at all?  If he says eating pork is "wrong," is eating pork wrong?

1. My question is why do you think that. You're just re-stating it. Why do you think that? Why does his existance make us his property?

2. No. The pork being wrong would only be based on his ability to punish and there is no morality when the threat of violence is present because the ability to choose freely is removed. Choosing between doing something bad and getting killed, smote, tortured, whatever.....this is not free will, this is purely the force of another.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: the burden of proof is on the person making what they believe to be deductive logical statements that their premises are correct.  You don't like questions because your inability to address them with a thorough answer means your premise may be false (I know you say you have answered them, but you've admitted that there are "complications" to claims on property, which implies that invalid enforcement of rights that don't exist is going to be a part of our world with or without a centralized government). 

I have made the arguments and you haven't show the flaws in my thinking, you just keep repeating that it's impossible for me to prove what I've attempted to. You've closed off that possibility. You're doing it in this very post and accusing me of being the close-minded one or whatever. I've made my case, over and over. If you disagree please point out where. Repeating that it's not provable or it's complicated therefore invlaid isn't an argument, at least not the way I recognize one. How many times do I need to re-word my argument or find other ways to express it or answer questions when you are explicitly saying you will never agree?

K,

Well obviously any argument is up for interpretation.  If one of us says something to the other, we could always just say back "this hasn't answered my questions," or "that's an invalid statement."  A few things might help here.

- Realize that almost everyone else reading this, including some very libertarian-minded folks, have commented that you're the one being dense in this conversation.  (I realize this isn't a deductively valid argument.  It's just an observation.  Observations are useful when deductive logic is impossible.)

- Deductive logic requires logically provable or self-evident premises combined with air-tight logic beyond that.  If we CAN'T prove something, we must move on to inductive logic, conversations of complexity, and the word "I don't know" is sure to come up if we're being honest with ourselves, because if you can't prove something using deductive logic, that means there is doubt.  I'm asking us to move on beyond deductive logic because it is no longer serving us here.  We have to have a more nuanced discussion.  These happen all the time.  This is why philosophers have debated this stuff for centuries.

- Do you agree that morality is not provable, or do you think that you're proving it and I'm just being bull-headed?  This is a real question.  I'm not saying "it's not provable" to end the discussion there.  I'm saying it so we can move past such bull-headed premises (and trying to attach deductive logic to them) such as "illegitimate force is wrong" and "we have a self-evident right to property," because they're loaded with so much room for interpretation and nuance.  I'm not trying to end the argument.  I'm trying to move it into areas that don't involve your poisoning the well with unprovable premises and building a logical house of cards on top of them.

I think we both believe in individual soveriegnty, and that this soveriegnty moves outside our body as we affect the world around us and we can call this "property," but 1) I can't prove this deductively and don't think you can either, and 2) lack of deductive proof means we have to have a more nuanced discussion about this that involves observations, opinions, and even an "I don't know" here and there.

Listen, if you can show me where I'm wrong about human self-ownership I will give up on it as a false belief. I will give you an electronic high-five for teaching me something monumental. I've made the case for it. Please make the case against it or at least show where my case is self-contradicting or I've made a logically false statement.

You've "proven" self-ownership not by deductive logic, but (naturally, as we all form moral assertions), by observations.  You state, and tell me if I'm wrong.

- Human beings own themselves, and, by moral extension, things they affect in the world around them?

- I know this to be 100% true because humans can choose their actions and have an internal moral understanding of those actions, unlike any other being or physical entity on earth.

Is that about right?  I'm really trying to break it down into simple but accurate statements, not put words in your mouth... I'm trying to have this discussion in good faith (more for others than yourself at this point... I don't give this much of a chance of working unless another anarchist or libertarian tries to help me translate into Kshartlese (PS might be up to the task)).  In fact, if anyone here thinks they can act as a mediator/translator here, please do.  It's worked in the past... and I think would help other onlookers. 

This isn't deductive logic.  Just because someone can A) control their actions, and B) has some sort of internal moral clock that may tell them an action "feels" wrong, doesn't logically coclude that 1) the action is, in fact wrong, or that if it didn't "feel wrong," that it was right, or 2) that everyone agrees on these feelings.

This isn't a deductive statement you're making, yet you're presenting it as 100% proof.  You're just presenting a couple observations and linking them to a moral statement... one that might work with inductive logic, but is in no way deductive.

There is no such thing as invalid enforcement of rights that don't exist. If a right exists its enforcement is valid. If it doesn't you're not enforcing you're just forcing. Not be nitpicky but I think it's an important distinction. I think what you're saying is people will steal and murder with or without government. Ok. Agreed. I'm not arguing against goverment. I'm arguing against the stealing and the murder. It just so happens that government is an expression of that behavior.

I'm ok with most of that.  Let's call "valid force" enforcement, and "invalid force" force.... Can we agree on that?

Can we also agree that due to different interpretations (that you've already acknowledge exist) about property, one person will interpret their actions as "enforcement," while it's really just "force?"

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  Even if your perfect world could manifest itself (I give it your 99.9% chance of it not), we'd just have a bunch of mini-goverments trying to interpret "force" vs "enforcement," and all coming up with different ideas.

In fact, some, including Thomas Paine (see my quote below), believe that land can't be "owned" by one without a debt being "owed" to the community around them.  To him, anything resembling someone trying to claim land as his own is "stealing" from everyone else.  Is this correct?  I would say it's closer to correct than your definition, but either way, we're going to have disagreement, and everyone is going to see their actions as "enforcement," but we'll have a lot of force out there as well.  This is exactly what we have with government.  It's either going to be big, small, or somewhere in between.  It's in no way never going to exist.  It's just going to be decentralized (and, let's not forget, at much-higher the risk of it being "recentralized" to something far more terrible than we have now).

1. My question is why do you think that. You're just re-stating it. Why do you think that? Why does his existance make us his property?

2. No. The pork being wrong would only be based on his ability to punish and there is no morality when the threat of violence is present.

1) If there is any valid link between a sovereign being (I think we can both agree that any God is sovereign haha) and some physical entity, it is him/her creating it from nothing with their bare hands/thought.  Is this a valid answer?  I think there is a moral link between man and property, as I've said.  I can't PROVE it deductively, as I've also said, but I think there is a valid moral link.  No more does that link exist than if an all-knowing entity creates the world AND us from nothingness.  He may not be able to control us directly (just as we can't control a pig directly (only through physical barriers), but he's still created us from nothingness.

Like I said, I can't prove "ownership" or "rights," deductively, so you're going to be able to keep asking "why" and I will never have a 100% air-tight argument for you.  The difference is, I can admit it .

2) Your statement seems to imply that the existence of a creator does NOT give him right to direct any of our actions, or judge the morality of said actions.  So are you saying that the existence of a creator has NO moral weight at all?  Doesn't someone who created us get to make some rules, even if they seem "forceful?"

Also, does a hurricane or tornado or landslide that kills people count as "force," if directed by the laws of nature that God designed?

Sorry... more questions... like I said, we're beyond deductive logic here, man.  We're in the messy maze of inductive logic, and all of the crap that goes with it.

Ohhhh my Lord..........

I am tired just looking at the response size. 

I might need to cherry pick but I assure you I will read it all.

moda0306 wrote:
- Do you agree that morality is not provable, or do you think that you're proving it and I'm just being bull-headed?  This is a real question.  I'm not saying "it's not provable" to end the discussion there.  I'm saying it so we can move past such bull-headed premises (and trying to attach deductive logic to them) such as "illegitimate force is wrong" and "we have a self-evident right to property," because they're loaded with so much room for interpretation and nuance.  I'm not trying to end the argument.  I'm trying to move it into areas that don't involve your poisoning the well with unprovable premises and building a logical house of cards on top of them.

No that's why I've tried to prove it. If my arguments fail then please show me where. Just repeating they fail because it can't be proved isn't an argument, or at least it's a false argument.

Something isn't true just because I state that it is. I think you're being biased against my arguments because you consider them to be bull-headed premises. I assure they are not the premises that were handed down by my parents, they certainly aren't taught in school or in popular culture, almost zero percent of the population can articulate them. They are mine because I've logically deduced to my satisfaction that they are true. I've done this based on the ideas and truths that I see as obvious, and I've stated them.

They might be bull-headed if I just said things like...."That's the way things just are" or "That's what they've always been so that's what they'll always be". Other people use those fallacious arguments. They are the epitome of bull-headed premises. To my knowledge I haven't done that, I could be wrong or I could have been unclear at some point.

If my ideas are unprovable and I've built a logical house of cards you should be able to show me where I'm wrong. Just saying it's wrong because it's unprovable.......some might call that.....bullheaded

moda0306 wrote: - Realize that almost everyone else reading this, including some very libertarian-minded folks, have commented that you're the one being dense in this conversation.  (I realize this isn't a deductively valid argument.  It's just an observation.  Observations are useful when deductive logic is impossible.)

Almost everyone reading this has commented that I'm being dense?

Kshartle,

First, thanks for your gracious response to my relatively in-your-face criticism earlier.  That was genuinely impressive.  I'd have responded earlier, but was more-or-less offline for Thanksgiving.

On topic here: I'm not sure how you can claim to have reasoned your premises and axioms.  Those are the starting points of logic, not the end.  If you've reasoned out your conclusions, then those conclusions are not your axioms.  It might be interesting to try to figure out what your axioms actually are.

Your contention seems to be that there is exactly one set of axioms which is the correct one.  This may well be true, but it's only actually useful if you can get everyone to agree.  Arguing that everyone should agree with you because you've figured out The One Way to do things is a little bit unreasonable.

Don't forget Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.  Even something as clear and simple as mathematics is not immune from the messiness of reality, right down to its very core.

moda0306 wrote: I think we both believe in individual soveriegnty, and that this soveriegnty moves outside our body as we affect the world around us and we can call this "property," but 1) I can't prove this deductively and don't think you can either, and 2) lack of deductive proof means we have to have a more nuanced discussion about this that involves observations, opinions, and even an "I don't know" here and there.

You've "proven" self-ownership not by deductive logic, but (naturally, as we all form moral assertions), by observations.  You state, and tell me if I'm wrong.

- Human beings own themselves, and, by moral extension, things they affect in the world around them?

- I know this to be 100% true because humans can choose their actions and have an internal moral understanding of those actions, unlike any other being or physical entity on earth.

Is that about right?

This isn't deductive logic.  Just because someone can A) control their actions, and B) has some sort of internal moral clock that may tell them an action "feels" wrong, doesn't logically coclude that 1) the action is, in fact wrong, or that if it didn't "feel wrong," that it was right, or 2) that everyone agrees on these feelings.

I'm not arguing whether or not someone's action is wrong, just that they have control over themselves and the ability to choose their actions, right or wrong as they see it or others do. Therefore they are responsible for themselves and their actions. Humans are the owners of what they do and what it produces. If you murder someone you are the creator and responsilbe party for the misery caused. If you make an argument I wouldn't ask Gumby to defend it, I would ask you. I wouldn't reply to Gumby directly on your post like he made, I'd reply to you. If I agree to pay you for a service then I'm responsible for my agreement and the money is owed to you, not someone else. No one else controls your freely chosen actions or is responsible for your free choices except you. This is the case for everyone. Isn't it obvious that people own themselves? They belong to themself and no one else.

This is not a moral argument and the attempt is constantly being made that it is. Morality is a code of behavior. Human self-ownership either exists or it doesn't. Someone's disbelief doesn't invalidate it no more than someone's belief in it, sort of like God. The argument that it doesn't exist because some people don't respect only proves that if rights exist they are violated.

Xan wrote: Arguing that everyone should agree with you because you've figured out The One Way to do things is a little bit unreasonable.

Yes agreed. You'll see I never ever make that argument. Others may make that argument but if I ever do Lord help me.

Moda,

I've only made it through the first 35% of your post since I'm at work. But I'm curious what you define the term ownership to be. What does it mean to own something?

Xan wrote: On topic here: I'm not sure how you can claim to have reasoned your premises and axioms.  Those are the starting points of logic, not the end.  If you've reasoned out your conclusions, then those conclusions are not your axioms.  It might be interesting to try to figure out what your axioms actually are.

Your contention seems to be that there is exactly one set of axioms which is the correct one.  This may well be true, but it's only actually useful if you can get everyone to agree. 

Well.......this is straying off topic into the usefulness of arguing something to be true based on whether or not everyone will agree vs. whether or not it's actually correct.

I'll concede that not everyone will agree, just like some people still believe the Earth is flat. That's definately not an argument for whether or not something is true or worth discussing though....that would just be a subjective assesment and as many have pointed out here....definately unprovable.


I don't know what an axiom is other than part of a brain cell. If you tell me what it is I'll try to share mine.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: - Realize that almost everyone else reading this, including some very libertarian-minded folks, have commented that you're the one being dense in this conversation.  (I realize this isn't a deductively valid argument.  It's just an observation.  Observations are useful when deductive logic is impossible.)

Almost everyone reading this has commented that I'm being dense?

My bad with wording... most people that have commented think you're being too closed minded with your so-called "logic" on issues  Libertarian666 is the only one that seems to agree with your application of simple logic to morality.  On such a libertarian-minded board, that should tell you something...

Though if you'd rather not enter this into our debate, we can just put it to bed.  I certainly don't base my positions on what "most people" think.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: - Realize that almost everyone else reading this, including some very libertarian-minded folks, have commented that you're the one being dense in this conversation.  (I realize this isn't a deductively valid argument.  It's just an observation.  Observations are useful when deductive logic is impossible.)

Almost everyone reading this has commented that I'm being dense?

My bad with wording... most people that have commented think you're being too closed minded with your so-called "logic" on issues  Libertarian666 is the only one that seems to agree with your application of simple logic to morality.  On such a libertarian-minded board, that should tell you something...

Though if you'd rather not enter this into our debate, we can just put it to bed.  I certainly don't base my positions on what "most people" think.

I didn't introduce it  and certainly don't think it's worth pursuing. There have been about 20 diversions off the topic into making me the topic. I think I'm a boring topic.

I had a humanities professor that said "interesting people talk about ideas and boring people talk about people". I agree with her. Let's choose interesting.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I think we both believe in individual soveriegnty, and that this soveriegnty moves outside our body as we affect the world around us and we can call this "property," but 1) I can't prove this deductively and don't think you can either, and 2) lack of deductive proof means we have to have a more nuanced discussion about this that involves observations, opinions, and even an "I don't know" here and there.

You've "proven" self-ownership not by deductive logic, but (naturally, as we all form moral assertions), by observations.  You state, and tell me if I'm wrong.

- Human beings own themselves, and, by moral extension, things they affect in the world around them?

- I know this to be 100% true because humans can choose their actions and have an internal moral understanding of those actions, unlike any other being or physical entity on earth.

Is that about right?

This isn't deductive logic.  Just because someone can A) control their actions, and B) has some sort of internal moral clock that may tell them an action "feels" wrong, doesn't logically coclude that 1) the action is, in fact wrong, or that if it didn't "feel wrong," that it was right, or 2) that everyone agrees on these feelings.

I'm not arguing whether or not someone's action is wrong, just that they have control over themselves and the ability to choose their actions, right or wrong as they see it or others do. Therefore they are responsible for themselves and their actions. Humans are the owners of what they do and what it produces. If you murder someone you are the creator and responsilbe party for the misery caused. If you make an argument I wouldn't ask Gumby to defend it, I would ask you. I wouldn't reply to Gumby directly on your post like he made, I'd reply to you. If I agree to pay you for a service then I'm responsible for my agreement and the money is owed to you, not someone else. No one else controls your freely chosen actions or is responsible for your free choices except you. This is the case for everyone. Isn't it obvious that people own themselves? They belong to themself and no one else.

This is not a moral argument and the attempt is constantly being made that it is. Morality is a code of behavior. Human self-ownership either exists or it doesn't. Someone's disbelief doesn't invalidate it no more than someone's belief in it, sort of like God. The argument that it doesn't exist because some people don't respect only proves that if rights exist they are violated.

To say that there are natural consequences to our actions is very, very different than saying that there are moral weights to what we do.  I may understand my actions and what the effects of those actions are, but if I don't know what is a moral act vs not a moral act, then these traits have no moral weight, because I'll just use them to my own gain (rob from the defenseless, rather than the well-defended, because I "understand my actions have consequences" that differ in each case.)

The natural consequence of me going to Africa to help poor people might be to get shot in a dangerous area.  I had some degree of "responsibility" for it from a functonal point of view, but by no means was it deserved.

It's good we've finally gotten here, though.  If people control their actions and should have the mental capacity to understand what the circumstances might be, this doesn't assign any moral weight to whether I should fight/kill others to get ahead (as much of nature does), or whether I can morally claim property as my own.

So understanding our actions, and the functional consequences of our actions is surely necessary for moral behavior, but how do we decide that just because people can control their actions, 1) they are assigned some sort of moral "right," or 2) that this "right" extends to the world around them?

I don't know what an axiom is other than part of a brain cell. If you tell me what it is I'll try to share mine.

ax·i·om
/?aks??m/
noun
plural noun: axioms
1. a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true

Kshartle wrote: Moda,

I've only made it through the first 35% of your post since I'm at work. But I'm curious what you define the term ownership to be. What does it mean to own something?

To have a morally valid claim to control it and reap benefits of it.

Before I've mentioned that there are a few definitions taht could be used.

1) Legal recognition by government or a political/legal entity as yours
2) You effectively control something and reap benefits from it, whether it's recognized as yours by government or society.
3) Valid moral control and ability to reap benefits from.

For the purposes of our discussion, I prefer the latter, as I'd imagine you would.

Kshartle wrote:

Xan wrote: Arguing that everyone should agree with you because you've figured out The One Way to do things is a little bit unreasonable.

Yes agreed. You'll see I never ever make that argument. Others may make that argument but if I ever do Lord help me.

You certainly make these truths seem 100% self-evident, and that it's logically ridiculous that anyone could see government as a morally valid legal/social entity.  So you essentially are stating that anyone who doesn't see it that way is a) immoral, and b) kind of dumb.  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth... just extending your logic a bit further.  Part of the reason I ask questions is to allow people to state their claims in ways that help me (and others) understand where they are coming from.  I can't learn about alternative thought if all I do is stick to certain immovable premises without fully fleshing them out.

And before you state that you HAVE fleshed them out, you have in one of your most recent posts, stated that the argument of self-ownership isn't a moral one, but one of fact surrounding whether we have the capability to understand the consequences of our actions.  This seems to be VERY different than what you have said in the past, and doesn't help us out much with moral philosophy until we can decide what that philosophy is.  "Owning" something meaning I can control it and understand it, as opposed to "owning" being a moral statement as to your connection to a piece of valuable property are VERY different lines of thinking.  One is functional, biological, neurological, etc, and the other is moral.

Maybe this is why we've been talking past each other for post after post.  I thought we were trying to develop (or reenforce) a moral philosophy (individual sovereignty) and moral assertion (government is illegitimately, immorally forceful), not decide whether we have certain cognitive abilitiesto understand the domino-effects of our actions.