Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

MoSurveyor · Jun 22, 2012

Moot said:
This a good example of your deflection. You've already admitted that slavery is ownership over others.

I don't believe people can own people. If you believe I've asserted that "slavery is ownership" then you can quote my statement as evidence. Otherwise, you are mistaken.

Slavery is an extreme example of people exerting power over other people. It's not ownership.

Moot said:
Self ownership does not mean "owning others" or "power over others".

The concept of "self ownership" is the result of wrong thinking. People are not property.

Moot said:
Yes, believe it or not, not all slave owners were bad and ruthless. Take Thomas Jefferson, for instance.

Don't kid yourself - both Jefferson and his slaves were well aware of the realities of the situation. If they kept their power struggle more or less peaceful it wouldn't be the first or last time in history that this has happened.

Moot said:
As a courtesy, would you mind not typing your answers in my quote box?

I seldom do that, as you know.

Centinel · Jun 22, 2012

RGacky3 said:
What I'm saying is your actually totally FINE with government as long as its private and unaccountable ...

Okay, well then you're wrong.

I'm not fine with any agency that claims a territorial monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction and taxation. Such an agency, in order to enforce its claim, would necessarily violate the person and property of others.

MoSurveyor · Jun 22, 2012

Centinel said:
What I meant by government (or state) is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction (decision making) and taxation. A government is the ultimate arbiter in all cases of conflict, even those conflicts involving itself.

Does this sense of the word match up with your idea of government?

It seems to match up with the existing system of government.

Centinel said:
I agree. In a stateless social order, people would develop systems and institutions to perform all these functions.

In a sufficiently advanced and enlightened society the institutions would not be needed at all.

grip · Jun 22, 2012

As a citizen we become somewhat state property. All citizens of a country agree to abide by the laws of the federal, state and local jurisdiction, where they reside. Now any person can sit on the floor and refuse to do anything, move or even eat. We have rights over our own actions and are held accountable for them positive or negative but no other agency or persons according to our laws has the right to invade our expectation of privacy or deny us our constitutional rights and freedom. It's a compromise or balance between being controlled by boundaries set by society over improper actions and neglect to ensure domestic tranquility and the protection of individual rights. The absolutes of self ownership and non ownership do not exist realistically in a civilization. We are a community of people that are bound together to improve our quality of life, chance of survival and betterment of our neighbors.

Centinel · Jun 22, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
It seems to match up with the existing system of government.

In a sufficiently advanced and enlightened society the institutions would not be needed at all.

Possibly. But mankind being what it is, murderers, robbers, thieves, thugs, and con artists will always exist, and life in society will be impossible if they are not checked by the use of defensive force. Individuals will always need to defend themselves and their property from such people, or to establish agencies to do so on their behalf.

Mach · Jun 22, 2012

Cephus said:
And yes, I'll take that option, nobody is owned by anybody including themselves.

Finallly. And when you do the above, you logically are choosing one of those two options. (demonstrating there is no false dichotomy)

You originally claimed:

People are making a false dichotomy here, that if you don't own yourself, then someone else has to own you.

Own - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1. Own: to have power or mastery over <wanted to own his own life>
(Ironic choice of the <> example the dictionary chose, considering you disagree with wikipedia, the dictionary, me...just saying)
2. Having the power to determine who has power over Bob, is termed "owning Bob".
3. Cephus claims that "[Bob] does not own himself"
4. Cephus is determining who owns Bob.
->Cephus owns Bob.

Yet, you claimed earlier that not owning yourself, does NOT imply someone else owns you. But clearly it did. The only other option is silence Cephus, don't make the claim about who owns other people, and there will be literally <nothing> to disagree on. You can't escape it with semantics either. You can insist that "own" can't apply to a person, but we'd just then find a new word that you are comfortable with, that does mean "power to control ownership", and we'd plug it all right back into the same argument and get the same result.

MoSurveyor · Jun 22, 2012

grip said:
As a citizen we become somewhat state property. All citizens of a country agree to abide by the laws of the federal, state and local jurisdiction, where they reside. Now any person can sit on the floor and refuse to do anything, move or even eat. We have rights over our own actions and are held accountable for them positive or negative but no other agency or persons according to our laws has the right to invade our expectation of privacy or deny us our constitutional rights and freedom. It's a compromise or balance between being controlled by boundaries set by society over improper actions and neglect to ensure domestic tranquility and the protection of individual rights. The absolutes of self ownership and non ownership do not exist realistically in a civilization. We are a community of people that are bound together to improve our quality of life, chance of survival and betterment of our neighbors.

I don't think of myself as property, not even state property, but the State can and does exercise power that affects my life.

The rest of your post is right on.

Mach · Jun 22, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
So I take it you wanted that third option after all.
Why don't you put forward your options as simply as I did?

I did it in one sentence (Your premise is false). Anything else?
If you had a point, you'd do precisely what I did, with regards to argument you think is a false choice/false dichotomy. Which premise in the self-ownership argument is false?

MoSurveyor · Jun 22, 2012

Centinel said:
Possibly. But mankind being what it is, murderers, robbers, thieves, thugs, and con artists will always exist, and life in society will be impossible if they are not checked by the use of defensive force. Individuals will always need to defend themselves and their property from such people, or to establish agencies to do so on their behalf.

Get rid of property and you've taken all but murderers out of the equation. Without property to fight over, the "robbers, thieves, thugs, and con artists" have no craft to practice.

MoSurveyor · Jun 22, 2012

Mach said:
I did it in one sentence (Your premise is false). Anything else?
If you had a point, you'd do precisely what I did, with regards to argument you think is a false choice/false dichotomy.

Which premise in the self-ownership argument is false?

I see you just glossed over what I said. I asked you to restate your argument in simple terms, as my example was in simple terms. Apparently that's too much to ask of you.

Mach · Jun 22, 2012

megaprogman said:
rof Ethics very from people to people, its a terrible thing to base an argument on since its only a matter of opinion and not something that can be proven or disproven.

That's wrong.

First, science cannot be proven or disproven either (it's falsifiable). Let's assume you accept that minor correction and we agree that the scientific method is robust and that once something has been well evidenced and peer reviewed, independantly verified, etc., etc., we get pretty damn close to proof. The point here is that you can't attribute this idea of certainty (proof, proven) to science in an attempt to show how unproven ethics are in comparison.

Back to ethics. Ethics can vary sure, just as science can vary. However, once you codify the ethics (in English for example, or formal logic, etc.), and ethical rules are show to be illogical, then they are then falsified as being "ethical rules".

Use the underlying assumptions of science (since you accept science) as an example, say #2:

(2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws;

If some hack scientist wrote a hypothesis that involved something to the effect of:
"A supernatural ghost will then do..."

Do you really think this has to be experimented on and tested, peer-reviewed, etc., before it can be determined to be false? No. It's in contradiction to the underlying fundamental assumption of the scientific method (#2 above) That's why it's rejected as "not science". Same way the scientific community rejects matters of religion. You can't create a test for prayer because it contradicts the underlying assumptions. So it's thrown out as not science. And when you agree we can reject illogical claims, then at the very least, you agree that ethical rules are not ONLY a matter of opinon, that within some agreed upon logical framework, some can logically be shown to be "not ethics".

grip · Jun 22, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
I don't think of myself as property, not even state property, but the State can and does exercise power that affects my life.

The rest of your post is right on.

I did say "somewhat" because as a citizen you become a member of a group. Though we retain a certain amount of legal autonomy, even when bound in a marriage. As having rights through the state no other group or country can establish power or control over us physically making the state responsible for our bodily protection. After we are deceased the state is responsible for disposing of our bodies if family can't afford it for public safety. Through our social protection agencies we are in a sense wards of the state, when we can't afford to take care of ourselves. Through a draft the government can force its citizens to serve in the armed forces to protect our country. Under the law we have an obligation to obey ordinances, report unlawful activity and aid individuals in direct harm. We are physical property to our social standards more than we're immediately or directly aware. But most of it is contingent on certain situations and circumstances.

Mach · Jun 22, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
I see you just glossed over what I said. I asked you to restate your argument in simple terms, as my example was in simple terms. Apparently that's too much to ask of you.

It can't get much more simple unless we use some compressed language other than english

1. Mach has beaten his wife.
2. It has either stopped, or not.
->Your premise 1. is false.

Surely that's not too many characters for you.

And, the follow up question:
Do the same to my earlier claim. Which premise of mine was false? I pointed it out in one quick response, surely anyone can do the same instead of all the typing.

MoSurveyor · Jun 22, 2012

Mach said:
It can't get much more simple unless we use some compressed language other than english

1. Mach has beaten his wife.
2. It has either stopped, or not.
->Your premise 1. is false.

Surely that's not too many characters for you.

And, the follow up question:
Do the same to my earlier claim. Which premise of mine was false? I pointed it out in one quick response, surely anyone can do the same instead of all the typing.

Are you incapable of restating your claim/assertion/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it of self-ownership?

I have asked several times that you restate your earlier claim.

If you are not incapable of restating your earlier claim then please do so.

MoSurveyor · Jun 22, 2012

Mach said:
Finallly. And when you do the above, you logically are choosing one of those two options. (demonstrating there is no false dichotomy)

You originally claimed:

Own - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1. Own: to have power or mastery over <wanted to own his own life>
(Ironic choice of the <> example the dictionary chose, considering you disagree with wikipedia, the dictionary, me...just saying)
2. Having the power to determine who has power over Bob, is termed "owning Bob".
3. Cephus claims that "[Bob] does not own himself"
4. Cephus is determining who owns Bob.
->Cephus owns Bob.

Yet, you claimed earlier that not owning yourself, does NOT imply someone else owns you. But clearly it did. The only other option is silence Cephus, don't make the claim about who owns other people, and there will be literally <nothing> to disagree on. You can't escape it with semantics either. You can insist that "own" can't apply to a person, but we'd just then find a new word that you are comfortable with, that does mean "power to control ownership", and we'd plug it all right back into the same argument and get the same result.

Own - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1. Own (verb): To have or hold as property

There's your falsehood. Neither Bob nor I are property.

Mach · Jun 22, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
Own - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1. Own (verb): To have or hold as propertyThere's your falsehood. Neither Bob nor I are property.

A semantic game? Come on. You didn't define property, let me help:
Property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation.
According to that, you are if you are owned. We could do that all day if we were idiots.

You apparently missed the point in the very post you responded to that already showed I saw where someone wrong might take the argument, and corrected it already. I'll repost it:

You can't escape it with semantics either. You can insist that "own" can't apply to a person, but we'd just then find a new word that you are comfortable with, that does mean "power to control ownership", and we'd plug it all right back into the same argument and get the same result.

Semantics isn't going to get you anywhere...you can see that above.

MoSurveyor · Jun 22, 2012

Mach said:
A semantic game? Come on. You didn't define property, let me help:
Property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation.
According to that, you are if you are owned. We could do that all day if we were idiots.

You apparently missed the point in the very post you responded to that already showed I saw where someone wrong might take the argument, and corrected it already. I'll repost it:

Semantics isn't going to get you anywhere...you can see that above.

Then if you'd like to change your assertion to "self-control", which is in-line with YOUR use of "own", instead of asserting "self-ownership", which as we've just seen is ambiguous at best, then we can resolve the issue.

I don't think anyone will deny that we all must have self-control.

Mach · Jun 22, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
Then if you'd like to change your assertion to "self-control", which is in-line with YOUR use of "own", instead of asserting "self-ownership", which as we've just seen is ambiguous at best, then we can resolve the issue.
I don't think anyone will deny that we all must have self-control.

Mo, I just countered with the definition of property. A word you used in your reference to the definition of OWN, which demonstrated (with those premises) that your conclusion was false. You accept that I assume?

As to "control", you're just chasing semantics now. Doesn't ownership, if we're being general here, imply control? Why are you trying to shift it to that now?
Another choice for you:
Does the term ownership in our fairly generic, mainstream discussion, imply:
A. control
B. no control

? Which is it Mo? You tell me, clearly, is it A or B? Or, point to exactly which premise is false, and why.

Use some examples if it helps you:

Which conclusion is more reaosnable to draw from the below:

Bob owns a company.
1. Bob controls what the company spends money on.
2. Bob does NOT control what the company spends money on.

Sue owns a slave.
1. Sue controls what that person (the slave) works on
2. Sue does not control what that person (the slave) works on

Jim has self-control.
1. Jim controls what Jim does.
2. Jim does NOT control what Jim does.

In a mainstream, generalized discussion, it appears that ownership implies some degree of control. It doesn't guarantee it, but then you know even science is falsifiable and doesn't guarantee certainty...

Centinel · Jun 22, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
Get rid of property and you've taken all but murderers out of the equation. Without property to fight over, the "robbers, thieves, thugs, and con artists" have no craft to practice.

I suppose you're right. If I owned nothing, I could not be robbed.

But it is not very useful to consider a social order in which nobody is presumed to own anything.

Cephus · Jun 22, 2012

Mach said:
Finallly. And when you do the above, you logically are choosing one of those two options. (demonstrating there is no false dichotomy)

No, the options were:

1. You own yourself.
2. Someone else owns you.

I'm choosing #3, nobody owns anybody, thus doing away with the dichotomy entirely.

You originally claimed:

I never claimed that, I said that other people were claiming that.

Mach · Jun 22, 2012

Cephus said:
No, the options were:

1. You own yourself.
2. Someone else owns you.
I'm choosing #3, nobody owns anybody, thus doing away with the dichotomy entirely.
I never claimed that, I said that other people were claiming that.

Is this a true statement Cephus:
Cephus claims that it is true that "nobody owns anybody"?

Cephus · Jun 22, 2012

Mach said:
Is this a true statement Cephus:
Cephus claims that it is true that "nobody owns anybody"?

Yup, which was not one of the two choices offered and thus, not part of the false dichotomy.

Slartibartfast · Jun 22, 2012

Mach said:
That's wrong.

First, science cannot be proven or disproven either (it's falsifiable). Let's assume you accept that minor correction and we agree that the scientific method is robust and that once something has been well evidenced and peer reviewed, independantly verified, etc., etc., we get pretty damn close to proof. The point here is that you can't attribute this idea of certainty (proof, proven) to science in an attempt to show how unproven ethics are in comparison.

Back to ethics. Ethics can vary sure, just as science can vary. However, once you codify the ethics (in English for example, or formal logic, etc.), and ethical rules are show to be illogical, then they are then falsified as being "ethical rules".

Use the underlying assumptions of science (since you accept science) as an example, say #2:

If some hack scientist wrote a hypothesis that involved something to the effect of:
"A supernatural ghost will then do..."

Do you really think this has to be experimented on and tested, peer-reviewed, etc., before it can be determined to be false? No. It's in contradiction to the underlying fundamental assumption of the scientific method (#2 above) That's why it's rejected as "not science". Same way the scientific community rejects matters of religion. You can't create a test for prayer because it contradicts the underlying assumptions. So it's thrown out as not science. And when you agree we can reject illogical claims, then at the very least, you agree that ethical rules are not ONLY a matter of opinon, that within some agreed upon logical framework, some can logically be shown to be "not ethics".

The problem being within a framework. The validity of a framework itself is a matter of opinion.

However you are correct, science doesn't cover everything, and for those things it doesn't cover, they cannot truly be known and must be a matter of faith.

MoSurveyor · Jun 22, 2012

Mach said:
As to "control", you're just chasing semantics now. Doesn't ownership, if we're being general here, imply control? Why are you trying to shift it to that now?
Another choice for you:
Does the term ownership in our fairly generic, mainstream discussion, imply:
A. control
B. no control

? Which is it Mo? You tell me, clearly, is it A or B? Or, point to exactly which premise is false, and why.

If ownership was only another word for control and implied nothing else then there may not be an issue but ownership also entails the option to transfer that control and therein lies the problem. Even many people that agree with the self-ownership ideal agree it is also non-transferable, that a person may only own themselves. Given the stipulation that control cannot be transferred, ownership adds a layer of complexity to the situation that is not needed or required. Simple control, without all the added baggage of ownership, is plenty for our needs.

Mach · Jun 22, 2012

megaprogman said:
The problem being within a framework. The validity of a framework itself is a matter of opinion.

The problem is that we are using a framework right now to have a discussion. If it's just opinion, why bother at all, how could anything in any framework be better than any other? Science is based on a framework, so is science therefore just opinion? Of course not. I'm comfortable with the certainty that I'm typing on a keyboard (not skepticism).

However you are correct, science doesn't cover everything, and for those things it doesn't cover, they cannot truly be known and must be a matter of faith.

Pretty close to what my position is. But since science assumes those underlying "reasoned" assumptions quoted from wiki as true to begin with, I put Reason first, Science second (since it relies on it), and yes, the rest that doesn't cover can enjoy other means of justification...like faith.

Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

Do you own yourself (self ownership)? Should or shouldnt you own yourself?

Yes (should)

Yes (shouldn't)

No (should)

No (shouldn't)

More options

MoSurveyor

Centinel

MoSurveyor

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand

Centinel

Mach

MoSurveyor

Mach

MoSurveyor

MoSurveyor

Mach

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand

Mach

MoSurveyor

MoSurveyor

Mach

MoSurveyor

Mach

Centinel

Cephus

Mach

Cephus

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.

MoSurveyor

Mach