Has anybody here studied Misean logic?

[IcarusAngel]

It's absolutely crazy.

They believe that self-ownership and property are "self evident axioms."
They believe all axioms are true.

They believe all of mathematics can be reduced to logic, and all mathematical axioms are true.

I had one even tell me that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is "always true" regardless of the fact that it's based off of models in geometry, which also contains certain axioms etc. (In math an axiom is an unproven assumption willingly accepted as true.) Geometry itself is near perfect logic but there are also contradictions within the system.

They then believe that the only way to own property is to mix your labor with "unapprpriated land" and that this is the only legitimate way to own property, because anything else is "collective ownership" (a false dichotomy). When I pointed out that there may be tools or resources used that were never appropriated the "mises" way, they claimed that all tools and resources would have to be gathered in way that has never been taken from anybody as well.

Imagine where this system would lead to if one person declared that he was "using" all of the earth, and passed it on to his decendents, who were then "using" it etc.

They also claim their statements "prove themselves," and that they are true by "definition."

it sounds more absurd than Aquanis' "proofs" for god, but this is what they believe.

[GPDP]

Why bother paying $2 to go to the circus, when you can simply visit the Mises Institute website?

[IcarusAngel]

Why bother paying $2 to go to the circus, when you can simply visit the Mises Institute website?
lol so true, so true . +1.

I tried to explain to one of them the implications of Godel's incompleteness theorem and why certain statements definitions etc. can never be proven as true, and so absolute truth is not possible, and he just repeated the same Misean BS without even attempting to understand it.

And the Mises website is just beyond comment. The sad thing is in a way their ignorance kind of proves some people couldn't work together in a functional matter.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I've never heard of "Misean" logic, but most logical methodologies involve axioms considered self-evident and/or justified by circular reasoning. Many logicians believe logic and mathematical axioms are true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_atomism

These might be axioms:

Transitivity of identity.
A = A

Those types of logical relations, among others, are almost always considered self-evident/demonstrable by observation rather than rational explanation. The whole idea of axioms is interesting and confusing. Such views have become less popular, but they were popular amongst leftists and rightists alike, during earlier time periods.

[IcarusAngel]

I'm pretty sure the existence of axioms is to prevent geometric reasoning etc. from becoming circular, not to encourage it to be circular. I'm also pretty sure that logical positivism, logical atomism etc. have been completely abandoned in modern philosophy. Furthermore if axioms are unproven, how could we assume that all math is reducible to A = A.

Also, did Russell ever say that axioms were self-evident? And if all math was automatically true, why then do certain contractions, inconsistencies and so on prop up within mathematics.

Finally, these guys above are talking about mathematics, but how could we say something like self-ownership is "self-evident."

[IcarusAngel]

"In mathematics (http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/m/a/Mathematics.html), axioms are not self-evident truths. They are of two different kinds: logical axioms (http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/a/x/Axiom.html#logical_axioms) and non-logical axioms (http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/a/x/Axiom.html#non-logical_axioms). Axiomatic reasoning is today most widely used in mathematics."

Axioms are not self-evident truths in any sort of rational system, they are unprovable assumptions whose truth or falsehood should always be mentally prefaced with an implicit ``If we assume that...''. Remembering that ultimately ``assume'' can make an ass out of u and me, as my wife (a physician, which is a very empirical and untrusting profession) is wont to say. They are really just assertions or propositions to which we give a special primal status and exempt from the necessity of independent proof.

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node27.html

Please quote the mathematicians who claim they are self-evident truths.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think the term they use is "praxeology".

Kinda like the dialectics of the Austrian scene...

[synthesis]

"Self-ownership" is an inherently meaningless phrase. What good is self-ownership if the logical conclusion is that material conditions could lead you to the "choice" of auctioning your self-ownership off to the highest bidder, as this clown proves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Block#Slave_contracts)?

That's the funniest shit to me - that the concept of "self-ownership" is constantly being used as a justification of slavery. The truth is, there is no such thing as self-evident self-ownership, and there never has been. It's always been contingent on material conditions, and ignorant Austrians blithely continue to suggest otherwise... what else is new?

[MMIKEYJ]

The logic of the Mises Institute may be crazy, but if so, then its a bit less crazier than communism.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes. Humans act is, in my opinion, just as meaningless. It pre-packages a lot of fallacious assumptions about the nature of humans like free-will, rationality, etc. and discounts any notion of us being driven by casual forces. It also suggests a certain degree of knowledge and consciousness that isn't necessarily present.

I'd much rather say "humans think," and from this thought actions come.

A disclaimer: I'd like to keep this topic rational.

According to the Mises' supporters, I'm an "idiot" who cannot understand the "pure logic" of Mises and a "statist" who fails to understand the inherent goodness in the Mises society. It think travis is now a confirmed praxeologist so maybe he could grace us with his precense.

I think there should be a clear explanation of why praxeology, or Misean logic is true, without the need for insults. If there is a convincing logical argument maybe people can own property on a first come first serve basis and this property is always "unappropriated" and justified.

The link above is not a good example as it says both the logicians who support the idea of certain knowledge - Russell and Wittgenstein - ultimately came to reject it.

[IcarusAngel]

The logic of the Mises Institute may be crazy, but if so, then its a bit less crazier than communism.

I hate to break it to you but your hero, Ron Paul, is a confirmed Misean.

This is what's funny, if the axioms are so self-evident, self-proven definitions, why do even other libertarians dispute it, like Brian Caplan?

Anyway, here's an article that claims chaos theory proves Austrian economics:
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=296

The only thing missing is a rational explanation, and evidence.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

They believe all of mathematics can be reduced to logic, and all mathematical axioms are true.

What is this, objectivism 2.0?


They then believe that the only way to own property is to mix your labor with "unapprpriated land" and that this is the only legitimate way to own propertyWouldn't that mean no buying and selling? And no inheritance?
Also what about intellectual and technological endeavors?


When I pointed out that there may be tools or resources used that were never appropriated the "mises" way, they claimed that all tools and resources would have to be gathered in way that has never been taken from anybody as well.I think "What about intellectual and technological endeavors?" Remains totally appropriate to this.


What good is self-ownership if the logical conclusion is that material conditions could lead you to the "choice" of auctioning your self-ownership off to the highest bidder, as this clown proves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Block#Slave_contracts)?

Well all libertarians support slavery contracts, they just call them employment contracts. The difference is the saner libertarians believe those contracts must be renegotiable.

[trivas7]

What is this, objectivism 2.0?

Objectivists reject the notion of self-ownership. Since there is no such thing as Mesian logic, this entire thread is nothing but trolling.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

"In mathematics (http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/m/a/Mathematics.html), axioms are not self-evident truths. They are of two different kinds: logical axioms (http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/a/x/Axiom.html#logical_axioms) and non-logical axioms (http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/a/x/Axiom.html#non-logical_axioms). Axiomatic reasoning is today most widely used in mathematics."

Axioms are not self-evident truths in any sort of rational system, they are unprovable assumptions whose truth or falsehood should always be mentally prefaced with an implicit ``If we assume that...''. Remembering that ultimately ``assume'' can make an ass out of u and me, as my wife (a physician, which is a very empirical and untrusting profession) is wont to say. They are really just assertions or propositions to which we give a special primal status and exempt from the necessity of independent proof.

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node27.html (http://www.phy.duke.edu/%7Ergb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node27.html)

Please quote the mathematicians who claim they are self-evident truths.

Self-evident and "unprovable assumptions" are incredibly similar. Induction saves the latter from some embarrassment, I suppose. There is still the greater epistemological question of how assumptions are based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

[IcarusAngel]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor, you are going from respectable philosophies (logical atomism) to even more vague ones to prove your claims. If things "unproven" and "self-evident" meant the same thing, there wouldn't be as many principles in mathematics and physics that are counter-intuitive. In fact, gravity tests are worse than counter-intuitive because if you try it yourself with certain objects (a golf ball and a tennis ball, say), it will lead you to bad conclusions.

Even if mathematics were reducible to logic, how would we know it's not human created logic and its logic that exists prior to all time etc? That is what Miseans claim, that Mises logic is the logic of the universe, that existed prior to the Universe that only von Mises himself discovered.


What is this, objectivism 2.0?

Both objectivists and Mises supporters believe their respective leaders discovered the "true laws" of the universe. That is to say theorems are true by definition and if you reduce mathematical laws to their most basic form, they are just truisms.

This has nothing to do with math by the way. In math, definitions are statements that distinguish elements from all other elements, they are not "proofs."


Wouldn't that mean no buying and selling? And no inheritance?

Well, not according to them. Once he has owned "unappropriated land" by "mixing his labor" with it, he can then transfer to the employees the "title" of a certain sum of money in exchange for their work on the land.

Thus, there are two ways to come to own property:
A. Homsteading unappropriated resources.
B. Buying or selling with someone who has already homesteaded unappropriated resources.

This is the only "true" way to own proprerty, and the only other way is by declaring all property to be "owned collectively" by all according to Rothbard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership#Arguments_for_self-ownership


I think "What about intellectual and technological endeavors?" Remains totally appropriate to this.

They say you can buy and sell properly appropriated resources.

when it comes to intellectual ideas, these aren't to be "owned" because they are infinite. But, property is owned, and if property was infinite, ethics need not exist because if soemone stole something from you you could just magically make it reappear.

Of course, if resources were infinite it doesn't necessarily mean 'magic.'


Well all libertarians support slavery contracts, they just call them employment contracts. The difference is the saner libertarians believe those contracts must be renegotiable.

Yes I agree. I've even had liberals admit to me that libertarianism ultimately leads to slavery.

[IcarusAngel]

Objectivists reject the notion of self-ownership.

But objectivists also agree with the absurd notion that all of mathematics is apriori in the sense that it always has existed and always is true prior to the universe. I dont' know about "apriori" but it's false that all math is true by definition.


Since there is no such thing as Mesian logic, this entire thread is nothing but trolling.

Don't be ridiculous. It's like calling Newton's physics models "Newtonian physics" or Einsteins' "Einstenian physics." Misean logic is not even real logic so I refuse to call it that.

Leftists have for too long let Libertarian trolls get away with these blatant lies, but as shown here when called on them libertarians like trivas7 refuse to back up their statements. It's no surprise, if I was a libertarian, i wouldn't want to back up this nonsense either.

[MMIKEYJ]

I hate to break it to you but your hero, Ron Paul, is a confirmed Misean.

This is what's funny, if the axioms are so self-evident, self-proven definitions, why do even other libertarians dispute it, like Brian Caplan?

Anyway, here's an article that claims chaos theory proves Austrian economics:
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=296

The only thing missing is a rational explanation, and evidence.
Yeah. no kidding. I follow austrian economics too. Its makes the only rational sense.

In a nutshell, if you want to buy something, make sure you have the money first and then buy it.. There ya go. Thats 'Misean' logic for ya. Yeah thats real crazy eh??

Look, I didnt come here to bash communism, but damn all you commies pick out some extreme person who argues against your belief and then claim EVERYBODY with that same ideology holds all those same beliefs when theyre not even related.

Its like saying because you believe in gravity, and the Nazis believed in gravity, that youre a nazi too.

Get over it. Communism is a dead system, America tried it in 1607 in Jamestown and everybody almost ended up dead from lack of production. In an ideal world with virtuous and noble people any economic system could work, even communism, but I dont see that happening, and I know of no incident of it working in history.

[Dejavu]

That is what Miseans claim, that Mises logic is the logic of the universe, that existed prior to the Universe that only von Mises himself discovered.

Straw man. Please source where this conclusion is made. And even if some blockhead on Mises.org made this claim, Mises himself did not. This to me just reveals some of your angst and I think clearly shows that you goal is not increasing understanding , but to just be an angry vulgar dickhead.



Both objectivists and Mises supporters believe their respective leaders discovered the "true laws" of the universe.

Straw man. Where did Mises claim to have discovered the 'true laws of the universe.?" Clearly you are ignorant of his writing Human Action but you want to act as if you are not and construct these straw man in hopes that some poor sap will actually consider your question valid. Seriously, I exhumed already enough writing on vulgar idiots like you.

[Dejavu]

^^^ Yes, I know, I've fed a troll. :(

[IcarusAngel]

Straw man. Please source where this conclusion is made. And even if some blockhead on Mises.org made this claim, Mises himself did not. This to me just reveals some of your angst and I think clearly shows that you goal is not increasing understanding , but to just be an angry vulgar dickhead.

Mises himself did indeed claim that his "axioms" are self-proving and that they exist prior to the universe, prior to all existence. That is their reasoning and you can google it to find the quotes.


Straw man. Where did Mises claim to have discovered the 'true laws of the universe.?" Clearly you are ignorant of his writing Human Action but you want to act as if you are not and construct these straw man in hopes that some poor sap will actually consider your question valid. Seriously, I exhumed already enough writing on vulgar idiots like you.

The only "straw men" here are your own, not to mention ad-hominem attacks. I've studied quite a bit of mathematical theory, even to know the claims made by Mises are now disproved nonsense.

You didn't even address my main criticisms of Mises: that self-ownership is "self-proving," that all mathematical laws come "prior to existence," etc.etc.

Mises was an idiot and he wasn't even a logician, nor a mathematician, and so are all of his followers.

[IcarusAngel]

Yeah. no kidding. I follow austrian economics too. Its makes the only rational sense.

Mises theorems are not self-proving. Furthermore, Misean logic is anti-rationality, and anti-emperical evidence. The guy was crazy, and modern mathematical has lept far beyond him.


In a nutshell, if you want to buy something, make sure you have the money first and then buy it.. There ya go. Thats 'Misean' logic for ya. Yeah thats real crazy eh??

you were debunked on this here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-101-without-t105982/index.html


Look, I didnt come here to bash communism, but damn all you commies pick out some extreme person who argues against your belief and then claim EVERYBODY with that same ideology holds all those same beliefs when theyre not even related.

So you came here to troll?


Its like saying because you believe in gravity, and the Nazis believed in gravity, that youre a nazi too.

Get over it. Communism is a dead system, America tried it in 1607 in Jamestown and everybody almost ended up dead from lack of production. In an ideal world with virtuous and noble people any economic system could work, even communism, but I dont see that happening, and I know of no incident of it working in history.

The pilgrims example is a heavily flawed one as they were not even trying to set up a real communist society. Societies that have built themselves according to anarcho-syndicalist principles have existed like in the Israeli Kibbutzim and the Indians living for tens of thousands of years cooperatively is a refutation to your above claim.

I'm sure that Galileo perhaps thought that his theories are doomed when he was being punished for his scientific findings, and I'm sure even today many evolutionists wonder if evolution will ever be considered the "fact" that it is by the general public in the US, but does that mean we should stop believing in truth just because most people are insane?

Misean principles led to the stockmarket crash in 1929 and have caused numerous recessions - every attempt in every country to deregulate themselves into freedom and prosperity has been a drastic failure, not just in regards to social and political freedom but economic freedom (lack of monopolies) as well.

Capitalism is a dead system, get over it.

[Dejavu]

Mises himself did indeed claim that his "axioms" are self-proving and that they exist prior to the universe, prior to all existence. That is their reasoning and you can google it to find the quotes.



The only "straw men" here are your own, not to mention ad-hominem attacks. I've studied quite a bit of mathematical theory, even to know the claims made by Mises are now disproved nonsense.

You didn't even address my main criticisms of Mises: that self-ownership is "self-proving," that all mathematical laws come "prior to existence," etc.etc.

Mises was an idiot and he wasn't even a logician, nor a mathematician, and so are all of his followers.

Mises , to my knowledge , and perhaps you can point to me a source that states otherwise, never made the claim that these laws existed prior to existence. Sure , Mises made claims I disagree with as well but no where have I read such driveling nonsense on his part.

The point Mises was trying to make was that certain truths can be arrived at through reason and logic prior to experience ( i.e. apriori reasoning) and he believed economics should be treated this way. Math is an abstract that can arrive to proofs before experience. Einstein's theory of General Relativity can be proven mathematically but we have not actually come to know GR through experience.

And on the issue of self-ownership, I disagree with self-ownership and have made a candid criticism of it. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-ownership-meaningless-t102812/index.html?t=102812&highlight=ownership) Mises didn't first postulate S.O. either.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Mises was a minarchist, not an anarchist. I don't think he ever addressed slave contracts, but to my knowledge, he wasn't as "radical" on the subject of contract theory as Hoppe, Rand, and Rothbard.


In a nutshell, if you want to buy something, make sure you have the money first and then buy it.. There ya go. Thats 'Misean' logic for ya. Yeah thats real crazy eh??Money is a very complex subject; even if we attribute some "perceived" value to its existence, we run into a dilemna of "natural destruction" - namely, that perceived values change over time, but the money supply might not. I bought my shoes for five dollars; however, in two months, I might perceive their value to be less, yet the money supply won't shrink to correlate with this changed value (deflation). Or, going with a different example, a failed investment turns up false wealth.

I recommend reading Sraffa. He's a good rebuttal of some Austrian assumptions.

[Dejavu]

Mises was a minarchist, not an anarchist. I don't think he ever addressed slave contracts, but to my knowledge, he wasn't as "radical" on the subject of contract theory as Hoppe, Rand, and Rothbard.

Money is a very complex subject; even if we attribute some "perceived" value to its existence, we run into a dilemna of "natural destruction" - namely, that perceived values change over time, but the money supply might not. I bought my shoes for five dollars; however, in two months, I might perceive their value to be less, yet the money supply won't shrink to correlate with this changed value (deflation). Or, going with a different example, a failed investment turns up false wealth.

I recommend reading Sraffa. He's a good rebuttal of some Austrian assumptions.


Mises made quite clear , in his book Bureaucracy, his opposition to anarchism.
I don't think any Austrian holds that money has some kind of objective value by virtue of being money. The value is intrinsic as it is a commonly accepted medium of exchange.
I believe Austrians would hold that if the value of shoes decreased over time then the money already in existence would have more purchasing power relative to shoes without having to arbitrarily fix inflation/deflation by expanding/contracting the money supply.

[IcarusAngel]

I know Misean economics is false. I was more interested in their logical claims.



The point Mises was trying to make was that certain truths can be arrived at through reason and logic prior to experience ( i.e. apriori reasoning) and he believed economics should be treated this way.

This is false. Almost all of the early mathematicians founded their principles based upon things they noticed in the real world. These units correspond to the real world, from which the units are abstracted upon. Furthermore, some proofs in mathematics rely on symbols, notation, etc. that could not be said to exist "prior" to existence.

Furthermore, if math were inherently true why do contradictions exist within the system? Why are even basic mathematical systems necessarily incomplete.

If a priori means "deductive reasoning," I agree. If it means "prior to all existence" and inherent truths, I disagree, and deductive reasoning has challenged your assumptions already.



Math is an abstract that can arrive to proofs before experience. Einstein's theory of General Relativity can be proven mathematically but we have not actually come to know GR through experience.

So was Newton's but it was shown to be false. But indeed, some math requires a knowledge of force etc., so math is not prior to all experience.


And on the issue of self-ownership, I disagree with self-ownership and have made a candid criticism of it. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-ownership-meaningless-t102812/index.html?t=102812&highlight=ownership) Mises didn't first postulate S.O. either.

I'll read it later but philosophically it is full of errors and leads to tyranny.

[MMIKEYJ]

Mises theorems are not self-proving. Furthermore, Misean logic is anti-rationality, and anti-emperical evidence. The guy was crazy, and modern mathematical has lept far beyond him.



you were debunked on this here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-101-without-t105982/index.html

I was not debunked. Theres just no point trying to convince somebody to believe in something they have a steadfast disbelief in. It becomes a waste of time for both.

So you came here to troll?

No, I came here to learn about communism from the communists' point of view, because Im sure what they taught me in school was prejudiced and inaccurate.

The pilgrims example is a heavily flawed one as they were not even trying to set up a real communist society. Societies that have built themselves according to anarcho-syndicalist principles have existed like in the Israeli Kibbutzim and the Indians living for tens of thousands of years cooperatively is a refutation to your above claim.

Whos talking Pilgrims? Im talking 13 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth rock; Jamestown, Virginia.

I'm sure that Galileo perhaps thought that his theories are doomed when he was being punished for his scientific findings, and I'm sure even today many evolutionists wonder if evolution will ever be considered the "fact" that it is by the general public in the US, but does that mean we should stop believing in truth just because most people are insane?

Misean principles led to the stockmarket crash in 1929 and have caused numerous recessions - every attempt in every country to deregulate themselves into freedom and prosperity has been a drastic failure, not just in regards to social and political freedom but economic freedom (lack of monopolies) as well.

Capitalism is a dead system, get over it.

Sound money did not cause the stockmarket crash of 1929. Central planning and central banking caused the stock market crash - namely the federal reserve. And yes, they even admit it nowadays. The central planning that continued after 1929 caused the great depression to last up til 1946.

In the great depression of 1920 which was worse than the one in 1929, the market corrected itself in about a year. This depression was more severe than 1929 but the govt didnt step in with counterproductive bailout and stimulus plans.

With every stimulus plan the economy sinks deeper into depression. We need to save and produce, not spend.

[Demogorgon]

I have a lot to say on this subject, but unfortunately I have to go to the hospital shortly, so it will have to wait. For now I will just say that something that bothers me about Von Mises and his followers is the social authoritarianism that seems to almost always surround them. Mises himself was heavily involved with the Dolfuss regime and opposed Female Suffrage for instance. Rothbard held very socially Conservative views later in life and don't get me started on Hoppe. Pretty inconsistent from people claiming to uphold "liberty".

[Self-Owner]

It's absolutely crazy.

They believe that self-ownership and property are "self evident axioms."
They believe all axioms are true.

They believe all of mathematics can be reduced to logic, and all mathematical axioms are true.

I had one even tell me that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is "always true" regardless of the fact that it's based off of models in geometry, which also contains certain axioms etc. (In math an axiom is an unproven assumption willingly accepted as true.) Geometry itself is near perfect logic but there are also contradictions within the system.

They then believe that the only way to own property is to mix your labor with "unapprpriated land" and that this is the only legitimate way to own property, because anything else is "collective ownership" (a false dichotomy). When I pointed out that there may be tools or resources used that were never appropriated the "mises" way, they claimed that all tools and resources would have to be gathered in way that has never been taken from anybody as well.

Imagine where this system would lead to if one person declared that he was "using" all of the earth, and passed it on to his decendents, who were then "using" it etc.

They also claim their statements "prove themselves," and that they are true by "definition."

it sounds more absurd than Aquanis' "proofs" for god, but this is what they believe.

I know you're a troll, and that trolls shouldn't be fed, but the fact is that you know absolutely nothing about mathematics or logic. There are good criticisms of Austrian economics, but, trust me, you haven't managed to hit upon them.

Self-ownership is not, contra Hoppe and the others, self-evident, but it is a plausible and comprehensive unifying ethical principle with vast intuitive support.

All axioms are true, by definition. There are no contradictions in geometry, as far as anyone knows (go ahead and show your "contradictions in the system" - you'll probably get a Fields Medal for your efforts, except for the fact that you're talking shit.) No one can prove that geometry entails no contradictions, due to Godel's Theorems, but the vast majority of mathematicians believe it to be true. Why don't you learn what you're talking about, and maybe people will take you seriously.

[Dejavu]

Self-ownership is not, contra Hoppe and the others, self-evident, but it is a plausible and comprehensive unifying ethical principle with vast intuitive support.Then self-ownership , at best , is a misnomer. How do you derive a theory of ethics from self-ownership since its not axiomatic like Hoppe suggests it is?

And what is self-ownership according to you?

PS: And yes, IcarusAngel is a angst-ridden teenager troll, I would not take him too seriously. I do , however , look forward to seeing what Demogorgon and GeneCosta have to further say on the matter.

[Dejavu]

Mises himself was heavily involved with the Dolfuss regime and opposed Female Suffrage for instance. Rothbard held very socially Conservative views later in life and don't get me started on Hoppe. Pretty inconsistent from people claiming to uphold "liberty".I also disagree with Mises on several things like his rabid anti-anarchism , Rothbard , Rothbard's ethics , and especially his later turn to arch-conservatism, and I really don't care for Hoppe's neomonarchism/neofeudalism at all.

Given that, the characters of these men can be thrown into critical examination but that doesn't necessarily debunk all of the arguments they put forth ( except Hoppe, his arguments are pretty weak.) The same can be said about certain socialist characters like Marx and his authoritarianism and the fact he banged his proletarian maid and used Engel's inherited wealth as a source of income , Kropotkin and his anti-semetism. However, that doesn't mean that all of the arguments they ever put out there should be dismissed. It shows a possible inconsistency of action with whatever principles all these men ( the Mises types and Marx types) put forward but doesn't actually debunk the principles themselves.

[IcarusAngel]

I know you're a troll, and that trolls shouldn't be fed, but the fact is that you know absolutely nothing about mathematics or logic.

I've studied quite a bit of logic. You, on the other hand, probably couldn't even prove the algebraic product rule (xy = yx).


There are good criticisms of Austrian economics, but, trust me, you haven't managed to hit upon them.

The fact that the creators of the self-ownership theorem were profoundly wrong in their logic I think is a big detriment to the theorem.


All axioms are true, by definition. There are no contradictions in geometry, as far as anyone knows (go ahead and show your "contradictions in the system" - you'll probably get a Fields Medal for your efforts, except for the fact that you're talking shit.) No one can prove that geometry entails no contradictions, due to Godel's Theorems, but the vast majority of mathematicians believe it to be true. Why don't you learn what you're talking about, and maybe people will take you seriously.

All axioms are not "true by definition." What Gödels incompleteness theorem showed is that, since all axiomatic systems are necessarily incomplete, provability within the system is NOT the same as truth. Euclidian Geometry without the parallel postulate is incomplete.

"
All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions ...
Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ... "

So, who are these mathematicians who say that axioms are the same thing as "truth." I've never heard the claim - especially since definitions are not self-proving.

[Dejavu]

You, on the other hand, probably couldn't even prove the algebraic product rule (xy = yx).

That's not necessarily true in quantum mechanics.

[IcarusAngel]

That's not necessarily true in quantum mechanics.

You, and self-owner, are free to prove your ridiculous assertions are correct - in this case, that axioms are always self-proving and all mathematicians agree.

I've already given my sources for my claims - you two, who are doing nothing more than spouting out ignorant nonsense without knowing what you're talking about, have yet to provide a single source for anything you've written.

[Dejavu]

You, and self-owner, are free to prove your ridiculous assertions are correct - in this case, that axioms are always self-proving and all mathematicians agree.

Quit putting words in my mouth, dickhead. When did I ever make those claims? Its well known in the quantum physics community that 3x4 and 4x3 are not always = when regarding equations describing the sub-atomic level.


I've already given my sources for my claims - you two, who are doing nothing more than spouting out ignorant nonsense without knowing what you're talking about, have yet to provide a single source for anything you've written.

I asked you for a reference where Mises claimed that logic existed prior to existence. So far, I haven't seen you produce it. Perhaps you should take your own advice?

[Self-Owner]

I've studied quite a bit of logic. You, on the other hand, probably couldn't even prove the algebraic product rule (xy = yx).

At this point you're just embarrassing yourself. I think the 'algebraic product rule' (lol) you're talking about is called 'commutativity' by people who actually know what they're talking about. Not to mention the fact that virtually every commutative algebraic structure has commutativity built in as an axiom, which means that the proof would be a single line. But, given that you're talking of that which you know nothing, I don't expect you to know that.



The fact that the creators of the self-ownership theorem were profoundly wrong in their logic I think is a big detriment to the theorem.

As I've already said, I agree that the people who think that self-ownership is self evident are very much mistaken. That is not to say it's not true, though.


All axioms are not "true by definition." What Gödels incompleteness theorem showed is that, since all axiomatic systems are necessarily incomplete, provability within the system is NOT the same as truth. Euclidian Geometry without the parallel postulate is incomplete.

"
All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions ...
Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ... "

So, who are these mathematicians who say that axioms are the same thing as "truth." I've never heard the claim - especially since definitions are not self-proving.

With all due respect, you're really making yourself look like an idiot here. There is a difference between saying 'all axioms are true (by definition)' (which is true) and 'axioms are the same thing as truth' (which is either meaningless or false).

[IcarusAngel]

At this point you're just embarrassing yourself. I think the 'algebraic product rule' (lol) you're talking about is called 'commutativity' by people who actually know what they're talking about. Not to mention the fact that virtually every commutative algebraic structure has commutativity built in as an axiom, which means that the proof would be a single line.

This just proves you're a clown and can't even do basic arithmetic. It is often considered the "product rule" (Thompson, JE; algebra for the practical man) and is referred to that even in some college textbooks I believe.

And no, you can prove it even with simple algebraic techniques - anybody who's studied math up to, say, algebra I, could prove it. (I'll give the proof.)

You can't even do basic mathematics.



With all due respect, you're really making yourself look like an idiot here. There is a difference between saying 'all axioms are true (by definition)' (which is true) and 'axioms are the same thing as truth' (which is either meaningless or false).

Axioms are merely accepted as true, that's not the same thing as truth.

Timothy Gowers for example has made this clear - and he is a fields medalist.

[Self-Owner]

Then self-ownership , at best , is a misnomer. How do you derive a theory of ethics from self-ownership since its not axiomatic like Hoppe suggests it is?

Why is it a misnomer? I'm not sure, in fact, that there is a better name than 'self-ownership' for the principle that, well, all people are the morally rightful owners of themselves. Maybe that's just my bourgeois system of nomenclature shining through...

And I certainly don't claim that it's possible to derive a theory of ethics from self-ownership. As far as I'm concerned, self-ownership is a basic moral principle that delineates the boundaries of our (legitimate) interactions with others. That is to say, it's a moral principle on a basic level, and there are more levels above it. I certainly don't believe that it exhausts the entirety of moral space, or that anyone who respects the self-ownership of others is thereby necessarily a morally upstanding person. But it's more like a bare minimum.

[Dejavu]

^ Boring and OT ( I'm referring to both IA and SO)

[Self-Owner]

This just proves you're a clown and can't even do basic arithmetic. It is often considered the "product rule" (Thompson, JE; algebra for the practical man) and is referred to that even in some college textbooks I believe.

And no, you can prove it even with simple algebraic techniques - anybody who's studied math up to, say, algebra I, could prove it. (I'll give the proof.)

You can't even do basic mathematics.

Hahahaha... I'm not sure why I'm still responding at this point, but I have to say this is quite funny (and anyone who knows a thing about mathematics will see my point.) The product rule is a rule about how to work out the derivative of products of functions, not a restatement of the commutativity of the integers/reals/whatever else you're referring to. The fact that you even asked me to prove commutativity without referring to the kind of structure you're talking about just shows how little you know. Do you mean non-Abelian groups? How about a general ring? That's a shame, because commutativity is not true in either of these things.

[Self-Owner]

^ Boring and OT ( I'm referring to both IA and SO)

What, the bit where I answered your question?

[IcarusAngel]

If I prove it, with basic algebra, will you and Self-Indoctrinated shut up and admit you're idiots? Maybe I should have the 9th grader I tutor come in and solve the problem for "self-owner" - who claims to be a mathematician - it is after all a 9th grade problem.

I agree - your guys incessant trolling, vague claims, and misunderstandings of even Godels theorem is pretty annoying.

[Dejavu]

Why is it a misnomer? I'm not sure, in fact, that there is a better name than 'self-ownership' for the principle that, well, all people are the morally rightful owners of themselves. Maybe that's just my bourgeois system of nomenclature shining through...It seems meaningless to me. First of all , what is the 'self?' Second of all how is the self subject to ownership like an object? Sorry, but it implies a metaphysical duality since one cannot be logically the owner of a thing and simultaneously that same thing at the same time.

You would have to make a case that the 'self' is somehow separate from the body and show that you , indeed , are yourself with property rights, but your body is an external object, that somehow you are not your body as well.

If something is owned then it can be bought and sold , traded , and transference of property rights to another is valid ( assuming you believe in property rights which I think you do.) This would justify 'voluntary slavery' as an ethical consequence btw.

I don't know if you want to imply some super-natural or spiritual element to the 'self' which would claim that whatever you are is separate from the body you inhabit but that's really non answer and begs the question.

[Dejavu]

What, the bit where I answered your question?

Nope, the debate you are having with him about mathematics.

[IcarusAngel]

The product rule is a rule about how to work out the derivative of products of functions

It's how to work out the product of two differentiable functionsas the product is itself differentiable. Get your statements right.

It says the derivative of fg is the first times the derivative of the second, plus the second function times the derivative of the first.

But there is also a product rule in abstract algebra, in algebra, etc. In math, several operations often have the same name or similiar names - anybody who has studied it for two seconds knows this.

And you're supposed to be a "mathematician"?

[Dejavu]

If I prove it, with basic algebra, will you and Self-Indoctrinated shut up and admit you're idiots? Maybe I should have the 9th grader I tutor come in and solve the problem for "self-owner" - who claims to be a mathematician - it is after all a 9th grade problem.

I agree - your guys incessant trolling, vague claims, and misunderstandings of even Godels theorem is pretty annoying.

Wtf are you talking about? I'm not even really involved in that part of the discussion. When did I ever claim self-ownership is axiomatic or even has any meaning in this post?

I just briefly commented on quantum mechanics.

[IcarusAngel]

I just briefly commented on quantum mechanics.

That some mathematicial equations can't be broken down to the principles of arithmetic or algebra (shorthand arithmetic) proves that A=A is meaningless when commenting that "all mathematics are reducible" to the simplest statements, which is what I was arguing against.

[Dejavu]

Xy=Yx isn't true for quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics represents physical attributes using matricies and not just single integer digits or single numbers.

That's all I said.

[Self-Owner]

It seems meaningless to me. First of all , what is the 'self?' Second of all how is the self subject to ownership like an object? Sorry, but it implies a metaphysical duality since one cannot be logically the owner of a thing and simultaneously that same thing at the same time.

This is essentially Kant's argument against (the coherence of) self-ownership, and I don't think it works without begging the question. I just don't think that there is some general principle that says "one cannot be logically the owner of a thing and simultaneously that same thing at the same time." There are plenty of reflexive relations involving people, and there is no reason that ownership cannot be one of them. No metaphysical duality is therefore required (and indeed, someone like me who believes that everything is physical can interpret self-ownership as saying that each human body belongs to the person whose brain is inside it.)



If something is owned then it can be bought and sold , traded , and transference of property rights to another is valid ( assuming you believe in property rights which I think you do.) This would justify 'voluntary slavery' as an ethical consequence btw.

I'm not sure I'd demur from this consequence. Yeah, voluntary slavery is obviously a really bad thing to ever happen to someone. But the fact is that if someone (in their right mind, uncoerced, etc) decides that being enlisted into voluntary slavery, terrible as it is, is better than the alternative, I don't think we have any right to stop them from doing it.


I don't know if you want to imply some super-natural or spiritual element to the 'self' which would claim that whatever you are is separate from the body you inhabit but that's really non answer and begs the question.

Yeah, not at all.


Nope, the debate you are having with him about mathematics.

Agreed, it might not be interesting. I'll probably ignore him from now on.

[Self-Owner]

It's how to work out the product of two differentiable functionsas the product is itself differentiable. Get your statements right.

It says the derivative of fg is the first times the derivative of the second, plus the second function times the derivative of the first.

But there is also a product rule in abstract algebra, in algebra, etc. In math, several operations often have the same name or similiar names - anybody who has studied it for two seconds knows this.

And you're supposed to be a "mathematician"?

Yeah, this is pretty well a waste of time. Like they say, never argue with an idiot - they just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[IcarusAngel]

So you do not understand the product rule applies to differential functions, are unable to manipulate simple algebraic equations, and cannot find a single mathematician who's ever said that in math, axioms are self-evident truths, and now you want to give up the debate?

I can't imagine why, but I agree you were "beaten with experience."

[Dejavu]

http://www.chemistry.nmsu.edu/studntres/chem539/matrices.gif
Cleary you can see here that AB=/=BA in matrices used by quantum mechanics . IA, hope you understand better.

[Self-Owner]

Don't bother, I think the concept of a non-commutative algebra is beyond him.

[IcarusAngel]

That's matrix algebra. Basic matrix algebra. We use it in computer science all the time.

Self-owner is just getting more and more confused here- some "mathematician."

[Dejavu]

This is also referenced in my book Algorithms : Dr. Sanjoy Dasgupta on pg 303 discussing the quantum Fourier transform algorithim.

[Dejavu]

That's matrix algebra. Basic matrix algebra. We use it in computer science all the time.

Correct which means I was right.

But seriously , this is going way OT.

[IcarusAngel]

I didn't sy you were wrong.

I said applying the Incompleteness Theorems to axiomatic systems proves completeness is impossible and that axioms are not the same things as truth, which is proven.

I said the product rule applies to differentiable functions (Calculus, Larson, 117).

I said the product rule (or communicative law) can be proven using basic algebraic techniques and that nine year olds understand it.

And I said self-owner is full of shit. All true.

[Dejavu]

This is essentially Kant's argument against (the coherence of) self-ownership, and I don't think it works without begging the question. I just don't think that there is some general principle that says "one cannot be logically the owner of a thing and simultaneously that same thing at the same time." There are plenty of reflexive relations involving people, and there is no reason that ownership cannot be one of them. No metaphysical duality is therefore required (and indeed, someone like me who believes that everything is physical can interpret self-ownership as saying that each human body belongs to the person whose brain is inside it.)

You don't see that if an object is owned that it implies an external owner? Don't you see how ridiculous it is to say the same object in question is owned by itself? Surely your coffee table can never own itself can it?

My underlying point was that I don't see people as objects to be owned.

If we accepted the proposition that a human body is owned by the brain inside of it then questions arise. How is the brain not also part of the body? Who or what owns the brain? Is it not owned but the rest of the constituent parts of the body are? And what about a dead human being with a brain in it?





I'm not sure I'd demur from this consequence. Yeah, voluntary slavery is obviously a really bad thing to ever happen to someone. But the fact is that if someone (in their right mind, uncoerced, etc) decides that being enlisted into voluntary slavery, terrible as it is, is better than the alternative, I don't think we have any right to stop them from doing it. Well surely an appeal to consequences can be a logical fallacy and I acknowledge that. As far as the 'slave contract' is concerned its not enforceable in terms of extracting labor as soon as the 'slave' does not want to abide by the agreement anymore. Other than that I see the terms voluntary and slavery as contradictory.

I cover this in my blog (http://theanarchistman.blogspot.com/) under Inalienable Rights. Check it out if you want.

[Dejavu]

I didn't sy you were wrong.

I said applying the Incompleteness Theorems to axiomatic systems proves completeness is impossible and that axioms are not the same things as truth, which is proven.

I said the product rule applies to differentiable functions (Calculus, Larson, 117).

I said the product rule (or communicative law) can be proven using basic algebraic techniques and that nine year olds understand it.

And I said self-owner is full of shit. All true.

I never claimed axioms to be the same thing as truth. At best they are true by definition. I never even claimed now to adhere to self-ownership let alone derive ethics from it. I don't know why you were trying to cheap shot me with these arguments when clearly this is more of an argument directed at SO.

So try not being a dickhead and straw manning me , K? Good.

[Self-Owner]

You don't see that if an object is owned that it implies an external owner? Don't you see how ridiculous it is to say the same object in question is owned by itself? Surely your coffee table can never own itself can it?

My underlying point was that I don't see people as objects to be owned.

If we accepted the proposition that a human body is owned by the brain inside of it then questions arise. How is the brain not also part of the body? Who or what owns the brain? Is it not owned but the rest of the constituent parts of the body are? And what about a dead human being with a brain in it?

No, I simply don't see that it's absurd to say that people own themselves. Clear your mind of all preconceptions about the concept of ownership for a moment, and think in terms of moral rights. Self-ownership is just a way of saying that each person has a moral right over himself and his own body, in the sense that he can use it as he wishes, manage it as he wishes, profit from its labour, etc, all, of course, provided that in doing so he does not infringe on the rights of anyone else in the process. This can be stated without even mentioning 'ownership,' but the simple fact is that the easiest and most clear way of putting it is to say that people all own themselves in the sense of full liberal ownership. If you have some inexplicable urge to insist that ownership can only be a relationship between a person and some external object, fine, then why don't you recast the thesis of self-ownership in the moral terms I explained above.


Well surely an appeal to consequences can be a logical fallacy and I acknowledge that. As far as the 'slave contract' is concerned its not enforceable in terms of extracting labor as soon as the 'slave' does not want to abide by the agreement anymore. Other than that I see the terms voluntary and slavery as contradictory.

There's nothing 'contradictory' about the concept of voluntary slavery, once you realize that the 'voluntary' refers to a point in time when the person genuinely, freely agreed to the deal.

[trivas7]

Clear your mind of all preconceptions about the concept of ownership for a moment, and think in terms of moral rights. Self-ownership is just a way of saying that each person has a moral right over himself and his own body, in the sense that he can use it as he wishes, manage it as he wishes, profit from its labour, etc, all, of course, provided that in doing so he does not infringe on the rights of anyone else in the process. This can be stated without even mentioning 'ownership,' but the simple fact is that the easiest and most clear way of putting it is to say that people all own themselves in the sense of full liberal ownership.

Political economy draws a distinction bt liberty and property. Liberty is control over one's self. Property is control over something other than one's self. Self-ownership implies that there exists a self and something that owns that self. That mysterious owner is not the body nor any part of the body. Nobody considers a dead man's brain the owner of a corpse, any more than his liver or pancreas. Self-ownership is recursive idiocy. It is the irrational separation of the mind and body relegated to owner and the owned.

[Dejavu]

No, I simply don't see that it's absurd to say that people own themselves. Clear your mind of all preconceptions about the concept of ownership for a moment, and think in terms of moral rights. Self-ownership is just a way of saying that each person has a moral right over himself and his own body, in the sense that he can use it as he wishes, manage it as he wishes, profit from its labour, etc, all, of course, provided that in doing so he does not infringe on the rights of anyone else in the process.

This is why I called it a misnomer. I would argue that its not necessarily a 'right to' but a freedom from unjust coercion over one's person. Saying self-ownership in any kind of serious philosophical debate only begs the question and obligates you to define the self and ownership without appealing to teleology to have a substantive argument.


This can be stated without even mentioning 'ownership,' but the simple fact is that the easiest and most clear way of putting it is to say that people all own themselves in the sense of full liberal ownership.

I disagree. Claiming self-ownership in the liberal sense of ownership only adds an unnecessary layer to defining what rights are to be respected for an individual. I don't believe a person's existence necessitates that they must be 'owned' by someone or even themselves. Existence =/= property in other words.


If you have some inexplicable urge to insist that ownership can only be a relationship between a person and some external object, fine, then why don't you recast the thesis of self-ownership in the moral terms I explained above.I abandon the term of self-ownership and still stay consistent when discussing human rights.

See my blog (http://theanarchistman.blogspot.com/2009/04/inalienable-rights.html) for further elaboration.




There's nothing 'contradictory' about the concept of voluntary slavery, once you realize that the 'voluntary' refers to a point in time when the person genuinely, freely agreed to the deal.Then what do we define as slavery if not comparing a coerced action to a voluntary action? If a terms of labor service was voluntarily agreed upon then by definition its not slavery since slavery implies involuntary servitude.

As I mentioned before , a 'slave contract' is only enforceable in a dictatorship , be it state or private. This is something ancaps seem to miss when they hold up the ridiculous positions of Block and Hoppe. In a free, voluntary , society , there is no just way to enforce a 'slave contract' in terms of extracting involuntary labor as soon as the 'slave' does not want to abide by the 'contract' anymore.

[Self-Owner]

This is why I called it a misnomer. I would argue that its not necessarily a 'right to' but a freedom from unjust coercion over one's person. Saying self-ownership in any kind of serious philosophical debate only begs the question and obligates you to define the self and ownership without appealing to teleology to have a substantive argument.

I disagree. Claiming self-ownership in the liberal sense of ownership only adds an unnecessary layer to defining what rights are to be respected for an individual. I don't believe a person's existence necessitates that they must be 'owned' by someone or even themselves. Existence =/= property in other words.

You're letting the terminology go to your head, to some extent. Property rights just are rights of exclusive control, usage, etc, over some object. There is no fundamental distinction between a property right and any other kind of right you choose to talk about. You agree with me, presumably, that standing up in my chair is an action which I have every right to do; you therefore agree, presumably, that I have a right to do certain (innocuous to others) things with my own body. All that the thesis of self-ownership says is that the moral rights I have over my own body are unique, in that no one else shares them, and that they are very stringent, in that they correspond to pretty much full liberal ownership. Nothing in that description commits me to any controversial metaphysical doctrines whatsoever: I don't, to be honest, see what the problem is. If you agree with me that people do have all of these rights over their own bodies, but you still don't want to call this self-ownership, I can only conclude that the difference between us is purely terminological and not at all substantive.


Then what do we define as slavery if not comparing a coerced action to a voluntary action? If a terms of labor service was voluntarily agreed upon then by definition its not slavery since slavery implies involuntary servitude.

Whatever you call it, I think that allowing 'voluntary slavery' or 'voluntary servitude contracts' is not such a hard bullet to bite in the end. As far as I can tell, you're objecting more to the terminology again.


As I mentioned before , a 'slave contract' is only enforceable in a dictatorship , be it state or private. This is something ancaps seem to miss when they hold up the ridiculous positions of Block and Hoppe. In a free, voluntary , society , there is no just way to enforce a 'slave contract' in terms of extracting involuntary labor as soon as the 'slave' does not want to abide by the 'contract' anymore.

This is ridiculous; imagine you and I make a contract that says I will deliver 100 oranges to you next month at $1 an orange. Suppose in the meantime, the price of oranges goes up massively, meaning that I could get much more than £1 each for the 100 oranges I have put aside, if I were to sell them on the open market. I therefore don't want to abide by the contract any more. Are you seriously trying to say that only in a dictatorship this contract would be enforceable? On the contrary, without the possibility of enforcement, a contract is not a contract.

[Dejavu]

You're letting the terminology go to your head, to some extent. Property rights just are rights of exclusive control, usage, etc, over some object.

I'm not disputing that. But the key concept to consider here is that property rights apply to alienable things since property rights would also entail being justified in selling/buying things from other people. These things are alienable by definition. The human being or his human labor is not alienable from himself ( unless you can show me that this is empirically false), only the products of his labor are. I'll point out why this is important in a sec. The core concept to consider here is that since human labor or the human being himself cannot physiologically alienate these things from himself, property rights , in the liberal sense that you infer, do not apply to the human being or his energy.


There is no fundamental distinction between a property right and any other kind of right you choose to talk about.Next thing you're going to tell me is that all rights are property rights. :laugh:
I could be wrong of course , but if this is what you are implying it will be interesting for you to make a case for it. How do inalienable rights like liberty factor into this conception of property rights since property rights imply the ability to alienate things you own?


You agree with me, presumably, that standing up in my chair is an action which I have every right to do; you therefore agree, presumably, that I have a right to do certain (innocuous to others) things with my own body.We might arrive at the same conclusions but I would say as a premise that its not that you have a 'right to' liberty since I don't see how liberty can be an alienable object but rather you ought to have the freedom from unjust coercion. Me using force to prevent you from doing what you want with yourself and your chair would be unjust not because of your freedom to your actions but because of your freedom from my coercive actions.

It would be silly to say you ought to do X or whatever with your chair because you own it. You can do nothing with your chair and still not be considered immoral. You don't have a positive obligation to do X with your chair. Rather, I have the duty not to prevent you unjustly from doing something with your chair. I ought not use unjust coercion against you.


All that the thesis of self-ownership says is that the moral rights I have over my own body are unique, in that no one else shares them, and that they are very stringent, in that they correspond to pretty much full liberal ownership.Again, you are implying that rights are something you own but I don't see how that can be the case.

A. Rights are not a physical object, they are a concept and are not alienable by the standard definition of liberal property rights. Do you have ownership over a concept? Especially an ethical concept that people ought not murder other people? Are you going to tell me you own that?

B. You have no positive obligation to exercise rights.

C. Does it make more sense to say that people ought not unjustly coerce others? Its sensible to universalize a negative obligation because it does does not mandate that you must perform an action but rather refrain from enacting an unjust action.


Nothing in that description commits me to any controversial metaphysical doctrines whatsoever: I don't, to be honest, see what the problem is. If you agree with me that people do have all of these rights over their own bodies, but you still don't want to call this self-ownership, I can only conclude that the difference between us is purely terminological and not at all substantive.But it does since a reasonable question to ask is what is the 'self' and what is 'ownership?' If you manage to cross that bridge then you must explain if the 'self' is something that can be alienated from the individual and be bought and sold on the open market ( liberal property rights over something.)




Whatever you call it, I think that allowing 'voluntary slavery' or 'voluntary servitude contracts' is not such a hard bullet to bite in the end. As far as I can tell, you're objecting more to the terminology again.If you conflate slavery with voluntary service then would you say all people that perform voluntary services are slaves by definition? If not , please define slavery.



This is ridiculous; imagine you and I make a contract that says I will deliver 100 oranges to you next month at $1 an orange. Suppose in the meantime, the price of oranges goes up massively, meaning that I could get much more than £1 each for the 100 oranges I have put aside, if I were to sell them on the open market. I therefore don't want to abide by the contract any more. Are you seriously trying to say that only in a dictatorship this contract would be enforceable? On the contrary, without the possibility of enforcement, a contract is not a contract.I did not say contracts themselves are unenforceable, I said 'slave contracts' are. The reason why is because in order to validate a 'slave contract' one must make the case that a human being, as an existing entity, and/or his labor energy, is alienable from him and can be owned by someone else. Physiologically that's not possible. You have to think about what's implied in the contract!

If you make a contract with me to deliver $100 worth of oranges and you breach the contract then certainly I am entitled to compensation. But what's included in the compensation? Surely you cannot compensate me with something that is inalienable to you like yourself and your labor, only the products of your labor. I cannot claim you owe me your servitude or labor, rather , only a just compensation from the product of your labor, which is alienable. You don't owe me $100 worth of labor , you owe me $100 worth of oranges thus no case can be made that I may physically coerce you into working for me if you don't want to. ( To make me work for you still can be done through force , but that's back to good ol' authoritarian dictatorship, ancaps shoudl concede this point).

Hope that clears it up.