Who You Are

[Left-Reasoning]

A while ago we had a discussion on self-ownership which was countered by "you don't own yourself you are yourself" but this obscured the entire point. You are yourself of course. A is indeed A, as the Randroids would say. But self-ownership is about ownership of the body you control, which is not you, but I did not know how to adequately explain who "you" are. I recently came across this video however and it explains it precisely how I thought of it and still do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa8vfuLtGBs&feature=related

[Nolan]

The living human organism is a person. You can lose an arm or a leg or a kidney, but that doesn't change your living status. An arm is a part of you. If a car loses a headlight that doesn't change the fact that it is a working car. The headlight is a part of the car. Self-ownership is a flawed concept since I cannot own myself. It creates the problem of who I am if my body is simply my property. I am myself, my living organism. I cannot trade myself, because then where do I go? If I trade a house for something I find a new one. For this reason I'd say self-ownership implies the concept of a soul or some other extra-body owning unit. I would instead say there is a sovereignty of the human organism. Since the human organism is not property but a sovereign entity in itself, it is not enough to demand that it "own" itself. It must manage itself.

This is really just semantic bullshit from both sides anyway. It's pointless to go over this again.

[Left-Reasoning]

The living human organism is a person.

This is another case of semantics. I am not my body. I am my thoughts, feelings, emotions and memories. I am naturally fond of my body as I have a special connection with it but it is not me.

[Nolan]

I am not my body. I am my thoughts, feelings, emotions and memories.

Those are products of your body's processes. This is somewhat like saying the combustion in an ICE is not the car. It's a moot point.


I am naturally fond of my body as I have a special connection with it but it is not me.What are you then? Are you not the living, functioning organism on the other side of the screen? Keep in mind that the human organism is not necessarily the human body.

[LeftSideDown]

Those are products of your body's processes. This is somewhat like saying the combustion in an ICE is not the car. It's a moot point.

They do not have to be products of your body's processes. YOU even speak in terms of ownership over one's body (your body's). For instance, if there was a machine that could imitate human bodies so that your brain could reside within this machine, would you not be a human? Its not your "original" body, so can you be said to be you? If we use your criteria then no: without your body you do not exist. If you use mine you (for simplicity I'm going to limit it to the brain) can reside anywhere and still exist separate from your body.

[anticap]

I can't even be bothered anymore. I'll just start posting this link (http://sqworl.com/1b9dhv), which was compiled (and may be added to, over time) by db0 (http://dbzer0.com/). I haven't even bothered reading any of those refutations, having settled this "issue" for myself long ago; but I trust db0's judgment that they must be at least somewhat compelling.

Incidentally, this nonsense is rejected even by Randroids. Here's one:

ZTACCBJyhVA

This means that those of you who nod along understandingly to the unparalleled gibberish of "self-ownership" have relegated yourselves to an even more distant corner of Kooksville, relative to we revolutionary leftists, than followers of Ayn Fucking Rand.

May that give you pause.

[Skooma Addict]

Give this a look. It is long but very much worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mthDxnFXs9k

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

This is a stupid question as it says nothing about the issues which liberals or communists debate about. It is perfectly possible to believe in self ownership and follow any ideology under the sun.