Nobody really own anything at all, come to think of it.

[danyboy27]

I have been reading an interesting book written by david Graber and in it, there is an interesting sentence about the whole conception of absolute ownership.

he explain that nobody really own anything completely, beccause to be able to totally own something, you would have to have the right to to anything with it, including using it to harm other or to destruct other peoples proprety.

Somehow, the use of most of the tools and objects we own are restricted by society has a whole.

To think that we really own things is somehow absurd, since the use and ownership of our things are always somehow restricted by our social environnement.

[tir1944]

That really doesn't make much sense

[kapitalyst]

That really doesn't make much sense

No, it doesn't... I think this is a complete misunderstanding of liberty.

[RGacky3]

no one is talking about liberty its ownership.

[Zealot]

I own this banana, i bought it, I'm probably going to eat it rather than let it rot, and then tomorrow i'll shit it out.

But then again I'm not allowed to kill anyone with it so I probably don't really own it...?

I guess that means I don't even own myself, I smell philosophical BS.

[danyboy27]

I own this banana, i bought it, I'm probably going to eat it rather than let it rot, and then tomorrow i'll shit it out.

But then again I'm not allowed to kill anyone with it so I probably don't really own it...?

I guess that means I don't even own myself, I smell philosophical BS.

Its not philosophical, its a fact that you are restricted in what you could do with this banana.

Just like you would be restricted to use your chainsaw to cut all the three in your neigborhood without authorisations. you dont have complete unrestricted ownership on anything.


<
I guess that means I don't even own myself, I smell philosophical BS.
You dont really own yourself, since you are not a property.

[graymouser]

Property is a social relationship. That does not mean it doesn't exist; plenty of things have no more reality than "a social relationship" but still exist, still have form, and still change according to a certain logic and still shape people's lives. It's not as if there is some inherent property in the molecules of, say, my phone that makes it my property. But it is a socially determined fact that the phone belongs to me and no one else.

It's a very curious interpretation that because something is a social relationship, therefore it does not exist.

[Thirsty Crow]

no one is talking about liberty its ownership.
Which would be consistent with kapitalyst's notion of liberty :D

[danyboy27]

Property is a social relationship. That does not mean it doesn't exist; plenty of things have no more reality than "a social relationship" but still exist, still have form, and still change according to a certain logic and still shape people's lives. It's not as if there is some inherent property in the molecules of, say, my phone that makes it my property. But it is a socially determined fact that the phone belongs to me and no one else.

It's a very curious interpretation that because something is a social relationship, therefore it does not exist.

My bad i was a bit misleading in my thread title.
What i really meant was that, total unrestricted ownership on things dosnt really exist at all in society beccause our social environnement will always restrict what we can do with things in general.

[graymouser]

My bad i was a bit misleading in my thread title.
What i really meant was that, total unrestricted ownership on things dosnt really exist at all in society beccause our social environnement will always restrict what we can do with things in general.
But what would "total, unrestricted ownership" even mean? It's not a useful concept, since it is missing the obvious social component that creates ownership in the first place. In general, the social relationship of ownership is not extended indefinitely - is that your point here?

[danyboy27]

But what would "total, unrestricted ownership" even mean? It's not a useful concept, since it is missing the obvious social component that creates ownership in the first place.

Unrestricted ownership of a thing mean that someone could do whatever they want with it, including destroying it, using it to damage other peoples property, disturb peoples etc etc. Its total ownership.

[danyboy27]

In general, the social relationship of ownership is not extended indefinitely - is that your point here?

The degree of ownership of things depend verry much of the social environnement in wich we live.

that what i meant.

[kapitalyst]

Unrestricted ownership of a thing mean that someone could do whatever they want with it, including destroying it, using it to damage other peoples property, disturb peoples etc etc. Its total ownership.

This is simply wrong though. There isn't a restriction on the property. Our laws have made "restrictions" on how you can treat other people, whether it's with physical property or not. Harming someone through acts of aggression are not a liberties, but instead infringing upon other peoples' liberties -- attacking the sovereignty of other individuals.

And yes, people do own themselves. My body is my property. My mind is also my property. As an individual, sentient agent I possess individual-autonomy -- exclusive control over my mind, body and my life.

No "social component" or "social context" is needed to have property. It is also not needed to have liberty.

[danyboy27]

This is simply wrong though. There isn't a restriction on the property. Our laws have made "restrictions" on how you can treat other people, whether it's with physical property or not. Harming someone through acts of aggression are not a liberties, but instead infringing upon other peoples' liberties -- attacking the sovereignty of other individuals.

And yes, people do own themselves. My body is my property. My mind is also my property. As an individual, sentient agent I possess individual-autonomy -- exclusive control over my mind, body and my life.

No "social component" or "social context" is needed to have property. It is also not needed to have liberty.
This whole scheme of personnal ownership is what always justified slavery trought the ages.

After all, its with that concept that the europeans where able to legally get all those black slaves out of Africa working in the colony.
Those people owned themselves, they where not able to repay their debt, so they where enslaved to pay their debts.

ownership, in the case of living being implies that there are someone who dominate, and the other who is dominated, you cant be both within yourself.

You dont own yourself, you are yourself.

[Thirsty Crow]

And yes, people do own themselves. My body is my property. My mind is also my property. As an individual, sentient agent I possess individual-autonomy -- exclusive control over my mind, body and my life.

Then go ahread and sell your body for an unspecified amount of time to anybody who would like to do something, anything really (since property owners may do as they please with the objects they legally possess), and while you're at it, sell your mind as well. That should tell you whether your body is also "your property" or are you mab, just maybe, speaking about the relationship an individual fosters towards herself as merely analogous to that of the property owner and her property.



You dont own yourself, you are yourself.
Dany, didn't you get the memo? The order of the day is no longer "to be or to have?", but rather "to own is to be".

[graymouser]

No "social component" or "social context" is needed to have property. It is also not needed to have liberty.
Ownership only exists inside of a society. As I said earlier, there is nothing physical about my phone that makes it my property - aside from some stray skin cells from my hand that exist on it, which could also exist on someone else's phone if I borrowed that. My phone is mine because of a series of social agreements that extend ownership of objects to individuals.

If I were on a desert island with no other human, my ownership of my phone would not exist. I would possess it, but ownership would not be a meaningful thing - because I only own the phone inasmuch as I have exclusive access and control over it, relative to other people. This doesn't need to be a formal juridical relationship. If I am on the desert island with one other person, I could then "own" my phone if I had exclusive access to it by any means. That could be an understanding (tacit or verbal) that I would hit him with a rock if he takes the phone without my permission, or a negotiated contract ceding him one extra coconut each week for the exclusive use of the phone. But I only own the phone due to my relationship with him.

Property only makes sense as a social relationship. It is people who pull the veil back over social relations who want to disguise it as anything else.

[kapitalyst]

Then go ahread and sell your body for an unspecified amount of time to anybody who would like to do something, anything really (since property owners may do as they please with the objects they legally possess), and while you're at it, sell your mind as well. That should tell you whether your body is also "your property" or are you mab, just maybe, speaking about the relationship an individual fosters towards herself as merely analogous to that of the property owner and her property.


Actually, I could sell my body and my mind. I'm sure there's some sick organ-harvester somewhere who'd make me a good offer. But no thanks... Maybe renting it through prostitution would be a more moderate alternative. :lol:

You don't have to be able to sell to own, even though you could. You could even sell yourself into slavery. Again, stupid idea but quite possible.

[danyboy27]

Actually, I could sell my body and my mind. I'm sure there's some sick organ-harvester somewhere who'd make me a good offer. But no thanks... Maybe renting it through prostitution would be a more moderate alternative. :lol:
You don't have to be able to sell to own, even though you could. You could even sell yourself into slavery. Again, stupid idea but quite possible.

does that mean it would be okay to own slave again? do you think it would be a good thing?

[xub3rn00dlex]

Actually, I could sell my body and my mind. I'm sure there's some sick organ-harvester somewhere who'd make me a good offer. But no thanks... Maybe renting it through prostitution would be a more moderate alternative. :lol:

You don't have to be able to sell to own, even though you could. You could even sell yourself into slavery. Again, stupid idea but quite possible.

You mean we don't already sell ourselves into some extent of slavery through "non compensated internships?" You can't sell your mind, your brain yes. It's a physical object, but you cannot sell your mind my friend ( don't really want to diverge the thread into a philosophical discussion about mind vs. brain blah blah blah. )

BTW, what's your hourly rate?:tt2:

[kapitalyst]

does that mean it would be okay to own slave again? do you think it would be a good thing?

No... where did you get this from? :confused:



You mean we don't already sell ourselves into some extent of slavery through "non compensated internships?" You can't sell your mind, your brain yes. It's a physical object, but you cannot sell your mind my friend ( don't really want to diverge the thread into a philosophical discussion about mind vs. brain blah blah blah. )

Ahhh... are we acknowledging there may be something to human consciousness -- in our own way? :thumbup1:

"The mind" is just an abstraction for our consciousness. True, you can't "sell" that. A guy did sell his soul in a bottle on eBay once, though. :lol:



BTW, what's your hourly rate? :tt2:


:tt2: <-- Yes, yes, I like that, daddy! </marketing ploy>

Now that depends... on which end you want... the carnal pleasures of the butt are going to cost ya! LOL!

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Zealot]

Unrestricted ownership is essentially being equated to unrestricted violation of what other people own. Chopping down someone's tree with my chainsaw doesn't make my chainsaw any more "owned" than it was before, I just violated someone elses right to have ownership over something.

[danyboy27]

No... where did you get this from? :confused:

if you think a human being can sell his freedom away, why wouldnt be okay for a human being of owning other human being who relinquished their freedom to, lets say pay their debts?

[danyboy27]

Unrestricted ownership is essentially being equated to unrestricted violation of what other people own. Chopping down someone's tree with my chainsaw doesn't make my chainsaw any more "owned" than it was before, I just violated someone elses right to have ownership over something.

you still got restrictions of what you can do with your chainsaw.

Some societies might not have a beef with you using it that way.

[Bud Struggle]

I own my land. No mortages for me.

So: step off.

[GatesofLenin]

If I owned a banana, I would do this:

- peel banana
- count how many members are here
- cut banana equally to the number of members here and share my banana with all comrades here! :thumbup1:

[kapitalyst]

if you think a human being can sell his freedom away, why wouldnt be okay for a human being of owning other human being who relinquished their freedom to, lets say pay their debts?

No one is talking about actual slavery in the real world. Just in theory. Just that it's possible. Not that it should be done.

What you're talking about is basically indentured servitude or debt bondage. Similar to slavery, but not the same thing.

[kapitalyst]

If I owned a banana, I would do this:

- peel banana
- count how many members are here
- cut banana equally to the number of members here and share my banana with all comrades here! :thumbup1:

I'd do the same if we were all hungry, and I'm a dirty capitalist of the gulags! :thumbup1:

However, if we were starving -- assuming the banana could only sustain one person until rescue -- then don't lie... you'd pull out the Makarov, declare us all traitors to the Motherland and execute us on the spot! :lol:

[danyboy27]

No one is talking about actual slavery in the real world. Just in theory. Just that it's possible. Not that it should be done.

What you're talking about is basically indentured servitude or debt bondage. Similar to slavery, but not the same thing.

If you can own another human being, no matter what the terms are, Its slavery.
Therefore, if you dont have any problem with human owning human, you advocate some form of slavery.

either human are commodities or not, make up your mind.

[kapitalyst]

If you can own another human being, no matter what the terms are, Its slavery.
Therefore, if you dont have any problem with human owning human, you advocate some form of slavery.

either human are commodities or not, make up your mind.

Honestly, what are you talking about? :rolleyes:

Do you have trouble understanding what you read?

[danyboy27]

Honestly, what are you talking about? :rolleyes:

Do you have trouble understanding what you read?

I was hoping you would understand my question, i will try to rephrase it.

Do you think human being are commodities?

[kapitalyst]

I was hoping you would understand my question, i will try to rephrase it.

Do you think human being are commodities?

Of course not. Corn, eggs, copper and cattle are commodities. Not humans.

I understood your question. What I don't understand is why you're asking me this. As if there's any reason to question my stance on slavery. I said absolutely nothing in support of slavery.

[danyboy27]

Of course not. Corn, eggs, copper and cattle are commodities. Not humans.

I understood your question. What I don't understand is why you're asking me this. As if there's any reason to question my stance on slavery. I said absolutely nothing in support of slavery.

You cant sell yourself then.

[kapitalyst]

You cant sell yourself then.

Actually, I could if I really wanted to. This isn't a matter of law or morality.

This is like saying that I couldn't kill someone because murder is wrong. Yes, it is but I could.

[danyboy27]

Actually, I could if I really wanted to. This isn't a matter of law or morality.

This is like saying that I couldn't kill someone because murder is wrong. Yes, it is but I could.

you agree that human are commodities then.

[kapitalyst]

you agree that human are commodities then.

Is plumbing a commodity? A song? sex? a savings bond? a dollar? No. None of those things are commodities, yet they could all be bought and sold. Something doesn't have to be a commodity to be sold.

I say humans aren't commodities because I'm against slavery. Not everyone is though. Humans used to be treated like commodities, and people actually sold themselves into slavery -- sometimes to get money for their family, or for another reason.

The point of the discussion was that it CAN be done. Not whether it is right or wrong. You missed that, I suppose.

Anyone want to help him out?

[danyboy27]

Is plumbing a commodity? A song? sex? a savings bond? a dollar? No. None of those things are commodities, yet they could all be bought and sold. Something doesn't have to be a commodity to be sold.

I say humans aren't commodities because I'm against slavery. Not everyone is though. Humans used to be treated like commodities, and people actually sold themselves into slavery -- sometimes to get money for their family, or for another reason.

The point of the discussion was that it CAN be done. Not whether it is right or wrong. You missed that, I suppose.

Anyone want to help him out?
if its not about right or wrong, why did we abolished slavery then.

[Robert]

I imagine there are some things that we own completely. I personally haven't found any.

Because there's always a slight "catch" somewhere.

Too often your stuff ends up owning you.:lol:

[kapitalyst]

if its not about right or wrong, why did we abolished slavery then.

The discussion was not about right or wrong. I'm utterly bewildered as to how you can't understand this. If English is not your first language, forgive me. Otherwise, I guess some comrades are thinkers and some should do their thinking with a hammer and nail. :lol:

I'm going to try one more time... What we were discussing was whether or not it is possible for one to sell themselves into slavery. Not whether slavery was right or wrong (of course it's wrong... a 6-year-old could tell us this). And the fact is that not only is it possible, but it has happened before.

Your argument that you can't sell yourself because we don't consider humans commodities is simply incorrect. And commodities are not the only thing that can be bought and sold. How about this... Do you think people are targets? No, of course not. But could a human be treated as a target and shot with a bow and arrow or gun? Certainly... that is completely possible (and has also happened before). Your argument is like saying it's not possible for one person to shoot another person because people aren't targets. Totally false...

[xub3rn00dlex]

Actually, if you ask me, technically speaking you can't sell yourself. You can however, sell your service which is different than actually being enslaved. You can say, agree to mow the lawn for 3 weeks in exchange for being cleared of a broken window you may have caused. When you prostitute for example as kappie points out ( or rent, whatever ) you are not selling yourself, or your body. You are selling a service, which is sex. It is not slavery unless person A actually OWNS person B and has complete control over their freedom. Then again no one asked me :crying:

If we were all stranded, I'd divide the banana between us all fellow comrades, and then go fucking fishing. :cool:

[danyboy27]

The discussion was not about right or wrong. I'm utterly bewildered as to how you can't understand this. If English is not your first language, forgive me. Otherwise, I guess some comrades are thinkers and some should do their thinking with a hammer and nail. :lol:

I'm going to try one more time... What we were discussing was whether or not it is possible for one to sell themselves into slavery. Not whether slavery was right or wrong (of course it's wrong... a 6-year-old could tell us this). And the fact is that not only is it possible, but it has happened before.

Your argument that you can't sell yourself because we don't consider humans commodities is simply incorrect. And commodities are not the only thing that can be bought and sold. How about this... Do you think people are targets? No, of course not. But could a human be treated as a target and shot with a bow and arrow or gun? Certainly... that is completely possible (and has also happened before). Your argument is like saying it's not possible for one person to shoot another person because people aren't targets. Totally false...
Of course its possible to enslave people.
All i am saying is that in the past, the whole concept of self-ownership you seem to be in agreement with was used has a moral justification for slavery and is still used today to justify capitalism.

[kapitalyst]

Actually, if you ask me, technically speaking you can't sell yourself. You can however, sell your service which is different than actually being enslaved. You can say, agree to mow the lawn for 3 weeks in exchange for being cleared of a broken window you may have caused. When you prostitute for example as kappie points out ( or rent, whatever ) you are not selling yourself, or your body. You are selling a service, which is sex. It is not slavery unless person A actually OWNS person B and has complete control over their freedom. Then again no one asked me :crying:


You're actually correct. You could sell yourself into slavery though. Which is what I was saying. It has actually happened.

What we should consider prostitution is up for debate, imho. You could argue that it's a sexual service... or you could argue that it's basically "renting" the body so someone else can use it for sexual pleasure. Which raises an interesting question... is it theft to rape a prostitute? :lol:



If we were all stranded, I'd divide the banana between us all fellow comrades, and then go fucking fishing. :cool:

:thumbup1:

[danyboy27]

Actually, if you ask me, technically speaking you can't sell yourself. You can however, sell your service which is different than actually being enslaved. You can say, agree to mow the lawn for 3 weeks in exchange for being cleared of a broken window you may have caused. When you prostitute for example as kappie points out ( or rent, whatever ) you are not selling yourself, or your body. You are selling a service, which is sex. It is not slavery unless person A actually OWNS person B and has complete control over their freedom. Then again no one asked me :crying:

If we were all stranded, I'd divide the banana between us all fellow comrades, and then go fucking fishing. :cool:
giving services is basically renting yourself for a fixed amount of time or labor.
its based on the same framework than slavery, and cant be morally justifiable unless the whole concept of self-ownership is involved.

[xub3rn00dlex]

You're actually correct. You could sell yourself into slavery though. Which is what I was saying. It has actually happened.

Theoretically yes you could, but I do believe most nations actually have laws preventing that now unlike the past which is what I assume you are referring to.



What we should consider prostitution is up for debate, imho. You could argue that it's a sexual service... or you could argue that it's basically "renting" the body so someone else can use it for sexual pleasure.

What do you mean? Prostitution the way I understand it is still labor. It is still performing a service for a wage which involves "renting" out your body. There is a demand for sex, and there always will be. In turn, there will always be a supply for sex.


Which raises an interesting question... is it theft to rape a prostitute? :lol:


Rape is rape, inexcusable. I see how you're being technical about it though.


giving services is basically renting yourself for a fixed amount of time or labor.
its based on the same framework than slavery, and cant be morally justifiable unless the whole concept of self-ownership is involved.

But why can't it be justifiable without the concept of self-ownership?

And it's based on the same framework as slavery if present in a capitalist economy. In a communist economy, you will still be performing services, and renting yourself to the commune to better it. Does that mean that it still is based on the same framework as slavery in communism?

[kapitalyst]

Theoretically yes you could, but I do believe most nations actually have laws preventing that now unlike the past which is what I assume you are referring to.


Again, we're discussing possibility... not morality or laws. Murder is illegal and immoral, but it's not impossible and happens all the time. That's my point. Simply that it can be done, despite immorality or illegality.



What do you mean? Prostitution the way I understand it is still labor. It is still performing a service for a wage which involves "renting" out your body. There is a demand for sex, and there always will be. In turn, there will always be a supply for sex.


There always will be a demand for sex, correct... if there's ever a time where there's no demand for it, then there would be no people! :lol:



Rape is rape, inexcusable. I see how you're being technical about it though.


Of course. I think rape is one of the most disgusting crimes imaginable. But again, we're talking in hypothetical terms. ;)

[xub3rn00dlex]

Again, we're discussing possibility... not morality or laws. Murder is illegal and immoral, but it's not impossible and happens all the time. That's my point. Simply that it can be done, despite immorality or illegality.

Well I guess I over thought your point. Immorality is subjective though is it not?


There always will be a demand for sex, correct... if there's ever a time where there's no demand for it, then there would be no people! :lol:
True. But I was motioning more towards sex as a service, not as a necessity. Sexual laborers will always be in demand is more of what I was getting at.

[danyboy27]

But why can't it be justifiable without the concept of self-ownership?

And it's based on the same framework as slavery if present in a capitalist economy. In a communist economy, you will still be performing services, and renting yourself to the commune to better it. Does that mean that it still is based on the same framework as slavery in communism?

Beccause without the concept of self-ownership , any degree of slavery would lose its moral justification.

Communism aim at allowing people to be themselves without the need to live without the need to sell themselves into slavery.

the whole concept is radically different.

[RGacky3]

And yes, people do own themselves. My body is my property. My mind is also my property. As an individual, sentient agent I possess individual-autonomy -- exclusive control over my mind, body and my life.


Then who are you?

[danyboy27]

any kind of Slavery couldnt survive without some kind of moral justification, and that why chattel slavery was abolished, beccause eventually the perpetrator ran out of moral argument to continue further.

renting ourselves is just a limited form of slavery and the only moral arguments today to justify such practice are basically the same that justified slavery in the first place.

[Tenka]

Then who are you?
Good question.

kapitalyst:

As an individual, sentient agent I possess individual-autonomy -- exclusive control over my mind, body and my life.
There's also the issue of this being patently false. No person possesses "exclusive control" over their own mind, body or life -- this sort of control is just not possible when one lives in and is moulded by a society, when one's genes and environment determine so much of how one's body looks, what illnesses and injuries they are prone to, etc.
Though I believe individual autonomy to be a lie, it is far more realistic than the claim that we possess "exclusive control" over our minds, bodies and lives.

[kapitalyst]

Good question.

I am consciousness... awareness of thought. I am me. :)



There's also the issue of this being patently false. No person possesses "exclusive control" over their own mind, body or life -- this sort of control is just not possible when one lives in and is moulded by a society, when one's genes and environment determine so much of how one's body looks, what illnesses and injuries they are prone to, etc.
Though I believe individual autonomy to be a lie, it is far more realistic than the claim that we possess "exclusive control" over our minds, bodies and lives.

Nothing you've said contradicts individual autonomy or what I've said. Being influenced by society does not constitute control. I am the only one who can move my arm, and I control what I think about. I control where I go and what I do there. If I wanted to, I could put on a tinfoil cap and shut out all influence of society and live in a hole in the woods. Injuries and illness? WTH does that have to do with anything? No one claimed immortality.



Beccause without the concept of self-ownership , any degree of slavery would lose its moral justification.

Communism aim at allowing people to be themselves without the need to live without the need to sell themselves into slavery.

the whole concept is radically different.


Self-ownership actually holds slavery immoral. You can't go into someone's home and take them captive and use them as a slave -- you're violating their rights. Even when you are a slave and someone claims to own you, they actually do not truly own you. You are only a captive, unjustly held by another person who falsely claims ownership of you. It's like if someone kidnaps a child and then claims it's their child... no, the child is still the child of his/her true parents. Self-ownership is inalienable.

[EvilRedGuy]

Fuck ownership. Personal or private property. Abolish it both!

If some rich fuck had a large house and the rest of the world where houseless would it matter if he owned it? No... because the rest are gonna live inside whether you agree or not anyway.

[trivas7]

And yes, people do own themselves. My body is my property. My mind is also my property. As an individual, sentient agent I possess individual-autonomy -- exclusive control over my mind, body and my life.

Nonsense. You are your body/mind; they not a sanction some agent (the soul?) can dispose of.

[danyboy27]

Self-ownership actually holds slavery immoral. You can't go into someone's home and take them captive and use them as a slave -- you're violating their rights. Even when you are a slave and someone claims to own you, they actually do not truly own you. You are only a captive, unjustly held by another person who falsely claims ownership of you. It's like if someone kidnaps a child and then claims it's their child... no, the child is still the child of his/her true parents. Self-ownership is inalienable.

If the guy put his children or his own freedom has a loan for a certain sum of money and the debtor cannot pay back, it would be justified to forcefully enslave him and his children for a fixed amount of time.

It would make sense, after all, the guy own his freedom and own his child until he/she reach maturity.

Of course all of this wouldnt make sense at all without the claim of self-ownership.

[RGacky3]

I am consciousness... awareness of thought. I am me. http://www.revleft.com/vb/nobody-really-own-t162529/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif


Consciousness is thoughts, and your thoughts come from your brain, and your brain works because of your heart, which gets oxygen from your lungs and so on and so forth.

This idea of OWNing youself is just bullshit semantics to create a philisophical basis for capitalist ownership, and its bullshit becuase you ARE yourself.

[kapitalyst]

If the guy put his children or his own freedom has a loan for a certain sum of money and the debtor cannot pay back, it would be justified to forcefully enslave him and his children for a fixed amount of time.

It would make sense, after all, the guy own his freedom and own his child until he/she reach maturity.

Of course all of this wouldnt make sense at all without the claim of self-ownership.

I hope you're kidding... :rolleyes:



Consciousness is thoughts, and your thoughts come from your brain, and your brain works because of your heart, which gets oxygen from your lungs and so on and so forth.

Obviously not, because to be conscious you must be aware of your thoughts and existence. A machine or computer program can have thoughts on-the-fly. But it is not self-aware or conscious.



This idea of OWNing youself is just bullshit semantics to create a philisophical basis for capitalist ownership, and its bullshit becuase you ARE yourself.

You call a lot of things "semantics" which have nothing to do with semantics or are just rejections of your own ideas or incorrect/biased word-play... How about "you can't own yourself because you are yourself" for semantics and word-play? :rolleyes:

Self-ownership, or individual autonomy, doesn't "justify" capitalism and is not intended to. You can hold true the principle and be a communist or socialist too.

So what...? Am I "communal property"? Or do I indeed have control of myself, and you don't? It's definitely the latter.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, seeing as how if you murder someone you will go to jail, how if you do something disgusting to ethics you will be ostracized or punished, how you will change your path if offered the right advice, etc, etc, etc...
I would say you are communal property. :thumbup1:

Besides, at best you rent yourself. One day your time is up, and it is over. Bye bye. And you can't take anything with you. On that big day, we all repay our debts to the void :thumbup1:

[danyboy27]

I hope you're kidding... :rolleyes:

No i am not. this has happened in the past in Both mesopotamia and colonial Africa. It was only Possible beccause of the moral concept of self-ownership.

The reason why people are so revolted by killing and kidnapping is beccause it reduce humans to commodity, mere objects that can be killed, raped or tortured, not beccause of some concept of self ownership.

[Judicator]

renting ourselves is just a limited form of slavery and the only moral arguments today to justify such practice are basically the same that justified slavery in the first place.

I suppose then any contract is a limited form of slavery, since you are forced to hold up your end of the bargain, and argument used to justify slavery are basically the same as arguments used to justify contracts :laugh:

[danyboy27]

I suppose then any contract is a limited form of slavery, since you are forced to hold up your end of the bargain, and argument used to justify slavery are basically the same as arguments used to justify contracts :laugh:
Not all contract implies the exchange or renting of human being.

If i sign a contract with you that for 10 apples you give me a chair, no human being are swapped in the process.

If i sign a contract forcing me to give you a back massage in exchange for 10 bucks for a year, the mechanism is indeed similar to slavery beccause i effectively rent myself to you in exchange for a commodity, in that case money.

Contracts are usually a way to reinforce the power relation between the weak and the strong. Between two relatively equals human being contracts are more or less an insult.

would you ask your neighbor who is on the same social ladder than you to sign a contract before he is allowed to borrow you a shovel, would you ask your sister a contract to allow her to borrow you your second car?

Exchange of human services between 2 relatively equal individual work on the same basis; I help you to clean your garage beccause i know you would do the same for me, beccause i trust you and you trust me.

[kapitalyst]

No i am not. this has happened in the past in Both mesopotamia and colonial Africa. It was only Possible beccause of the moral concept of self-ownership.

The reason why people are so revolted by killing and kidnapping is beccause it reduce humans to commodity, mere objects that can be killed, raped or tortured, not beccause of some concept of self ownership.

That had NOTHING to do with self-ownership. People didn't believe in the principle back then, and if they did, they wouldn't have wanted to have slaves. If you believe in self-ownership, you would hold slavery to be immoral an evil. For one man cannot truly own another man... he really belongs only to himself -- and owes nothing to anyone.

We had slavery in the past because some people didn't give a flying shit about other people. Not because of a philosophical principle. Please... Some people viewed other races as "inferior" or "sub-human" (or even completely "not human") to try to "justify" slavery. When Hitler was rounding up Jews and using them for factory slave labor, I don't think he was advancing the principle of self-ownership... :rolleyes:



Well, seeing as how if you murder someone you will go to jail, how if you do something disgusting to ethics you will be ostracized or punished, how you will change your path if offered the right advice, etc, etc, etc...
I would say you are communal property. :thumbup1:


And none of this contradicts the principle in the least. :)

Self-ownership does not imply invincibility... that's almost as absurd as saying you can't own a cell phone because it can be destroyed or stolen. The acceptance of society is also irrelevant. And I suppose if you do really sick things you don't care about society's rules anyway. Accepting advice? I mean, that's the worst example of them all. Accepting advice is totally a choice, even if the influence to do so is strong. Again, one can put on a tin foil cap and live under a rock if they want... shut out all influences and be bizarre and weird. We choose to live among others, or we would run away into the woods. :lol:

You're struggling, I see, to maintain the idea that individuals are of virtually no importance... that, per the collectivist dogma, an individual can be sacrificed for "society" and "the greater good". I know you don't have a malicious bone in your body, but think about the implications. Come to the light side, comrade! :cool:



Besides, at best you rent yourself. One day your time is up, and it is over. Bye bye. And you can't take anything with you. On that big day, we all repay our debts to the void :thumbup1:


We're renters? So this should be self-rentership? :lol:

Nah... Owning something doesn't mean you'll have it forever. And so it is with life. Heck, I own this cigarette in my hand but I won't after I'm done smoking it. I also own a car, but even if I tried to keep it forever I'd eventually die and it would go to my family.

And on top of this, I'm not an atheist. So I think there's more to it than just dying and being eternally extinguished anyway. :)

[Revolution starts with U]

That had NOTHING to do with self-ownership. People didn't believe in the principle back then, and if they did, they wouldn't have wanted to have slaves. If you believe in self-ownership, you would hold slavery to be immoral an evil. For one man cannot truly own another man... he really belongs only to himself -- and owes nothing to anyone.

Wait.. I thought it was an inallienable right? So, is it a right, or a principle?
One man cannot truly own another person... but (the type of) ownership (you are relating this to) implies the right to dispose of it as you see fit. How are you going to enforce this restriction of property rights?



And none of this contradicts the principle in the least. :)

Self-ownership does not imply invincibility... that's almost as absurd as saying you can't own a cell phone because it can be destroyed or stolen. The acceptance of society is also irrelevant. And I suppose if you do really sick things you don't care about society's rules anyway. Accepting advice? I mean, that's the worst example of them all. Accepting advice is totally a choice, even if the influence to do so is strong. Again, one can put on a tin foil cap and live under a rock if they want... shut out all influences and be bizarre and weird. We choose to live among others, or we would run away into the woods. :lol:

So you would agree that there are times when you cannot dispose of your property as you see fit?

You're struggling, I see, to maintain the idea that individuals are of virtually no importance...
I appreciate you thinking you know what is good for me, but forgive me if I only follow advice I consider sagely :lol:


that, per the collectivist dogma, an individual can be sacrificed for "society" and "the greater good". I know you don't have a malicious bone in your body, but think about the implications. Come to the light side, comrade! :cool:

I'm not Jesus. I have to try to be non-malicous, just like the rest of you. I work very hard at it ;)
Sometimes the individual (Hitler) must be sacrificed for the greater good. I am with you in trying to minimize that as much as possible. But to act like it is not a necessity is naive and dangerous.



We're renters? So this should be self-rentership? :lol:

Nah... Owning something doesn't mean you'll have it forever. And so it is with life. Heck, I own this cigarette in my hand but I won't after I'm done smoking it. I also own a car, but even if I tried to keep it forever I'd eventually die and it would go to my family.

But the important difference is that you cannot decide when to dispose of it. Only "god" or time can decide for you. Time, my friend, is the only true owner of anything. Time disposes of its property where and when it wants. :thumbup1:



And on top of this, I'm not an atheist. So I think there's more to it than just dying and being eternally extinguished anyway. :)
Im not an atheist either. And without sufficient evidence I would never argue that death MUST BE the end. But still, we all pay our debts to God, the unknowable unkown, I AM who cannot be named. And for the rest of us, until our day of death, that's it for you. You're gone, for good.

[GatesofLenin]

I'd do the same if we were all hungry, and I'm a dirty capitalist of the gulags! :thumbup1:

However, if we were starving -- assuming the banana could only sustain one person until rescue -- then don't lie... you'd pull out the Makarov, declare us all traitors to the Motherland and execute us on the spot! :lol:

Sure you would, you must be a job-creator your type loves to talk about all the time.

[danyboy27]

That had NOTHING to do with self-ownership. People didn't believe in the principle back then, and if they did, they wouldn't have wanted to have slaves. If you believe in self-ownership, you would hold slavery to be immoral an evil. For one man cannot truly own another man... he really belongs only to himself -- and owes nothing to anyone.

If one human cannot own another human, how can he sell himself into slavery to other then?
Most slaves in Mesopotamia where debt slaves, people who had trouble getting by, contracted a loan on their freedom and eventually had to sell their family and themselves to rich master beccause they where unable to pay the interests.

The rich folks didnt had to get into people houses and kidnapp people illegally, they had legal contracts stipulating that the farmer x had to sell himself to him if he wasnt able to pay off the loan.

Without self ownership, how else could someone sell himself to a rich man in exchange of an interest bearing loan?



We had slavery in the past because some people didn't give a flying shit about other people. Not because of a philosophical principle. Please... Some people viewed other races as "inferior" or "sub-human" (or even completely "not human") to try to "justify" slavery. When Hitler was rounding up Jews and using them for factory slave labor, I don't think he was advancing the principle of self-ownership... :rolleyes:


It had nothing to do with that. Murder was a criminal offense in mespoptamia, same goes for assault, theft,forced slavery, destruction of someone else property. If the ancients civilisation didnt cared about other peoples, how come these laws where extented to everyone, from the poor to the rich? Slavery was justified by self-ownership. Even prisoniers of war in this era had the choice between killing themselve and getting enslaved. they didnt just took all those prisonniers and put them into slavery, those folks often had the choice and it was considered a conscious choice from their part to live and be a slave. It was all about self ownership.



Hitler was not really interested in slavery, he just wanted to kill all the jews. It was his corporate buddies of IG farben you really where interested in making money off slave labor.

[kapitalyst]

Wait.. I thought it was an inallienable right? So, is it a right, or a principle?

There are both. "All men are created equal" is a principle. Freedom of speech is a right. They accompany one another.



One man cannot truly own another person... but (the type of) ownership (you are relating this to) implies the right to dispose of it as you see fit. How are you going to enforce this restriction of property rights?


I haven't said that self-ownership is exactly like owning an inanimate object or, say, a cow. By the very nature of the matter, there are some differences -- and some similarities.

What restriction? Enforce what? Libertarians tend to think we should "go enforcer on yo azz" as little as possible. :D



So you would agree that there are times when you cannot dispose of your property as you see fit?


Of course. What if I want to sell my watch, but there are no people around? Or what if I own a mountain, and someone wants to buy... how could I get it to the market or deliver it? :lol:



I appreciate you thinking you know what is good for me, but forgive me if I only follow advice I consider sagely :lol:


And I appreciate you thinking you know what is good for me. :lol:



I'm not Jesus. I have to try to be non-malicous, just like the rest of you. I work very hard at it ;)
Sometimes the individual (Hitler) must be sacrificed for the greater good. I am with you in trying to minimize that as much as possible. But to act like it is not a necessity is naive and dangerous.


Of course we sometimes have to kill or take action against individuals (e.g., Hitler) who pose a threat of violence or other harm. That wasn't what I was talking about, and I think you knew that. ;)



But the important difference is that you cannot decide when to dispose of it. Only "god" or time can decide for you. Time, my friend, is the only true owner of anything. Time disposes of its property where and when it wants. :thumbup1:


People who've committed suicide would disagree... wait, no they wouldn't -- they disposed of themselves. :)



Im not an atheist either. And without sufficient evidence I would never argue that death MUST BE the end. But still, we all pay our debts to God, the unknowable unkown, I AM who cannot be named. And for the rest of us, until our day of death, that's it for you. You're gone, for good.

Fair enough. :thumbup1:

[graymouser]

I am consciousness... awareness of thought. I am me. :)
Well, that answers nothing. As far as we can tell, you are indistinguishable from your body.


Nothing you've said contradicts individual autonomy or what I've said. Being influenced by society does not constitute control. I am the only one who can move my arm, and I control what I think about. I control where I go and what I do there. If I wanted to, I could put on a tinfoil cap and shut out all influence of society and live in a hole in the woods. Injuries and illness? WTH does that have to do with anything? No one claimed immortality.
Well, this is kind of a mess, and I wanted to discuss it a bit.

You are not the only one who can move your arm. There are several ways to move your arm without your volitional control. Someone stronger than you could move your arm against your will. Heck, when you're asleep someone weaker than you can move it. A doctor could move your arm by several ways; either by inducing a reflex action, or by applying an electrical current at a certain place in your brain, I'm sure they could actually cause your arm to move without your choosing. This also brings up a question: if "you" are the one who moves your arm, and you develop a nervous twitch that causes your arm to have a spasm, "who" is moving your arm? "Consciousness" is not doing it. So you really aren't "consciousness."

Who you are is determined by the society you grew up in. You speak English and not the Akkadian language of ancient Assyria because you were born in a particular society and raised to speak a particular language. You have grown up in this society and absorbed its ideas from every angle, from a very young age. All your beliefs and ideas exist firmly in the context of your society. You believe in property because you live in a society of commodity-producers. If you lived in a neolithic hunter-gatherer tribe you wouldn't believe in property, and the very idea would seem ridiculous to you.


Self-ownership actually holds slavery immoral. You can't go into someone's home and take them captive and use them as a slave -- you're violating their rights. Even when you are a slave and someone claims to own you, they actually do not truly own you. You are only a captive, unjustly held by another person who falsely claims ownership of you. It's like if someone kidnaps a child and then claims it's their child... no, the child is still the child of his/her true parents. Self-ownership is inalienable.
Then "self-ownership" is a misleading term, having nothing to do with property rights in capitalism at all. Aside from limited circumstances where you agree not to sell something (for instance if you are in a non-disclosure agreement) property is fundamentally alienable. This is a marked change from other periods when property was fundamentally inalienable - selling an estate in feudal England would have been as unthinkable as selling yourself today. The system of property changed completely to match new modes of production.

But the end of slavery meant the end of humans as property. You do not "own" yourself in the modern sense. You were removed from the category "property" as were all humans. It doesn't make sense otherwise, since property is a continuously changing social agreement and not a hard-and-fast or metaphysical thing.

[kapitalyst]

If one human cannot own another human, how can he sell himself into slavery to other then?


It's demonstrative of the fact that the institution of slavery is inherently unjust. You may as well be asking how there was slavery at all. Or how I could steal your car even though you're the rightful owner and still possess the title. Or how one could kidnap a child, and never actually be the child's parent. Or how could your arm be chopped off if it's attached to your body.

You keep asking how, how, how? Dude, people can violate morals, philosophical principles and your rights. Murder is wrong, immoral and downright despicable... yet you could be murdered. Slavery is wrong and immoral, yet is has happened. Do you really think that a slave owner truly owns his slaves? Or is he unjustly holding them in captivity and does not rightfully own them?



Most slaves in Mesopotamia where debt slaves, people who had trouble getting by, contracted a loan on their freedom and eventually had to sell their family and themselves to rich master beccause they where unable to pay the interests.

I believe you're quite mistaken. Most of them were criminals and prisoners of war. They were the literal slaves. But the lower-class of serfs and slaves was broad. Above the real slaves were debt servants... people in debt bondage (more often unwillingly than not). And this was typically only temporary, and they were still allowed to own property, receive payments, marry, etc and enjoyed rights actual slaves did not.



The rich folks didnt had to get into people houses and kidnapp people illegally, they had legal contracts stipulating that the farmer x had to sell himself to him if he wasnt able to pay off the loan.

No, they didn't. This was just part of the Hammurabi Code and Mesopotamian values. It was the law.



Without self ownership, how else could someone sell himself to a rich man in exchange of an interest bearing loan?


That's not an example of selling yourself. You would be selling your labor or contracting it to someone else. "Voluntary slavery" is a self-contradictory idea. It's like "consensual rape". You could also say it's an oxymoron, like "freezing hot".

You're probably not aware that the concept of self-ownership played a major role in the abolitionist movement, are you? Self-ownership or individual sovereignty/autonomy is against slavery. Slavery is a subordination concept, not a self-sovereign one. They are incompatible.



It had nothing to do with that. Murder was a criminal offense in mespoptamia, same goes for assault, theft,forced slavery, destruction of someone else property. If the ancients civilisation didnt cared about other peoples, how come these laws where extented to everyone, from the poor to the rich? Slavery was justified by self-ownership. Even prisoniers of war in this era had the choice between killing themselve and getting enslaved. they didnt just took all those prisonniers and put them into slavery, those folks often had the choice and it was considered a conscious choice from their part to live and be a slave. It was all about self ownership.


"Forced slavery"? ALL slavery is forced. That's what slavery is. Again, "voluntary slavery" is self-contradictory... ;)

Again, you're also wrong on your ancient history... The laws and code of ethics distinguished between social classes. Punishments were more severe ("an eye for an eye") if you damaged someone who was your equal. If a slave hurt his master, he was executed. If a master hurt a slave, he was merely fined.

I didn't say no one cared about each other or that people didn't value law and order. But people thought nothing of slavery because they didn't give a shit about how that person felt. You really think a slave owner is concerned with the morality of slavery? That he really gives a shit about the slave longing for freedom? No, he does not.



Hitler was not really interested in slavery, he just wanted to kill all the jews. It was his corporate buddies of IG farben you really where interested in making money off slave labor.

Again, you're wrong on your history... The Nazis didn't just want to kill everyone who didn't have blond hair and blue eyes or all Jews... :rolleyes:

The Nazis actually first tried to deport all the Jews and send them to the west and middle east. That didn't work out so well though. So then the sick bastards decided the "final solution" was to start "liquidating" them (mass murder). The Nazis believed that they were the master race, and all of the "inferior" races were meant to be their slaves and ruled over. In their vision of "utopia", the so-called Aryan people would live a life of privilege and luxury and be served by the "inferior" peoples: the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc...

[Tim Cornelis]

@kapitalyst
It's really quite simple.

Do you think slavery should be illegal?

If you agree you are against self-ownership because self-ownership necessarily implies I can sell myself into slavery (and this is what happens quite frequently). In this scenario you have somehow managed to reconcile, or rather rationalize, freedom and slavery and made these antagonisms compatible.

If you disagree and think slavery should be illegal then you contradict the principle of self-ownership, namely that anyone can sell himself.

EDIT:


That's not an example of selling yourself. You would be selling your labor or contracting it to someone else. "Voluntary slavery" is a self-contradictory idea. It's like "consensual rape". You could also say it's an oxymoron, like "freezing hot".

Wrong. Voluntary slavery is not self-contradictory per se. You are able, according to the concept of self-ownership, to sell yourself voluntarily into slavery. But when you have sold yourself you are no longer able to breach the contract. This is what is meant by voluntary slavery. For example, debt bondage is a form of voluntary slavery and there are 18 million of them at this very moment. According to your despicable and erroneous theory of freedom (self-ownership) these slaves are as free as you and me! Slavery is freedom, is it?


Self-ownership or individual sovereignty/autonomy is against slavery. Slavery is a subordination concept, not a self-sovereign one. They are incompatible.

Self-ownership =/= individual autonomy. Slavery is indeed subordination. And voluntary slavery is voluntarily subordinating yourself, i.e. it's voluntarily giving up your autonomy. Wage labour too is 'voluntarily' giving up your individual autonomy.

[kapitalyst]

Well, that answers nothing. As far as we can tell, you are indistinguishable from your body.


And that perspective has no importance to this argument. If I was dead would I really be myself -- would my body be me? No, something is different... something is gone. ;)



You are not the only one who can move your arm. There are several ways to move your arm without your volitional control. Someone stronger than you could move your arm against your will. Heck, when you're asleep someone weaker than you can move it. A doctor could move your arm by several ways; either by inducing a reflex action, or by applying an electrical current at a certain place in your brain, I'm sure they could actually cause your arm to move without your choosing. This also brings up a question: if "you" are the one who moves your arm, and you develop a nervous twitch that causes your arm to have a spasm, "who" is moving your arm? "Consciousness" is not doing it. So you really aren't "consciousness."


And I own my cell phone... and you could steal it or destroy it (forcible action). So of course someone can grab my arm and force me to raise or bend it. You could take a sword and chop it off. A sovereign and autonomous nation can be invaded. Just because something is your property or you have soveriengty over it doesn't mean someone cannot forcibly and unjustly violate it. Any right can be violated.

About reflexes and the subconscious... It's all still input from myself -- my own brain. Only I can, consciously or reflexively, control my body (even if there is a problem with me) or some external, forcible action can. My sovereignty (and right to it) over myself is maintained.

But this is all beside the point. None of this matters. The fact is, my person is indeed mine. I belong only to myself and always will. And I owe nothing to anyone that I've not contracted to supply. I am not "communal property". I decide what I do, where I go and what direction my life takes. The only exception is when others or "society" tries to unjustly force me into something by violating my self-sovereignty... and such a thing is wrong and immoral, unless it is an appropriate action of self-defense taken against me for violating others' rights and sovereignty. The fact that anyone would deny this and try to convince me otherwise really is a performative contradiction... because I'm saying "hell no", and only I can make up my mind. :cool:



Who you are is determined by the society you grew up in. You speak English and not the Akkadian language of ancient Assyria because you were born in a particular society and raised to speak a particular language. You have grown up in this society and absorbed its ideas from every angle, from a very young age. All your beliefs and ideas exist firmly in the context of your society. You believe in property because you live in a society of commodity-producers. If you lived in a neolithic hunter-gatherer tribe you wouldn't believe in property, and the very idea would seem ridiculous to you.

How I've been influenced by others also has no significance here. :)

And we have a few problems... My beliefs and ideas don't need society. They could function just fine on a deserted island in the middle of nowhere. Also, the neolithic hunter-gatherers DID have property. No, I wouldn't think it was ridiculous. Humans have always had property. Just because there was a lot of sharing and working together doesn't mean there's no property. Distinctions of property are made within families, yet families are generally highly cooperative and share everything. When we were kids, I had a Nintendo yet I had no problem letting my brother play it. But it was still my Nintendo... my property... Og might have let Nog use his spear when he needed it, but it was still Og's spear. And even many animals have the concept of property.



Then "self-ownership" is a misleading term, having nothing to do with property rights in capitalism at all. Aside from limited circumstances where you agree not to sell something (for instance if you are in a non-disclosure agreement) property is fundamentally alienable. This is a marked change from other periods when property was fundamentally inalienable - selling an estate in feudal England would have been as unthinkable as selling yourself today. The system of property changed completely to match new modes of production.

No, it really doesn't have anything to do with capitalism. As I've already said, you can be a socialist and hold true the concept.



But the end of slavery meant the end of humans as property. You do not "own" yourself in the modern sense. You were removed from the category "property" as were all humans. It doesn't make sense otherwise, since property is a continuously changing social agreement and not a hard-and-fast or metaphysical thing.

I don't own myself in the way I own a book or a chicken. But I do indeed own myself. That is why trying to enslave me (or anyone) is immoral and unjust. And actually, according to the collectivist dogma I've been exposed to humans are supposedly some form of "communal property"... the individual having no actual rights over himself other than what "society" allows. We reject this nonsense. Individuals are not faceless, insignificant cogs in the collectivist wheel of "society".

Self-ownership is axiomatic. All attempts to refute it only confirm it. It's self-evident. You can consider yourself as belonging to other people or "society" if you want... and when their good will turns to malice, you'll wish you hadn't. ;)

[danyboy27]

It's demonstrative of the fact that the institution of slavery is inherently unjust. You may as well be asking how there was slavery at all. Or how I could steal your car even though you're the rightful owner and still possess the title. Or how one could kidnap a child, and never actually be the child's parent. Or how could your arm be chopped off if it's attached to your body.
.
Slavery is unjust beccause it reduce human to commodity. human are not meant to be used has commodity, its the ultimate degradation.
It was morally legitimized for various period of time trought history beccause of this concept of self-ownership. it didnt last forever tho.




You keep asking how, how, how? Dude, people can violate morals, philosophical principles and your rights. Murder is wrong, immoral and downright despicable... yet you could be murdered. Slavery is wrong and immoral, yet is has happened. Do you really think that a slave owner truly owns his slaves? Or is he unjustly holding them in captivity and does not rightfully own them?
.
We are not talking of some vulgar criminal action. Slavery was in the law and based around certain moral principles, one of them being self-ownership. We do know its wrong to held human being captive, but that dosnt change nothing from the fact that this whole self ownership concept allowed the ownership of people for several hundred of years.



"Forced slavery"? ALL slavery is forced. That's what slavery is. Again, "voluntary slavery" is self-contradictory... ;)
.
there was slavery within society and outside society. being held in slavery for not paying his debt vs being held slavery by pirates are not the same thing at all. One is outright illegal and the other is framed around laws and regulations.

[danyboy27]

Again, you're also wrong on your ancient history... The laws and code of ethics distinguished between social classes. Punishments were more severe ("an eye for an eye") if you damaged someone who was your equal. If a slave hurt his master, he was executed. If a master hurt a slave, he was merely fined.
.
Beccause the slave was his property, like a pig or a dog.



You're probably not aware that the concept of self-ownership played a major role in the abolitionist movement, are you? Self-ownership or individual sovereignty/autonomy is against slavery. Slavery is a subordination concept, not a self-sovereign one. They are incompatible.
..
I know it did, they also justified the existance of child labor in the U.S and england on the basis that a 10 year old child was in full ownership of his own person and should be allowed to ''voluntarly'' work 50 hours a week in a factory.

[danyboy27]

I didn't say no one cared about each other or that people didn't value law and order. But people thought nothing of slavery because they didn't give a shit about how that person felt. You really think a slave owner is concerned with the morality of slavery? That he really gives a shit about the slave longing for freedom? No, he does not.
..
Of course slaveowner care about morality. It may be the morality society framed around it to make it look good, but it still morality.



The Nazis actually first tried to deport all the Jews and send them to the west and middle east. That didn't work out so well though. So then the sick bastards decided the "final solution" was to start "liquidating" them (mass murder). The Nazis believed that they were the master race, and all of the "inferior" races were meant to be their slaves and ruled over. In their vision of "utopia", the so-called Aryan people would live a life of privilege and luxury and be served by the "inferior" peoples: the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc...
The whole deportation scheme to madagascar was never really a serious thing. You are right to say that they envisionned the slav and jews has servant, but even that was nothing but wishful thinking envisionned by some third reich goofball. The time and ressource consuming of extermination was for the third reich the true way of getting rid of those indesirable.

When you want somebody to become your slave, you dont treat them has indesirable, on the contrary, you need them, you wont try to kill them all.

[kapitalyst]

Do you think slavery should be illegal?

If you agree you are against self-ownership because self-ownership necessarily implies I can sell myself into slavery (and this is what happens quite frequently). In this scenario you have somehow managed to reconcile, or rather rationalize, freedom and slavery and made these antagonisms compatible.

This is a nonsensical argument, my friend...

Self-ownership implies that you belong only to you... that is inalienable and unchanging. Slavery, therefore, is unjust. It is akin to theft of one's sovereignty.

If you sold yourself into slavery you've only sold your alienable labor into slavery, and you are still the rightful owner of yourself. Sure, it should be totally illegal to coerce people into doing that to escape terrible conditions. It's exploitative and wrong.

But if you come to my house, totally out of yourown free will, and volunteer to be my slave -- because you would enjoy it and want it -- then it's not slavery. It's like "giving consent to rape". And that was my point. Slavery is involuntary. Debt bondage is coercive and forceful... like blackmail or extortion. Both are wrong. And they're wrong because of self-ownership. Not despite it.



If you disagree and think slavery should be illegal then you contradict the principle of self-ownership, namely that anyone can sell himself.

Don't create a silly false dichotomy... you can only sell labor.



Wrong. Voluntary slavery is not self-contradictory per se. You are able, according to the concept of self-ownership, to sell yourself voluntarily into slavery. But when you have sold yourself you are no longer able to breach the contract. This is what is meant by voluntary slavery. For example, debt bondage is a form of voluntary slavery and there are 18 million of them at this very moment. According to your despicable and erroneous theory of freedom (self-ownership) these slaves are as free as you and me! Slavery is freedom, is it?


What is murder? Murder is killing someone, with no justifiable cause (i.e., self-defense), against their will. Suicide is voluntarily taking your own life. But when you commit suicide, you can't then change your mind or "breach the contract" of death. So is suicide or assisted suicide murder? No, it's not.

What you're talking about is debt bondage. It is very similar to slavery, and it is an awful thing. But it's not actually slavery... hence it's called debt bondage. Debt bondage is just as wrong as blackmail or extortion, often to a much worse degree. People don't voluntarily choose it -- they're coerced into making the decision to do something they don't really want to do. And that's what makes it wrong. If you wanted to be a slave just because you thought it was fun and wonderful then you wouldn't really be a slave. That was the point. A slave cannot be a totally willing volunteer. The idea is self-contradictory.



Self-ownership =/= individual autonomy. Slavery is indeed subordination. And voluntary slavery is voluntarily subordinating yourself, i.e. it's voluntarily giving up your autonomy. Wage labour too is 'voluntarily' giving up your individual autonomy.

Nope... if you completely, voluntarily become a slave because you want to then you are expressing your free will. And therefore you aren't actually a slave. You're trying to rescue a self-contradiction... attempting to make ice hot. C'mon... you've beaten this poor, dead horse to a pulp! :lol:

[kapitalyst]

I know it did, they also justified the existance of child labor in the U.S and england on the basis that a 10 year old child was in full ownership of his own person and should be allowed to ''voluntarly'' work 50 hours a week in a factory.

That's bullshit... And now you've abandoned your last argument to pursue this one, I see... :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

There are both. "All men are created equal" is a principle. Freedom of speech is a right. They accompany one another.

So you would agree that rights are just ideas to be defended? There's nothing inherently special about them.




I haven't said that self-ownership is exactly like owning an inanimate object or, say, a cow. By the very nature of the matter, there are some differences -- and some similarities.

The difference is that it is not ownership. You are not your property, you are yourself. There are similarities between apples and beetles. They're not the same thing.


What restriction? Enforce what? Libertarians tend to think we should "go enforcer on yo azz" as little as possible. :D

How are you going to restrict me from using my property (my self) as I see fit? How will you enforce this restriction. If I go into the street in front of your house and start jerking off, what are you going to do?



Of course. What if I want to sell my watch, but there are no people around? Or what if I own a mountain, and someone wants to buy... how could I get it to the market or deliver it? :lol:

Those are very poor analogies;
1)Even when there are people around to sell, you still cannot dispose of it as you see fit
2)The mountain is already at the market. The deed to the mountain, is like the deed to all land... it's just a piece of paper backed up with guns.




And I appreciate you thinking you know what is good for me. :lol:

The important caveat is that we only follow advice we find sagely :D



Of course we sometimes have to kill or take action against individuals (e.g., Hitler) who pose a threat of violence or other harm. That wasn't what I was talking about, and I think you knew that. ;)

I didn't know that, or I wouldn't have said it. So then what is wrong with the collectivist principle if the only thing wrong with it (sacrificing individuals in the name of greater good) is a necessary component to society?



People who've committed suicide would disagree... wait, no they wouldn't -- they disposed of themselves. :)

Fair enough. Still they could not sell themselves, literally. Nobody as of yet can take over your thoughts memories and experience.
So let us make a distinction; even if you were your own property, there will always be restrictions on what you can do with it, and there is no reason these restrictions must be x or -y other than principle. Furthermore, it offers no necessary support of individual rights, human social relations, or prosperity.

[graymouser]

My beliefs and ideas don't need society. They could function just fine on a deserted island in the middle of nowhere.
That is not and never could be true. Particularly if you are a "kapitalyst" - capitalism requires the existence of a society of commodity producers.


Also, the neolithic hunter-gatherers DID have property. No, I wouldn't think it was ridiculous. Humans have always had property. Just because there was a lot of sharing and working together doesn't mean there's no property. Distinctions of property are made within families, yet families are generally highly cooperative and share everything. When we were kids, I had a Nintendo yet I had no problem letting my brother play it. But it was still my Nintendo... my property... Og might have let Nog use his spear when he needed it, but it was still Og's spear. And even many animals have the concept of property.
Possessions are not the same thing as property. Let's take the example you used, "Og's spear." If Og used his spear to kill a mammoth, would he have been able to claim all the meat from it? No, because the spear was not comparable to what is today termed productive property. The social relationship that Og lived in meant that he couldn't monopolize the things produced with his spear. It wasn't productive property in the modern sense.


No, it really doesn't have anything to do with capitalism. As I've already said, you can be a socialist and hold true the concept.
No, that's not true. Socialists are against property, full stop. But we are not against possessions - that's something that you don't understand, because you do not grasp the difference between the two.


I don't own myself in the way I own a book or a chicken. But I do indeed own myself. That is why trying to enslave me (or anyone) is immoral and unjust. And actually, according to the collectivist dogma I've been exposed to humans are supposedly some form of "communal property"... the individual having no actual rights over himself other than what "society" allows. We reject this nonsense. Individuals are not faceless, insignificant cogs in the collectivist wheel of "society".

Self-ownership is axiomatic. All attempts to refute it only confirm it. It's self-evident. You can consider yourself as belonging to other people or "society" if you want... and when their good will turns to malice, you'll wish you hadn't. ;)
Self-ownership as you have defined it is meaningless, not axiomatic. You can't compare it to any mundane type of ownership. And it's irrelevant to the concepts of property and possessions.

[RGacky3]

Obviously not, because to be conscious you must be aware of your thoughts and existence. A machine or computer program can have thoughts on-the-fly. But it is not self-aware or conscious.

consciousness and thoughts are the same thing, a machine is as aware of its own thoughts as you are, you just have a much more complex brain.


You call a lot of things "semantics" which have nothing to do with semantics or are just rejections of your own ideas or incorrect/biased word-play... How about "you can't own yourself because you are yourself" for semantics and word-play? http://www.revleft.com/vb/nobody-really-own-t162529/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Self-ownership, or individual autonomy, doesn't "justify" capitalism and is not intended to. You can hold true the principle and be a communist or socialist too.

So what...? Am I "communal property"? Or do I indeed have control of myself, and you don't? It's definitely the latter.

You are not property at all, you cannot be property, your a person, I thought we got rid of the whole idea of people being property years ago.

BTW, self-ownership, the way your describing it, is as meaningless as saying I own the universe. THe reason ownership is always used by pro-capitalists, is to try and link fundemental human rights with property.

[Revolution starts with U]

Self-ownership implies that you belong only to you... that is inalienable and unchanging. Slavery, therefore, is unjust. It is akin to theft of one's sovereignty.


Then it is not ownership. I mean, really how many times can we go over this. If I am not free to dispose of my property as I see fit, it is not private property.
If you were claiming it was ownership in the sense of communal property, it might make sense. But you are exclusively claiming your self to be your private property, when it clearly is not.
How are you going to stop me from selling myself into bondage using the principle of self-ownership? How? It's my property. I can do with it as I wish.



But if you come to my house, totally out of yourown free will, and volunteer to be my slave -- because you would enjoy it and want it -- then it's not slavery. It's like "giving consent to rape". And that was my point. Slavery is involuntary. Debt bondage is coercive and forceful... like blackmail or extortion. Both are wrong. And they're wrong because of self-ownership. Not despite it.

If it is a contract that I can never later break before paying off my debts, it is slavery.

My thoughts are heavily infuenced by both my parents biology and their behavior, to the point that there are certain beliefs I never chose to go along with. I have found some of these beliefs and chose to continue adopting, others I have yet no knowledge of, or have no way to get rid of them (like valuing present consumption over future. Its just what I do because I have been trained to do it. I did not choose this view, and have found it very hard to overcome ;)).
I do not own myself. I never have. I never will. And the idea that I need ownership of myself to protect myself is an affront to society. What I need to protect myself is myself and other like-minded selfs to help me.

Axiomatic my harry puttoot :D

[danyboy27]

That's bullshit... And now you've abandoned your last argument to pursue this one, I see... :rolleyes:

that not bullshit, go look it up, england and the U.S at the begining of the industrial age was pro child labor, hundred of thousand of those where working in factories.

amongst the rulling class, the support for the abolition of chattel slavery was an economical decision. Its obviously more productive have most of the work done by machine operated by rented peoples.

for the abolitionist elements of the working class, it was above everything a question of human dignity. it was unnaceptable to have human treated has commodities.

It all boil down to self ownership. things changed since the industrial evolution, but the logic that put the slaves in the field are the same that make free peoples in china work in an industrial press 65 hours a week today.

It was a comfortable justification of chattel slavery then, and still a confortable justification for wage slavery.

[Revolution starts with U]

Interestingly enough capital contains the same root word as both cattle and chattel. Not surprising if you're a leftist...

[Tim Cornelis]

This is a nonsensical argument, my friend...

Self-ownership implies that you belong only to you... that is inalienable and unchanging. Slavery, therefore, is unjust. It is akin to theft of one's sovereignty.

If you sold yourself into slavery you've only sold your alienable labor into slavery, and you are still the rightful owner of yourself. Sure, it should be totally illegal to coerce people into doing that to escape terrible conditions. It's exploitative and wrong.

Way to omit the question at hand. The same argument: if I own my labour, I can sell my labour for any amount of time, therefore I could sell my labour indefinitely meaning I'm a slave.

You have to agree that this is justified since I own myself and my labour therefore I can sell it. If I am not allowed to sell myself or my labour, I do not own myself.


But if you come to my house, totally out of yourown free will, and volunteer to be my slave -- because you would enjoy it and want it -- then it's not slavery. It's like "giving consent to rape".

Debt bondage is coercive and forceful... like blackmail or extortion. Both are wrong. And they're wrong because of self-ownership. Not despite it.

No it's not. It's a voluntary contract. Nobody used physical force to coerce someone into signing a loan. If you think debt bondage is coercive because it's like extortion and blackmail then so is wage labour.

Debt bondage works as follows:

I can give you a loan for medicine with high interest, it's mutually beneficial. I will receive interest, and you your medicine. A mutual voluntary contract. However, if you decline you will die.

Wage labour works as follows:

I can give you a wage if you are going to work for me. It's mutually beneficial. I will receive profits, and you a wage to pay for food. A mutual voluntary contract. However, if you decline you will starve.

How is it any different?

You are arbitrarily drawing the line between voluntary agreements you find just (wage labour) and unjust (debt slavery).


Don't create a silly false dichotomy... you can only sell labor.

Right, I can sell my labour for 100 years and 24 hours a day. You say I am not allowed to, in other words I don't own myself since I am not allowed to sell myself.




What you're talking about is debt bondage. It is very similar to slavery, and it is an awful thing. But it's not actually slavery... hence it's called debt bondage. Debt bondage is just as wrong as blackmail or extortion, often to a much worse degree. People don't voluntarily choose it -- they're coerced into making the decision to do something they don't really want to do.

And that's exactly the criticsm of wage labour! Simply change the word:

But it's not actually slavery... hence it's called wage slavery. Wage slavery is just as wrong as blackmail or extortion, often to a much worse degree. People don't voluntarily choose it -- they're coerced into making the decision to do something they don't really want to do.

Tada!


And that's what makes it wrong. If you wanted to be a slave just because you thought it was fun and wonderful then you wouldn't really be a slave. That was the point. A slave cannot be a totally willing volunteer. The idea is self-contradictory.

I agree completely! But debt bondage is slavery precisely because people had little choice but to take a loan with excessive interest.





Nope... if you completely, voluntarily become a slave because you want to then you are expressing your free will. And therefore you aren't actually a slave. You're trying to rescue a self-contradiction... attempting to make ice hot. C'mon... you've beaten this poor, dead horse to a pulp! :lol:

Yeah except the reason you think debt bondage is unjust is identical to the reason socialists think wage labour is unjust: it uses economical coercion for people to sign contracts they do not really want. Oh sweet irony.

[ComradeMan]

Interestingly enough capital contains the same root word as both cattle and chattel. Not surprising if you're a leftist...

And a bull market it's when shares are rising and shareholders can milk the prophets or just scrape off the cream. If things go bad we have to beef up the economy or people will have their beefs but it does seem that the idea of capital is a sacred cow to most even if others think this is bovine but at the end of the day everyone wants to make a buck.

So it was the cows that started the problem in the first place!!! :D

You're right the origin of the word pecuniary is also connected to cattle- pecuniarius from pecunia (money) from pecu (flock/herd).

[Judicator]

he explain that nobody really own anything completely, beccause to be able to totally own something, you would have to have the right to to anything with it, including using it to harm other or to destruct other peoples proprety.

Ownership means you can do anything with something *without* violating the rights of others, so those "counterexamples" are terrible.

Secondly, even if we accept your convoluted "counterexamples," some kinds of intellectual property can't be used directly to harm anyone, so evidently you can own those completely.

[RGacky3]

But to enforce intellectual property, you have to violate peoples rights.