property is an illusion. that is the whole point being made. if it hasn't been made clear by what has already been stated, then i don't know how much more clear it can get. if you have the ability to create infinite life in an infinite amount of people, by the golden rule, it is your moral obligation to allow everyone access to it for free. you, as the owner of the fountain, are exploiting something which you have no actual objective claim to, because in nature, the only thing you have a claim to is yourself. nothing is ownable, just possessable. think about this philosophically. can i objectively say that i own something? if so, how? please explain in detail. can i objectively say that i possess something? i would say absolutely. i am holding my cell phone right now. i would say that is enough to constitute possession.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

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

no, he is taking away peoples' freedom of life, which is far more wrong than taking away freedom of choice. this is why i disagree with anarcho-capitalism. you value free choice above all else, even when it gives people the ability to impede on the rights of others, which is an idea that is morally bankrupt. if you have the right to life and the will to live forever, and i have an infinite supply of something that will make you live forever, and i choose not to give it to you, my freedom of choice is impeding on your freedom of life. it is that simple. if you value free choice over free life that's your prerogative, but feel free to let me tell you that it is my opinion that you are a morally bankrupt individual and i would be more than happy to fight vehemently against your views to make sure they never get implemented.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

exactly why i just called him out for slippery slope.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

would we agree that if we saw someone on the sidewalk and knew they were dying and that we could save them that if we chose not to, that would be not only immoral, but, while maybe not taking that person's right to life, you are doing nothing when you can easily do something to help allow that person a continued right to life? i mean, it's an easy concept to understand. for example, i am certified in CPR and AED, so by law, if someone were to fall out in front of me and needed CPR or defibrillation (given there is an AED nearby), i am required to perform or assist someone in performing resuscitation. if i don't, especially in an establishment or setting where i am working as a personal trainer, i am partially responsible for that person's death and can be arrested for negligence.

how is this concept any different from someone denying people their right to life by not allowing them to drink from the fountain of youth? the only difference is that it won't effect them until much later, whereas in the situation above it effects them immediately.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Or maybe other people are denying the owner of the fountain's right to life because they are using up all the drink that could be his for his own life.

then i am going to have no choice but to strongly disagree with you.

yes, exactly, and that is how it should be. however, if the government doesn't get involved, who the hell is going to enforce them suing me?

absolutely. not an authoritative force, however. that is the case only when a government is involved. in the case of an anarchist society, the obligation would be, just as you implied below, to society itself, however in a slightly different way and, yes, if you want to call it that, in an authoritative sense. he owes a duty to society.

not necessarily.

we don't. we need society to hold that person responsible and to have the power to obligate that person to take action or suffer punitive consequences.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

you are forgetting that this theoretical fountain has an infinite supply.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

And if the above can't be justified, then we can say that the subject at least has good reason to interpret itself as seperate from other subjects. Because we can fairly locate a kinetic seperation of the subjects to set them apart. Here we can at least have pragmatic justification and say that the subject has good reason to see itself to be within its own ownership.

If the above still can't be justified, then we will have to say that no one owns anything, including themselves. But within such emptiness, people will recognize that this is a nonsum and decide that it is okay to do anything with anything we want because there is nothing to justify why not. But under this view there would be chaos and life would wipe itself out quickly with no balance (like the balance in wild nature), because it would be a free-for-all and all against all for everything. And that is the world we currently have (although I admit it could be worse). We have this world because we have built a primitive structure for society, and we can see why, where do we come from in history? -primitivity. We sit around and pretend like it is all sophisticated and all well planned out, forgetting that it is simply a little more sophisticated than a thousand years ago and no where near as sophisticated as it could be. We have mixed the inherited primitivity with some evolutionarily fortunate sophistication and this is why it becomes extremely difficult to descern where the errors are and how to fix them (partly because we are still pulled towards primitivity, though some sophistication has developed and it appeals to us).

Further on, it is important to keep in mind that this structure is artificial and a human construction, and any structure would be this. Therefore it would be most logically reasonable to create the most rational artificial structure that abides most closely with the nature of the nonsum. The conclusion we should make is that we have at east some logically reasonable justification to see the natural collection of earthly products of which we are composed to be within our ownership, but we have no logically reasonable justifier to conclude anything further.

None of this is "obligated." There is nothing that can intrinsically obligate it and make it imperative. But it would be chaos if we do otherwise. And we do otherwise, unfortunately.

Generous: willing to give and share unstintingly.

The rich is showing no form of generosity when the government is stealing money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

I don't know how I can make that anymore clear.