you control the decisions that go into determining your actions (though even these decisions are ultimately controlled by chemical reactions in your brain which are, in turn, effected by both internal and external factors). you are in control of your actions, not you. yourself is not controlled by you. yourself, as the decision maker, has liberty; it is free of control. this is not to say that we are not effected by outside forces and that we are in complete control of our destiny, but it is to say that we cannot claim control over ourselves, for that would entail possession and we do not possess ourselves, we are ourselves.

i agree with everything except the first part. we are ourselves and ourselves are in control of our actions. ourselves cannot be recursively in control of ourselves. that doesn't make sense.

because it is recursive. something has to be doing the owning while another separate entity must be in a state of ownership. if something is not beholden to any outside force it is in a state of liberty, not ownership. liberty and self-ownership, as shown in the video, become mutually exclusive, because when one makes sense, the other becomes recursive. you would have to presume mind-body dualism in order for liberty to be that which is recursive and nonsensical. you are yourself. that which is you is in a state of being, not a state of belonging (unless you are a slave, and as an employee, i would argue that you are).

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

A legislative body is a STATE . A legislature is a type of deliberative assembly with the power to pass, amend and repeal laws. The law created by a legislature is called legislation or statutory law. Legislatures are known by many names, the most common being parliament and congress, although these terms also have more specific meanings. In parliamentary systems of GOVERNMENT , the legislature is formally supreme and appoints a member from its house as the prime minister which acts as the executive. My man a legislative body is ACTUALLY A FREAKING STATE .

Private property cannot stem out of communal property whit out the help of a state or legislative body .

It's called PARTICIPATORY PLANNING . The participatory planning procedure would be a yearly event where citizens participate to determine which and how many goods to produce. Prices for goods and services would remain static until the onset of the participatory planning procedure, after which they get new values. Albert and Hahnel suggested the creation of Iteration Facilitation Board (IFB), which would estimate indicative prices based on previous year's economic results. These prices would represent the estimated marginal social opportunity cost for all goods and services. Not only do the prices reflect supply and demand, but also the environmental and social cost of producing the good. For instance a product that produces pollution in its manufacture, or is especially dangerous for workers to produce, would have its price automatically inflated to discourage excess consumption. Using these prices as a guide, citizens would respond with their private consumption proposals, and participate in the formulation of collective consumption proposals at the neighborhood, ward, municipal, provincial and national levels. Private consumption proposals would be a prediction by each citizen of what goods and services they plan to consume the next year.

Because there is no state guaranteeing your non income labor or recognizing your ownership of the bakery . You will WORK to be paid if you don't put labor you will not get paid . Whit out a state there is a need for collectivization and workers self management because there is no other way around .

That's still POLICING . These "defense associations" will operate over a (property-owner defined) area of land and enforce the property-owner's laws, rules and regulations.

no. we control our actions. our actions are a product of ourselves. our existence precedes our actions. you must exist to act. we are ourselves and ourselves act, we do not own or control ourselves. natural reactions control us and allow us to control our actions through decisions. it could be argued that therefore decisions are also actually determined ultimately by these reactions. these reactions may be internal (within our body) or external (outside forces or influences).

a blog i read puts it well. ownership implies a relationship between subject and object, not an internal relationship within the subject. this would mean that for self-ownership to even remotely make sense, one would have to make an argument for mind-body dualism. i'm tired and it's getting to me. this should be able to explain it better than i can:

http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2009....ux.html

ok, but it's kind of pointless. i mean mind-body dualism presupposes some type of essence that transcends nature therefore being super natural (aka outside of the realm of being provable by science) and it automatically throws empiricism, realism and rationalism out the window.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

I googled the definition of own and couldn't find any definition that stated the owner and the owned can't be the same thing.

and even greater evidence to show those conscious decisions are based on chemical reactions within our brain.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

dude, there's scientific, empirical evidence supporting determinism. when certain thoughts are provoked, testing while using dye, specific portions of the brain light up and which can accurately predict what portion of the brain is going to light up every single time. we've also found that thoughts can directly effect other portions of our body with respect to illness. one example of this is the placebo effect. this goes to show that not only are our thoughts in control of our body, but our brain is in full control of our thoughts. and we can take it a step further and say that the chemical reactions that occur in our body and effect our brain, which we have no control over, have control over our brain. this is the essence of determinism, which is the most scientifically accepted theory we have.

yes, but the car isn't a conscious being. if it was, we would say that the car is in control of it's actions. if the engine blows a piston in a conscious car, we wouldn't say that the car had control over that occurring (necessarily). do you have control over your heart when it fails? in a sense you can choose to eat healthier and exercise more, but in the grand scheme of things, you have no control. your heart is going to fail at some point in your life and you have no say in the matter. it is going to happen. this is the essence of compatibilism, or free choice determinism.

you are treating this as if i have the burden of proof and that is why the refutations are not making sense to you. you cannot prove a negative. it is you who must first provide logical evidence to support your idea of self-ownership for you are indeed making that claim that we own ourselves. on the other hand it is our prerogative to deconstruct arguments for self-ownership which we have done thoroughly. so in case you missed it:

"Self-ownership tends to be a manifestation of a theory that places property rights first and then defines self-ownership on the basis of a property rights concept. This leads to a problem of circularity in which one has to presuppose a theory of property rights in "self-ownership" while simultaneously argueing [sic] as if "self-ownership" is the foundation. If property truly is the first principle, then "self-ownership" is sort of reduced to a mere entailment of property theory, and people are regarded as property (leading to obvious slavery concerns). On the other hand, if "self-ownership" truly is the first principle, it collapses as soon as you try to justify it via appeal to a property rights concept that presumably comes after it. This is a serious logical problem."

^^^ this may help.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

eboyd: "The owner and the owned can't be of the same entity"
Richie: "Why?"
eboyd: "because the owner and the owned can't be of the same entity"

There should be logic to back up that assumption. If I own (possess) my car, I have full control of it, at ANY time my car can break down, but that doesn't mean I can't control it. That just means I can't control external forces/variables/whatever. I have full control of my body then that should mean I own it, at ANY time my heart can stop, that doesn't mean I can't control it. That just means I can't control how fattening cake is. Even if determinism is true... stimuli might influence my decisions, but it is me that has direct influence and control, I'm just reacting to things outside of me. Do you get where I'm coming from?

For instance, when someone is diagnosed with bipolar disorder, they are said to sometimes not have control over their thoughts due to their condition. People may act rashly and irrationally if they have this disorder. Bipolar disorder is classified as a mental condition because it is not found in most other brains which we would call "normal" brains. Here we can see an instance in which people lack control over their decisions and behavior once the effects of the bipolar disorder is activated in any given situation. So, bipolar disorder is a condition because it is considered abnormal. But even "normal" brains have a condition, but it is not considered a disorder because everyone has this condition, therefore it can't be considered abnormal to consider it a disorder. The condition that all "normal" brains have is a lack of control over behavior and decisions sort of like the bipolar disorder. You can consider the "normal" brain to be a mild form of the bipolar disorder.

control -> ownership
Liberty -> Free of external control
Self-ownership -> Control of yourself.