|
Anarcho-Capitalism Debate
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 2:59 PM | Message # 46 |
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) But in nature there has always been exceptions.
Such as... And no, it isn't a matter of fate. Indeterminism or stochasism may prevent fate. Quote (J-Breakz) Oh and btw, would you like to tell me exactly WHY ownership has to be a relationship of two different entities? Don't get sidetracked and start talking about me (I know how much you love talking about me) but give me a reason why ownership has to be a relationship of two different entities and it can't be one.
There has to be a thing and something outside of that thing for their to be ownership. Otherwise a thing just is. Self-ownership is a logical fallacy man, face it.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 3:19 PM | Message # 47 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) There has to be a thing and something outside of that thing for their to be ownership.
Your whole argument lies behind the incorrect definition of ownership. You think it's defined as "a relationship between the owner and the owned" when really it's defined as just "exclusive rights to an entity". "Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership If you are unclear about property, it's: "any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property So property can be anything, even people. (Just wanted to make that clear to everyone) So for there to be ownership, there has to be exclusive rights. A person has exclusive rights to themselves that no one else has. So the person owns himself. An example: I can't make you believe in self-ownership. I can argue about it with you, but only you can make yourself believe in self ownership, because you have control over yourself that I will never have. If you have more control than I do over yourself then I can't ever own you. (funny thing, I was actually thinking about this in the morning and ended up reading that the austrian school of economics made the same exact argument here lol) Another example that I will reuse: A slave master tries to make his slaves work. The slave master can try to make the slaves work with threats of violence but its the slaves that can only make himself work. The slaves have exclusive rights that the slave master will never have, therefore the slave truly owns himself and his name is merely a superficial label (IWO, he's only considered a slave because he is called that). There's nothing that states there has to be a thing and something outside of that of that thing for there to be ownership. Oooo! I hate to seem full of myself but DAMN. There's some philosophy from me to you guys since you always talk about I only argue about economics.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 3:22 PM | Message # 48 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
What about the exceptions to rules that must be made in the periodic table? That's just one small example
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 5:09 PM | Message # 49 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) "Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property"
But to whom are the rights given? Quote (J-Breakz) So for there to be ownership, there has to be exclusive rights. A person has exclusive rights to themselves that no one else has. So the person owns himself.
You are drawing a fallacious dichatomy and you aren't realizing it. You are doing this because you can't see past the illusion of the inner-self and hence a mind-body dualism. Quote (J-Breakz) An example: I can't make you believe in self-ownership. I can argue about it with you, but only you can make yourself believe in self ownership, because you have control over yourself that I will never have. If you have more control than I do over yourself then I can't ever own you. (funny thing, I was actually thinking about this in the morning and ended up reading that the austrian school of economics made the same exact argument here lol)
No, I don't have control over rather I am convinced or not. That's the point. If it clicks in the brain then it clicks in the brain. If the processes of the brain relate in a way that will realize what you are saying, then it will, based on the information that it is exposed to. But I ("I" being a fallacious presupposition of an inner-self) have no control over that process. The particles will go where they go and there is no control over it by anything except the laws of nature. "I" have no guiding force because that force would require it's own processes bound by the laws of physics (therefore not controlled by anything else, especially "I"). The by product of all of this is the FEELING of freewill, the FEELING of an innerself, and consequently the FEELING of self-ownership. Quote (J-Breakz) What about the exceptions to rules that must be made in the periodic table? That's just one small example
Such as...
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 5:18 PM | Message # 50 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
So are we still assuming ownership has to be a relationship between two different entities?
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 5:21 PM | Message # 51 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
We have to, because the notion of self-ownership presupposes a dualism.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 5:28 PM | Message # 52 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) But to whom are the rights given?
by exclusive rights I mean exclusive control and ability. And that is innate to the person. Quote (I_Guy)
You are drawing a fallacious dichatomy and you aren't realizing it. You are doing this because you can't see past the illusion of the inner-self and hence a mind-body dualism.
Stop making statements if you're not going to back it up with reason. How am I doing so? A person has control and can do things with himself that no one else can do (for example think his own thoughts, type on a keyboard with his own fingers, etc). Quote (I_Guy) No, I don't have control over rather I am convinced or not.
read the other example I edited in if you're not convinced then  Quote (I_Guy) ("I" being a fallacious presupposition of an inner-self)
The "inner self" is the ego, the part of the mind that thinks as "I" or "me" and so on. It is a part of the body that represents the whole. If I wanted to use your definition of ownership I could say the ego is the owner, and that wouldn't mean any entity would have to/could have to own the ego. So basically this argument has boiled down to whether or not ppl have liberty?
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 5:39 PM | Message # 53 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Honestly? This is like middle school and ninth grade stuff, I don't remember exactly what they are: http://chemed.chem.wisc.edu/chempat....81.html but why should the burden of proof be on me. You guys are the one presenting determinism to me. I'm just saying i don't like it because there have always been exceptions in nature.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 6:14 PM | Message # 54 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) What about the exceptions to rules that must be made in the periodic table?
Such an example is not an exception TO the laws of nature. It's only an exception to previous human understanding. There is no such thing as an exception to the laws of nature. Only a god would be an exception and that is still paradoxical. The "exceptions" of the periodic table were exceptions to previous scientific theory and understanding. But the "exceptions" are considered completely within the laws of nature. They only seemed like exceptions as we find out more about the laws of nature. Quote (J-Breakz) Stop making statements if you're not going to back it up with reason.
We've gone on for pages providing the reasoning. You have been incapable of picking up the reasoning and internalizing it. Quote (J-Breakz) (for example think his own thoughts, type on a keyboard with his own fingers, etc).
He has no control over whatever is stimulating him do do that. He also has no control over the processes that create his responses.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 6:19 PM | Message # 55 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) He has no control over whatever is stimulating him do do that. He also has no control over the processes that create his responses.
Let me quote myself and bold the parts you may have missed: Quote (J-Breakz) by exclusive rights I mean exclusive control and ability. And that is innate to the person. No one else can think his thoughts, or feel his actions, etc.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 6:23 PM | Message # 56 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) He has no control over whatever is stimulating him do do that. He also has no control over the processes that create his responses.
Also, if I continue this we are no longer going to be arguing about self ownership. We're going to be arguing about liberty. I was specifically debating with eboyd where we both assumed liberty to be true.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 6:24 PM | Message # 57 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) but why should the burden of proof be on me. You guys are the one presenting determinism to me. I'm just saying i don't like it because there have always been exceptions in nature.
Because you are making the claim that we have self-ownership. The notion of self-ownership is not a-priori. You have illogical justifications for self-ownership. Quote (J-Breakz) If I wanted to use your definition of ownership I could say the ego is the owner, and that wouldn't mean any entity would have to/could have to own the ego.
The ego is a product of cognitive processes and yet again it is not in contol of anything, therefore it cannot be the owner. But it's a mistake to think of the ego in the way you are. The ego is not a thing, it is only a conceptual abstraction invented and posited to help us understand our psyche. Quote (J-Breakz) So basically this argument has boiled down to whether or not ppl have liberty?
It's an argument over intrinsic freedom. I define liberty as a body not being imposed upon by another body. It is third personal. Not first personal like self-ownership or property.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 6:27 PM | Message # 58 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) An argument over intrinsic freedom. I define liberty as a body not being imposed upon by another body.
You shouldn't redefine words. You've already done that with ownership. "Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will."
-wikipedia.com Your saying that people don't have any right to act according to his or her own will. that there is no right period. that people are not free. Therefore, nobody has liberty.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 6:43 PM | Message # 59 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) "Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will."
-wikipedia.com
That definition assumes too much. It seems to assume free-will (but not necessarily, it depends on situational context), and it assumes that we have the "RIGHT" to act. What authority gives us the right? We don't have the "right". Rights are a human construction. However, human beings DO have the ability to act by the will (which is uncontrolled). We all can agree that we would like for that ability to not be imposed upon, and we have the ability to subjectively construct the artificial imperative declaring that this ability should not be imposed upon by other human beings or perceivable bodies. However, that is impossible to actualize. The laws of nature impose upon what we think is this ability to act upon or in accordance with our will. The will simply acts, there is NO ONE acting upon or in accordance with the will. That is why my third personal definition is more acurate for liberty. "A body not being imposed upon by another body." It would be nice if this could be true, but the state of nature doesn't allow this. However, we can subjectively agree to have artificial liberty between humans (even if we can't truly have liberty as condition in the whole of our existence).
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Saturday, 23/Jan/10, 7:46 PM | Message # 60 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
lol, So you're saying that liberty is impossible but we have to create the illusion of a limited form of it. Well if that's the case, then I'll conclude that liberty is truly impossible (without researching that, just for this debate), but say we need to create the illusion of a less limited form of it to have a better society. Of course, in my society the illusion of it would arise without any help. You would need heavy amounts of education.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
