But to be honest, illusions should be eliminated. But in the case of a self-ownership illusion, we might find it useful to make it the lowest point upon which we build the orders and value system of society. Because the human mind requires some kind of order to function with other human beings. Therefore, the most minimal pragmatism bound by the highest logic is the most intellectually honest, and self sustaining.

Once we start dealing with human constructions it gets VERY difficult. We have to play the middle. That's the only way we can sustain everything.

.

Because then that "someone else" is given justification to not work. Why should he bother working? He can just use the fruit of someone else's labor.

Your society I don't think would work that way.

bullshit. a sense of possession may arise, but ownership is a completely different thing. possession is "hey, i was using that. i want to continue using that." ownership is "hey, that's mine rightfully and it always will be mine, even if you are using it, until i decide to transfer ownership to you." most Indian tribes didn't think this way. they would use something and if someone else wanted to use it and it was made obvious that the original possessor was no longer using it, they would use it and become the possessor. the things that were used by the Indians were a part of mother earth and no one had a rightful ownership claim to them.

http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us1.htm

and that is part of why we are arguing against self-ownership. it distorts the idea of slavery to justify wage labor, which is a form of authoritarianism.

no, it gives society a sense of cooperation. rather than labor being about individual production, creativity and innovation (which is highly inefficient) it becomes about these things getting accomplished in a collective, cooperative manner. instead of someone working his ass of to handle a job by himself and competing against others to get the job done, other people assist him/her and lend their helping hand to get it done more quickly and with less effort from that person. therefore, the idea of something being the "fruits of one person's labor" is a fallacious assumption based on your understanding being stuck in the society you live in. people will live in housing collectives in such a society and will all share a hand in building their own housing collective. if one moves he will have to put vouchers in that will be equivalent to what others paid. if one wants to live on his/her own, he/she will have to incur the entire cost of the place he/she is living in or build the house himself/herself. this person still cannot claim possession of land and property that they are not currently possessing. this is just one example of how the "fruits of one's labor" is only something assumed out of fallacious reasoning.

why do you assume that? if you wish to seclude yourself from society and you have the proper resources at your disposal to do so and you know how to work to sustain yourself without any outside help, that is your prerogative. no one in any libertarian socialist has the right to stop you and they won't. it is likely you will be living like a nomad though.

because even that person doesn't have complete control over his/her abilities. can i jump 3,000 feet? no. will i ever? probably not. do i have control over whether or not i will? to an extent i have control over how high i will be able to jump because i can do a lot of squats and work on the mechanics of jumping and work really hard to learn how to jump higher, but there is pretty much no way that it will ever be physically possible for me to jump 3,000 feet ever. there is a limitation. this limitation has no set number, but there is still a limit. therefore that person DOES NOT actually have control over his/her abilities. only to an extent. and even then, if we look closely, the decisions he/she makes are actually determined by the interactions of the atoms that make up our body. and how can we even claim ownership of ourselves when the concept of us is so abstract anyways? i mean, it is a fact that in a 20 year period or so, ever atom in our bodies is replaced by another atom, to the point that what constitutes us is a completely different entity. and this show in social interaction as well. the me that my friends knew when i was 10 would seem like a completely different person if they stopped talking to me then and met me again today. i physically look drastically different, my goals are completely different, my ideals are different, my attitude, etc. we have limited control of these things at best. so the idea that we "control" ourselves so therefore we "own" ourselves is incorrect at it's very root, for we do not control ourselves (and if we do this control is limited at best). and even if it wasn't incorrect, there is a fundamental requirement of ownership that it is between the owner and the owned and one cannot be both and you keep seeing this and not understanding why this is. i honestly don't know of a way i can help you understand it any better than i already have. this idea is axiomatic to me. i do not understand why it does not register as so to you.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Well then how the hell am I being naive?! How many examples do I need to bring back up that shows this isn't true?? If someone can benefit purely from the fruit of another's labor then that person will continue benefiting purely from the fruit of another's labor because they don't have to WORK for it.

The fact that he can jump means he does have control over his ability. If a person can't jump then that means he is not ABLE to do that, and it's not one of his abilities. I think it's been scientifically explained why people can't jump a thousand feet.

Just because you can't make a car fly doesn't mean you can't control it.