Mmmhmm. I’ll just take your incredibly unsupported statement and toss it in the trash. Bye-bye, unsupported nonsense. Ta-ta arbitrary trash. See ya later, emotive ejaculation.
ha ha, even here we use differnt definitions of words. From Wikipedia
Tautology may refer to:
- Tautology (logic), a statement of propositional logic which holds for all truth values of its atomic propositions
- Tautology (rhetoric), use of redundant language
i used the first. you used the second. oh well.
You’re only proving my point. This method just poo-poos people for disagree with you.
Use of redundant language - EXACTLY! And use of redundant language does not prove the initial predicate. You have to appeal to something outside of the predicate itself. The problem is that people engage in what is actually the second definition, as if it is consistant with the first.
I must say, I find the deep and relatively clear division into 2 camps on this board fascinating. Even more fascinating would be to figure out what the real core issue of this division is.
No, I’m proving that you can’t support your claims. So please, in the future: support your claims. Don’t just assert and think people won’t call you on your blatant assertions. Because they will. Don’t like it? Tough.
You ignored the substance my arguments against Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. Go back and review it please.
Actually, I’ll elaborate here.
If I say “I don’t own myself” and you say “you just proved that you own yourself”, here’s why that’s bunk:
-
You are confusing an is with an ought. The fact that I can purposefully act is not the same thing as the ethical proposition that I should have sovereignty.
-
You are conflating existance, free will, and an ethical right of soviereighnty. At best, all that saying “I don’t own myself” implicitly proves is that I exist and have free will. It doesn’t prove an ethical right of sovereignty in and of itself.
-
By denying self-ownership, I’m denying a dualism that splits the self into two. I’m saying that you are yourself. If you are owned, then you are not the thing doing the owning. If you are owning something, then that thing is not you.
Viola. Dualistic self-ownership debunked in under a paragraph.
this critique is misguided.
-
if you say you dont own yourself; i.e this body (you) thats takling to me does not have an owner, the voice speaks out denying an owner, you have provided no reason for me to refrain from violence against your unowned body. this is self-defeating in a purely practical sense. assuming i care about rationality and dont want to inflict violence on owned bodies.
-
by denying a part of a bodies generating a mind, that considers itself the owner of the body at large and extended property, you are not merely throwing out self-ownership, but all forms of ownership. how can you own your pants? you certainly didnt homestead your pants with other property that you did not own (i.e. your body) , or with other goods that you dont own, because you cant own anything, because you have no legitimate owned body acting in the world
(Edit, the text i was responding to changed, but im too lazy to change to 3 bullet points)
None of these arguments get around the problem, they repeat the same assumptions that I just debunked.
This body (me) that’s talking doesn’t have an owner - noone owns it. It’s indepenant from the ownership of people, as ownership is a concept that draws out a relationship between people and objects external to people.
Indeed, upon argueing that I don’t own myself, I have not provided a reason for your to refrain from violence against me. That’s because there are OTHER reasons for refraining from violence against my body. Of course, the purpose of my argument is not to get people to refrain from violence against me, so you’re just superimposing your own purposes onto the discussion.
The 2nd part of your argument relies on precisely the same assumptions which I’m questioning, so it’s nonsensical. You want to say that I need to own myself to own something else, when I’m saying that ownership can only mean ownership over something else, something other than me. The fact that I purposefully act is not “self-ownership”, it’s volition. You are confirming my accusation that there is a conflation between an epistemological and ethical claim (volition and an ethical right of sovereignty).
What substance?
False. I am stating an is as an is.
False. I am accepting existence, understanding that you have to have free will to state it, and that your statement requires sovereignty. That you refuse to grasp such isn’t my problem in the least. That you have a problem with tautologies isn’t my problem. That you are trying to hide from the fact that you believe tautologies don’t state anything meaningful about the world isn’t my problem.
False. The self is kept as a whole.
So when’s the debunking going to start, hmmmmmm?
you claim there is a problem. i dont think there is. self-owner is a descriptive term. it says that there is some chunk of matter, the brain, of a person, that generates a mind and thoughts. these minds and thoughts are capable of thinking about things. and owning things. in most cases the mind owns the body of the person that houses the brain. or it doesnt, in which case there isi no objection to violence against the body by other agents, or non-agents as the case may be.
one simply has to decide whther to adopt a moral view or not . if not, then be a nihilist no problem. if you want to use moral language, you will have to play the rationality game.
Self-ownership is an ethical claim, not a description. When you make the argumentation ethics argument, you are conflating descriptive ethics with normative ethics. Again, you’re rubbing up against the is/ought dichotomy.
The idea that the mind owns the body is nonsensical, it relies on the very cartesian dualism that I’ve already debunked in the thread on voluntary slavery. One could just as easily argue that the body owns the mind, since the mind is contained within it.
This is all based on quite amatuer philosophy. Your impliciation that this position is nihilist is a strawman, especially since I’ve been vigoursly debating against nihilists for the past 4 days on youtube.
Your arguments are actually not rational, and neither are the nihilists.
your right, i was wrong. self-ownership is an ethical claim.(as well as having some description in there)
as such it will have no force on those disregarding moral arguments or moral claims. i.e. moral nihilists. what of people that accept moral language, they need a way to classify acts of moral agents into premissable, impermissable (i.e. right and wrong)
more on this to follow, as i have to get some sleep.
There isn’t any such thing. You can derive an ought from an is as Rothbard noted in Ethics of Liberty.
Yeah, it’s called a strawman. Maybe you shouldn’t be using strawmen.
Actually in the context of this debate that was not a strawman. The person I was responding to did claim that the mind owns the body: “in most cases the mind owns the body of the person that houses the brain.”
Rhetorical trick. Language trick. Tautology!
Yeah, I’ll bet you’re not going to like that I used that against you. NMFP.
At first, the division was more about left-right conflicts, but it’s actually more about deeper questions of philosophy (and the left-right conflicts are related to those deeper questions).
Read the post of the person I was responding to. They did claim the mind owns the body.
So your behavior here is rather mystifying.
I did. That you don’t see how you used a language trick in your response to me baffles me.
IOW: I got you to do what you accuse Hoppe of doing. It was quite easy.
You’re being disingenous and I’m not going to play your rhetorical game. Suffice it to say that I don’t even think Hoppe has a consistant form of libertarianism by which he can use argumentation ethics to argue for. Good day.