The body of an individual is the individual.
yes it is
edit: there’s plenty of literature on the subject here for free at the Mises Institute internet site. so without further derailing the thread, excuse me for what I’ve already done, have a good evening[B]
edit: edit: and i’ve managed to read I. Ryan’s posts from the previous and current page and he is spot-on. i definitely don’t shy away from reaching out my hand in a gesture of good honor when I agree with somebody.[Y]
That’s my point, it is not something that it is owned by the individual; rather, it is the individual.
Translation: I just take these arguments on authority for I can’t even mention a single work in the subject.
You both don’t realize the consequences of what he just said.
And we own ourselves.
That is a circular argument. Your conclusion is that “you cannot own yourself” but you implicitly assume, in your premises, that you cannot own yourself. If I remove the “it is not something that it is owned by the individual” because that merely states the conclusion, the only residual text is “rather, it is the individual”.Thus, the only premise which your argument contains is that “[the body of the individual] is the individual”. How does that imply that the individual cannot own his body although he is his body?
Do you plan to construct an actual argument or what?
First off, to “mention a single work in the subject” is to also mention the “authority” that did the work, so, what you said here is a contradiction in composition - in short it doesn’t make sense. Secondly, you either are intentionally holding back the facts, writing out of ignorance, or normally don’t read posts you respond to cause I did quote and provide sources of various people not only in this thread but in another post on another thread in which I linked to on the previous page. Of course you were in that thread as well writing the same absurdities.
Notice though I can write about this topic in various ways providing my own thoughtful interjection, and I have the mind-set of knowing what I’m talking about.
Your “ownership” of yourself, and your ownership of external objects are on two different levels: while one can be alienated by force, one cannot. Ergo, one does not “own” your body, rather you are your body, in the sense than one “owns” external physical objects. Any justification of the latter from the former is utter nonsense.
I make no such mistake; rather, I show how “owning” external objects, and “owning” oneself are two different things. In fact, I never even make the assertion that one cannot “own” oneself.
My point makes no such assertion; I’m showing that any justification of owning external objects based on the individuals “ownership” of his body is fallacious. In fact, “owning” one’s own body, and “owning” external objects are two completely different thing: while in the former one is the being whose control cannot be sezied by another man, in the latter the ownership is very much alienable, and because of that to speak of “ownership” as being the same in both respects is ridiculous.
Have you not realized my conlusions are do you need them spoon-fed to you as done above?
If I expropriate your right index finger via a hacksaw while my partner immobilizes you, I would effectively seize control of it. I mentioned that rebuttal earlier but you evaded it.
Do you consider the construction an argument to be an act of “spoon-fe[eding]”? If you do, my answer to your question is yes.
No you are not, you are merely cutting of a part of me - control over that portion is being lost, but it is not being taken. Once my finger is torn off of my body it no longer is a part of me, and is nothing but an external object for all intensive purposes.
The rebuttal is nothing but bad semantics. Your “rebuttal” cannot survive the fact that there is a strong distinction between “owning” one’s body, and “owning” physical objects - the two cannot be equivocated for while one is unalienable, no one cannot take control of another’s body in the strictest possible use of the term, the other is alienable, another person can take control of an individual’s property. Hence to suggest that one owns one’s own body as “property” is ridiculous for it is not owned, rather it is an extension of one’s being: one does not own one’s body, one is one’s body.
I think any number of people greater than one can compose a society. In any case, I’m pretty sure you’re trying to goad me into saying something that I won’t fully mean. Like I already said, I have no interest in a prolonged debate on natural rights—it’s already apparent that the ongoing one in this thread is headed to a stalemate.
While consequentialist arguments may be great, or even to a degree necessary, I personally struggle to empathize with people who can not support the free market on at least somewhat more aesthetic grounds (and I am not a NAP type of guy by any means).
Start with The Market for Liberty, The Machinery of Freedom and/or For a New Liberty. Then move on to The Myth of National Defense and Anarchy and the Law. Optionally, go for Democracy - the God that Failed, Rothbard’s first chapter in Power & the Market and Hoppe’s essay on public goods in The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. Any one of the above would suffice, but some are more comprehensive than others.
I can live with caring about the well being of people, even if it comes at the expense of the NAP.
Ahhh, wouldn’t that then be:
“I can live with caring about the well being of some people, over others, even if it comes at the expense of the NAP.”
[:|]
There’s slavery, both voluntary and involuntary.
And we go from owning ourselves to owning external objects quite easily.
Ah yes: the blank check for tyranny.
Reread this portion:
You claimed, which is shown as the boldfaced print, that you "never even ma[de] the assertion that one cannot “own” oneself. Now, however, you unambiguously introduced that assertion:
That is a circular argument. Your conclusion is that “you cannot own yourself” but you implicitly assume, in your premises, that you cannot own yourself. How does the mere fact that “one is one’s body” imply that “one” cannot “own one’s body”? You continue to claim that “one is one’s body” and then believe that the conclusion that one cannot own oneself somehow follows that premise. It does not.
Now:
The term “property” merely describes an object which a purposeful actor controls or has ‘the ‘right’ to control’. Therefore, if an object is my “property”, I control it or have the ‘right’ to control it. And, therefore, if you believe that each individual has the ‘right’ to control his body, you believe that each individual has the right to ‘own’ his body; if you believe that the state has the ‘right’ to control the body of each individual who is not a government agent, you believe that each individual either does not have or only partially has the right to ‘own’ his body.
That you believe that if I expropriate your right index finger via a hacksaw, the finger would be “nothing but an external object for all intensive purposes” reveals your error. You control the movement of your finger until I were to remove it and then I would control the movement of your finger. When I would control the movement of your finger, you concede that it is now property. However, when you control the movement of your finger, you do not concede that it is property? Why? In one case, you control it; and in the other case, I control it.
And if I completely overpower your entire body except your mind while you are still conscious and I force you to move in certain ways, I would effectively seize control of your body but not your mind.
If you still disagree, what is your definition of property? It is somewhat amusing that you continue to disagree with my usage but you also continue to fail to provide your definition of “property”. The term “property” is just a term and nothing else. I define “property” as the descriptor of an object which a purposeful actor controls and, therefore, the differentia which you continue to mention does not apply to my definition.
Hardly, I just happen to care about people. The fact that I would advocate some minor infringements of the NAP (which has yet to be coherently defined in any case) hardly makes me an advocate of tyranny. The thing is, if statelessness led to the starvation of 90% of the population or constant civil war, I think there’d have to be something wrong with you if you didn’t advocate some type of state.
Two thumbs up for realizing this distiction, which gets at the dualistic flaw of “self-ownership”.