There are two glasses of wine. I put cyanide in one of them without you seeing me. Then I pick up the other one. You pick up the poisoned one and we each drink from our glass. You then die from cyanide poisoning.
There was physical contact of your property (cyanide) with mine (body).
But I thought self-ownership was impossible?
It sucks when one discovers their position is illogical by others pointing it out and pointing in the logical direction, but one refuses and turns a different way, only to discover their position is still illogical.
But I thought self-ownership was impossible?
And unjustified to posit in the first place. Just for the sake of discussiom, I’ve assumed that it isn’t.
It sucks when one discovers their position is illogical by others pointing it out and pointing in the logical direction, but one refuses and turns a different way, only to discover their position is still illogical.
What and who are you reffering to?
First, you want self-ownership but the inability to do what one chooses with one’s body and/or labor, calling employment illegitimate. This is proven to be illogical. Instead of saying that self-ownership and property are logical and legitimate, you refuse, and choose to claim that there must be something else besides self-ownership and property. Unfortunately, then you argue about a possible murder, and in this case, end up demonstrating the illogical nature of your position, being that if self-ownership is invalid, then your argument about someone’s property (cyanide) coming into contact with yours (your body), you must agree with self-ownership.
It would seem to me that, at least until you can prove otherwise, that is one rejects self-ownership and property, one must accept that murder and theft are legitimate.
First, you want self-ownership but the inability to do what one chooses with one’s body and/or labor, calling employment illegitimate. This is proven to be illogical.
No, it has not. It actually show that self-ownership is self-contradictory (being that it allows to sell oneself).
Instead of saying that self-ownership and property are logical and legitimate, you refuse, and choose to claim that there must be something else besides self-ownership and property.
Actually, by realizeing that there is something besides self-ownership (self-possession), I see that it is not justified, and thus that property (which is justified by self-owneship) is likewise.
Unfortunately, then you argue about a possible murder, and in this case, end up demonstrating the illogical nature of your position, being that if self-ownership is invalid, then your argument about someone’s property (cyanide) coming into contact with yours (your body), you must agree with self-ownership.
Unfortunately, you haven’t read that I’m talking as if accepting property just for the sake of the discussion, because this is not a discussion on the justification of property, but about a murder that is not aggression as per NAP.
that if one rejects self-ownership and property, one must accept that murder and theft are legitimate.
Not at all. Self-possession renders murer and theft (theft being taking of something that is used without the consent of the user) illegitimate.
Right. It’s contradictory to own oneself because you can give up that ownership, but not illegitimate to own other things becuase you can give up ownership of it. Different rules all over the place for, principally, the same thing. As I said almost two weeks ago, there is no principle. It’s just making stuff up at the non-starbucks, hipster approved coffe shop with fellow models and out of work writers.
I don’t see anything adressing my writing in there.
So in your self-possession theory (which I have yet to see explained), theft would be taking a sandwich out of your hands? Theft would not be taking a sandwich that you set down to get up and grab mustard for? And how is murder explained in self-possession theory? If one kills another, the would-be murderer did not take possession of your body by killing you (as he could with a sandwich in your hands).
HabbaBabba nails you down pretty quick. I still stand by my sentiment that your positions and arguments are illogical (until you can demonstrate otherwise).
So in your self-possession theory (which I have yet to see explained),
I have explained it. Right to possession is a right to exclusive use during that use. Meaning the right to deny anyone else any interence with that use and the thing being used.
the would-be murderer did not take possession of your body by killing you (as he could with a sandwich in your hands).
He violated your use in both cases, he doesn’t need to use the sadwich at all.
Which, as I said, is not the topic here.
So, is me taking a sandwich you set on the table while you get up to get mustard a legitimate act by me?
And I do not understand the self-possession of one’s own body/murder issue.
So, is me taking a sandwich you set on the table while you get up to get mustard a legitimate act by me?
Until I see arguments how can property follow from self-possession, I’d say yes.
And I do not understand the self-possession of one’s own body/murder issue.
I keep a sandwich in my hand and eat it. You come about and take it from me. It is irrelevant if you eat it or not, that was theft, because it was mine, I had exclusive right to it because I have not abandoned it. Likewise with my body- I have exclusive right to it, and you don’t have the right to intefere with my using my body until I stop using it (kill myself or die).
Can I get a clarification on what the concepts ‘use’ and ‘abandon’?
For instance, if I am in my house, and so are you, you cannot legitimately take anything inside the house because I am ‘using’ the house by being inside it?
However, the moment I physically leave the house I ‘abandon’ it? Even if I continue to ‘use’ the air conditioner to condition the air to my preferred temperature while I go get the mail?
Can I get a clarification on what the concepts ‘use’ and ‘abandon’?
No.
The definitions of those two concepts are, of course, the linchpin.
But at any rate, cool story, bro.
If you’re an idiot like that Autolykos guy, and don’t know what words “use” and “possession” mean, that’s your problem, not mine.
There are no meanings inherent in words. There are only meanings which people impute to words. Vanitas Nomen and myself are trying to find out what means you impute to the words “use” and “abandon”. In other words, we don’t know your meanings of those words.
Man, I’m pretty close to renouncing from this forum. The mods go after Smiling Dave, even after memory holing the article he called out to cause the ruckus. A couple guys get temp-banned for some crass language, despite the 90% of the time they are on point and contributive. But this ignoramus, hipster dork comes on here with the sole purpose of being a prick, calls someone an idiot or a troll or worse like 20 times a day, and it’s like fuck it. That stays.
It’s not the inaction that bothers me. It’s the consistency.
I feel your pain HabbaBabba. But I still love this forum despite some of the inconsistency. Autolykos has just started a forum meant to be complementary to this forum. I’m certainly reporting Papirius’ post about Autolykos.
EDIT: Hot damn, Mr. Sanchez swooped in fast!
If you’re an idiot like that Autolykos guy, and don’t know what words “use” and “possession” mean, that’s your problem, not mine.
One month ban, Papirius.