Refutation to the self-ownership axiom

[Anonymous_Coward]

Been arguing with this individual on and off for over a year now and lalely the discussion has turned to ethics after I trolled him with a comment about Plato’s ethical system being flawed because it depends on an enlightened ruler who is above all others therefore it isn’t a universal applicable ethic and false. As his ideal system is spelled out in The Republic (with killer robots it would seem) he took the bait.

How does one argue against logic such as this?

Liberty derives from the fact that a person owns their own body

Ownership is an artificial concept, not a natural one. It’s enforced by governments- and a person does not necessarily own their own body.

and what they produce by mixing labor with nature given resources.

Also not natural- who can own the sky, the ground, the water? Ownership itself is not a natural concept, and it’s certainly NOT universal. Never has been, never will be.

If you were to go out into virgin wilderness and pick some apples then it is undeniable that these apples are your property.

No it isn’t undeniable- the apples could be lent you by the spirit of the tree under animism- or givento you by a god who retains ownership under Judaeo-Christian mythology- or it might be owned by the community under communism. Ownership in a virgin wilderness is a meaningless concept, because ownership is a right granted by governments, not a natural right.

. Then from this undeniable fact the rest of the ethical system is built, not on top of some god given right to ‘liberty’ but upon the absolute property rights of one to own themselves and the fruits of their labor.

Well, considering that ownership is not an undeniable fact, and is in and of itself a man-created legal myth, you’ve built absolute property rights on a foundation of sand.

Well, there is a bit of the ‘man is born into freedom’ doctrine but that’s more of a case of outside thinkers than central to the system of ethics.

It’s also a rediculous farce- man has never been “born into freedom” in the history of the world. The whole thing is a bunch of cultists wanting to build power over other human beings and in so doing, pretend that nature doesn’t exist.

When you find an Earth where the distribution of natural resources is homogeneous then let me know because that’s the only thing that will make trade between areas obsolete.

Granted- but why trade in goods you can produce locally? There’s no reason for it other than to create a power structure.

The real irony is that your proposed system totally divorces the price of goods from their cost while the ‘capitalist’ system only does that when you apply an invalid ‘surplus value’ theory to it.

Not at all- in fact, under Just Wage and Fair Price theory, the price of a good IS it’s cost- the cost of the resources plus the cost of the labor and not a penny more or less. Supply and demand pricing is almost always more or less than this- as often less as it is more- completely divorcing the actual price of the item from the actual cost of the item. No profit allowed.

Of course, retail under such a system is completely impossible- why would anybody pay an importer more money for something they can get locally at cost?

The answer is your inequal foreign trade- with the cost of living being less elsewhere, the importer can make a lot of money cheating both sides of the equation- paying the laborer less than a just wage, and charging more than a fair price, the difference being the profit.

What you are arguing for is the right to profit.

So you propose to program Maslow’s hierarchy of needs into a super-computer and have a robot army enforce these ‘needs’, is that it?

No, much simpler than that- I propose programming a hardware device that can be given an area to patrol and kill anything that moves in that area that doesn’t have a proper transponder code, and creating them in a robotic factory so that nobody can tamper with the chips.

We then give that away- for free- to any government that wants them, configured to the set transponder frequency of that government, and the borders of that government.

Trade is not an individual decision to make- but as you say above, is an obvious one due to unequal distribution of raw materials. This way, a city say can give it’s official trade representatives transponders- while having a completly impartial defense against those who would do the city harm.

The same solution was used profitably for 1500 years on the Italian peninsula, and for nearly 2500 years in the Tibetan mountains. Of course, in both those cases, in absence of robots, the very geography helped a lot.

I can see a few flaws in this super-human governing entity which isn’t bound by the same ethical system of the persons who it governs. Universality anyone?

And what, pray tell, is your problem with universality? Besides, if you were honest, you’d admit that the very foundation of your ethical system, ownership, is nothing more than a legal fiction, a myth to placate materialists.

He is correct that the whole libertarian system falls apart without ‘ownership’ though.

[Jon_Irenicus]

How does one refute this? Like this.

Ownership is an artificial concept, not a natural one. It’s enforced by governments- and a person does not necessarily own their own body.

Pure bullshit. Why doesn’t he offer an argument instead of mere assertions?

Also not natural- who can own the sky, the ground, the water? Ownership itself is not a natural concept, and it’s certainly NOT universal. Never has been, never will be.

Another assertion. Anyone who sufficiently alters any of the above, provided they’re scarce, comes to own them. Else there will be conflict.

No it isn’t undeniable- the apples could be lent you by the spirit of the tree under animism- or givento you by a god who retains ownership under Judaeo-Christian mythology- or it might be owned by the community under communism. Ownership in a virgin wilderness is a meaningless concept, because ownership is a right granted by governments, not a natural right.

Yes, and under any of these ownership remains. The problem with them is that they all fail logically. Is he going to reassert that ownership is a government privilege? If he’s a legal positivist, he has no perch from which to criticize libertarianism, and is merely blathering.

Well, considering that ownership is not an undeniable fact, and is in and of itself a man-created legal myth, you’ve built absolute property rights on a foundation of sand.

Well, considering he’s merely asserting this…

It’s also a rediculous farce- man has never been “born into freedom” in the history of the world. The whole thing is a bunch of cultists wanting to build power over other human beings and in so doing, pretend that nature doesn’t exist.

Speculative bullshit, and an appeal to history. Not an argument.

Granted- but why trade in goods you can produce locally? There’s no reason for it other than to create a power structure.

Speculative bullshit. Consumers do so because they prefer the benefits to the costs. End of story. No “power structures” necessary.

*Not at all- in fact, under Just Wage and Fair Price theory, the price of a good IS it’s cost- the cost of the resources plus the cost of the labor and not a penny more or less. Supply and demand pricing is almost always more or less than this- as often less as it is more- completely divorcing the actual price of the item from the actual cost of the item. No profit allowed.

Again, bullshit. There’s no such thing as a “just wage” nor a “fair price” outside of the market. This guy needs to quit reading Marx, who’s been refuted for over 100 years.

Of course, retail under such a system is completely impossible- why would anybody pay an importer more money for something they can get locally at cost?

Because they believed the retailer was providing them with a valuable service. See? That’s all there is to it. No offence, conspiracy theorists.

The answer is your inequal foreign trade- with the cost of living being less elsewhere, the importer can make a lot of money cheating both sides of the equation- paying the laborer less than a just wage, and charging more than a fair price, the difference being the profit.

Yeah, creating profit, alerting other entrepreneurs to it, eventually diminishing profits and increasing the availability of goods to consumers. Boo fucking hoo.

What you are arguing for is the right to profit.

The right to earn a profit. Does he have a problem with this? If so, he should go cry me a fucking river.

*No, much simpler than that- I propose programming a hardware device that can be given an area to patrol and kill anything that moves in that area that doesn’t have a proper transponder code, and creating them in a robotic factory so that nobody can tamper with the chips.

Yeah, apparently someone has wet dreams about RoboCop.

Trade is not an individual decision to make

It is.

So, all we have is a string of ignorant, unargued for assertions. Why is this difficult to deal with? I have never seen so much nonsense collected in one place in my life. Oh wait, perhaps in Das Kapital…

-Jon

[Anonymous_Coward]

@Jon Irenicus

So, all we have is a string of ignorant, unargued for assertions. Why is this difficult to deal with? I have never seen so much nonsense collected in one place in my life. Oh wait, perhaps in Das Kapital…

I was being sarcastic on the ‘how does one argue against this’…just wanted to share.

But I figured I’d start simple and get him to try to prove that people aren’t self owners;

How does one argue against such a fine collection of fallacy, strawmen and red herrings?

Who exactly owns a person if they aren’t self owners? Once you can prove that you can disconnect yourself from your will then maybe you have a chance to support that theory. Even your god that claims ownership over your immortal soul gave you free will.

Unhackable hunter/killer robots, you gotta be kidding me…

He usually just gives up once I point out how he isn’t consistent with the Word of God though.

[Jon_Irenicus]

As soon as you force them to concretize their arguments, they collapse. They deal in abstractions, e.g. autonomy divorced from reality, and I do not mean useful abstractions. Is this guy a Hegelian sort of Marxist?

-Jon

[liberty_student]

There really is no shortage of irrational people to argue with.

[sergebeauchamp]

I would answer just this one:

Liberty derives from the fact that a person owns their own body

Ownership is an artificial concept, not a natural one. It’s enforced by governments- and a person does not necessarily own their own body.

Ownership is defined in economics as “full control of a resource”.

Man natually owns his own body because from his nature given abilities, he controls it through his own will. He owns everything he can derive from the use of his body and his labor.

When he picks up an apple, for instance, he fully control that resource, he demonstrate his ownership of it. What happens when two persons control of a single resource collide (i.e. both claiming ownership or it) and how this collision is resolved doesn’t change what the concept of ownership means, nor that it exists in the natual state of man.

What this guy confused in the legal definition of “ownership”, along with state coersion that goes with it. Ownership exists for the primitive man without the existance of a state, and the context in which one’s property is defended (i.e. control of the resource is retained) can vary depending on the social context of the person.

That in modern states, the government declares itself as a monopolist of jusridiction over a territory and enforce legal property claims with his coercitive hand doesn’t make it the originator of the institution of private property. If anything, the state is the first violator of property through its taxation and regulations over its oppressed population.

Ownership and how ownership is maintained should not be confused to be the same thing.

That person seems too ignorant and confused to understand concepts beyong what the state employees tells children in textbooks.

The rest of his arguments displays also a deep ignorance of economics, political economy and philosophy (regarding trade, etc…).

[Anonymous_Coward]

A while back I beat the heck out of him with the Economic Calculation Problem so he has given up on socialism…mostly.

He has some crazy protectionist feudal society in mind right out of Plato’s Republic with a few modifications like a super computer enforcing the laws and the killer robots. He doesn’t really believe in collective ownership as much as an enlightened ruler owning everything including the people and making sure everyone receives a living wage hence the local vs. imported goods argument.

He’s fun to troll every now and then because he comes up with stuff that’s so far out there you just have to say WTF. He was blaming free trade for homosexuality because it made having children uneconomical a couple weeks ago.

Not that I know what a Hegelian sort of Marxist is though so maybe…

[Jon_Irenicus]

Marxists who base their arguments on the Hegelian metaphysic. That’s where their dialectical materialism comes in. Gordon has a lecture on this if you look up Marx on Mises.org.

-Jon