Self-Ownership?

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

I’m not going to quote you, at all in my response as the entirety of your post is you couching your questions in blatant flaming of me. So I’ll just make my point;

You are always going to be subject to community controls, if you live in a society. Some societie’s prohibit murder, theievery, rape, some even prohibit being raped. Some societies prohibit speaking against the authority, prostitution, pornography. Some societies punish these harshly, like cutting off the hand of a theif, others not so harsh, like making the theif pay a fine.

All societies are different, with different rules, regulations, and norms. It is absolutely absurd for you to act as if they aren’t. You accuse me of “trolling” because I asked you about your day (even finding me saying “I love you” as “intimidating.” ) and yet you demand ONE answer to a question of which you must know there are a multitude? And then you blatantly flame me incessantly? Do you even know what trolling is?

It is very telling that you think nobody (outside the echo chamber) agreeing with your definition of something as “irrelevant.” Definitions are only as good as the people telling and hearing them. If one side is using the established definition of something, while someone else is just making up definitions, I doubt any kind of productive conversation can come from that; it will be, as it has been, an endless thread of obfuscation.

But you’re not going to listen to me anyway. You’re just going to read this and think up a new way to flame me and try to anger me. It won’t work; I have discipline and self-respect. I find these tactics amusing. You can keep at it if it makes you feel better. That’s all that really matters anyway.

Love ,

Laotzu

[Autolykos]

@Laotzu del Zinn

You are always going to be subject to community controls, if you live in a society. Some societie’s prohibit murder, theievery, rape, some even prohibit being raped. Some societies prohibit speaking against the authority, prostitution, pornography. Some societies punish these harshly, like cutting off the hand of a theif, others not so harsh, like making the theif pay a fine.

Since you won’t bother even beginning to explain what you actually mean by the word “society”, let alone provide a systemic exposition of your reasoning in this regard, why should I even bother with addressing the above? I mean, it’s just a bunch of bare assertions. Are you really arguing with me? Or are you arguing with yourself?

@Laotzu del Zinn

All societies are different, with different rules, regulations, and norms. It is absolutely absurd for you to act as if they aren’t. You accuse me of “trolling” because I asked you about your day (even finding me saying “I love you” as “intimidating.” ) and yet you demand ONE answer to a question of which you must know there are a multitude? And then you blatantly flame me incessantly? Do you even know what trolling is?

I didn’t find you saying “I love you” as intimidating. I regarded it - among other things - as an attempt at intimidation or “getting under my skin”. Obviously, if I consider it a mere attempt, that means it didn’t work.

“All societies are different…” means absolutely nothing to me, since I have no idea what you mean by “society”. If you’re man enough to actually provide your definition for that word, then we can actually get started for once.

@Laotzu del Zinn

It is very telling that you think nobody (outside the echo chamber [sic]) agreeing with your definition of something as “irrelevant.” Definitions are only as good as the people telling and hearing them. If one side is using the established definition of something, while someone else is just making up definitions, I doubt any kind of productive conversation can come from that; it will be, as it has been, an endless thread of obfuscation.

I can only read this as an attempt to bully me into using your definitions - your implicit definitions! - which only reveals your own narrow-mindedness in refusing to entertain other people’s possibly different semantics. I’d be perfectly happy to entertain yours if you’d simply lay them out for me. But no, you won’t even do that at this point, now will you? Thus it seems obvious to me that I’ve struck quite a nerve.

@Laotzu del Zinn

But you’re not going to listen to me anyway. You’re just going to read this and think up a new way to flame me and try to anger me. It won’t work; I have discipline and self-respect. I find these tactics amusing. You can keep at it if it makes you feel better. That’s all that really matters anyway.

No, I think you’re already angered. Hence this post of yours that I’m responding to. From my point of view, you’re simply trying to “up the ante” in attempting to “get the better of me”. I really don’t think it’ll work - because I won’t let it.

[Malachi]

@Jackson LaRose

Malachai,

Plane of existence? Hm, I’d have to say, “the sum of my perception over the time of my consciousness”. True, John’s opinion may not shed light on mine, but I’ll warn you, I’m not sure I believe the physical world is anything!

So would I be correct in saying that you define anything that is empirically discovered to be part of the physical world?

is there, then, a non-physical world that you have not experienced and contrasting this with? Or is the word “physical” unnecessary, since the physical world now includes whatever ghosts one might meet? If you do not believe that the physical world is anything, then why speak of it at all? Or if your statement was intended more literally than conversationally, could you please explain further? If the physical world may not be “anything,” could it be “something?” or were you suggesting that it might be “no thing”?

[Autolykos]

@RothbardsDisciple

Correct, he did this in discussion with me too:

Nobody owns anything, other than what society allows them to.

Then I told him:

There is no literal, collective “society.” Society is merely the interactions between various individuals and naught more. Society cannot “do” or “allow” or “determine” anything: “it” cannot act. Rothbard proves this as a fact on pages 2-3 ofMan, Economy, and State.

And he had the audacity to tell me:

Hey, why don’t you step out of MI 101, and into 201 where we realize that, valid as MI is, it does not make non-existent grouping. Yes, society is the abstract expression of individual will; your property is still only as valid as those individual actors, known as society, allow it to be.

Yes, that’s his way of trying to obfuscate the point. Basically he was telling you “What you just said doesn’t matter or make a difference one bit.” But it does matter, because it brings awareness. If one is aware that there exists no mystical spirit called “society”, he can keep his focus trained on individuals and the beliefs they hold. His resistance there is telling - he obviously doesn’t want his beliefs challenged. The majority of his posting indicates this. It boils down to nothing more than sophisticated forms of him sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming that he’s not listening.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

if the effects are wholly unseen, then how are you aware of them to ascribe a cause? Additionally, this may answer a question but it doesnt answer my question. Which is disappointing, because I really want to know how a materialist can believe that groups of people have some essential characteristic that is not found in a survey of all of said group’s members. I agree that “metaphysics” has been abused of late. This probably has to do with the ascendance of materialism and the corresponding lack of discourse on metaphysics as differentiated from physics.

I have already linked a paper which discusses the effects of groups that cannot be ascribed to the actions of the individuals within it alone. Consider also the mind; are there not endless debates on whether the body can wholly explain the phenomenon of “mind?” Consider also, as I said, dark matter; we have added up (what we think is) the entirety of mass in the universe, and yet that cannot wholly explain the amount of gravity in the universe (this is a little different, because Dark Matter could be ascribed to an unknown cause, like a parrelell universe. But the principle is still the same; the group cannot wholly be defined by its invdividual parts).

Along with the previous linked paper, here is some further reading:

http://171.67.193.20/entries/methodological-individualism/#6

[RothbardsDisciple]

@Autolykos

It boils down to nothing more than sophisticated forms of him sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming that he’s not listening.

Yeah, then he called me a fundamentalist and cut off the conversation. And I was even talking about how I agreed with one of his points when he ended the conversation. =/

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

And he had the audacity to tell me:

Hey, why don’t you step out of MI 101, and into 201 where we realize that, valid as MI is, it does not make non-existent grouping. Yes, society is the abstract expression of individual will; your property is still only as valid as those individual actors, known as society, allow it to be.

Do you see anyting specifically wrong with it? Or is it just wrong because you find it “audacious?”

Individuals act, and these actions have seen and unseen effects on other individuals surrounding them. There are common threads that tie certain people together, whether or not they believe the group to exist; such as hunter-gatherers who live within statist societies, don’t consider themselves a part of it, and yet are still subject to its laws.

[Autolykos]

@Laotzu del Zinn

Individuals act, and these actions have seen and unseen effects on other individuals surrounding them. There are common threads that tie certain people together, whether or not they believe the group to exist; such as hunter-gatherers who live within statist societies, don’t consider themselves a part of it, and yet are still subject to its laws.

You keep repeating this point as thought it were some fundamental insight. Why do you keep assuming that we somehow don’t “get it”? The only thing I can think of is that this is your way of trying to tell us to “sit down and shut up”. Sorry, but I won’t.

[RothbardsDisciple]

Do you see anyting specifically wrong with it? Or is it just wrong because you find it “audacious?”

I never denied that Individuals can influence each other, which you seem to be implying. But societies cannot “act.” It is literally an impossibility.

Now, yes, sometimes we can use metaphors such as, “The State commits constant atrocities.” But the State is not actually “acting.” I am merely using a metaphor for the various individuals considered as the State.

If you told me, “The State does not literally exist!,” I would not deny it, but explain how I am simply accounting for the actions of various specific Individuals.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

e you won’t bother even beginning to explain what you actually mean by the word “society”, let alone provide a systemic exposition of your reasoning in this regard

Except I did, numerous times. It’s none of my business why you refuse to accept that I even said it.

I regarded it - among other things - as an attempt at intimidation or "getting under my skin

Well I don’t know why. I was sincere, and I still am. But if you don’t want my help, all you have to do is say “I don’t want/need your help.” There’s no reason to start incessantly flaming me because of it.

“All societies are different…” means absolutely nothing to me, since I have no idea what you mean by “society”. If you’re man enough to actually provide your definition for that word, then we can actually get started for once

1) This is flaming. I am surprised it is allowed on these forums. It certainly does not create productive conversation, that’s for sure.

2. You can think whatever you want of me; judgement says more about the judger than the judgee.

3. I have provided definitions for society: Groups of people that share common goals, etc and which individual actions of its members effect each other, in both seen and unseen ways. If you want a better definition, I am basically using this one:

• The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
• The community of people living in a particular region and/or having shared customs, laws, and organizations

The dictionary definition; which I try to use as often as possible, as it is supposed to make conversation easier (and does with most people). I have layed this definition out multiple times in this thread, and if I am not mistaken in another conversation we had a year or two ago. It is your problem, not mine, that you refuse to accept this fact.

can only read this as an attempt to bully me into using your definitions - your implicit definitions! - which only reveals your own narrow-mindedness in refusing to entertain other people’s possibly different semantics. I’d be perfectly happy to entertain yours if you’d simply lay them out for me. But no, you won’t even do that at this point, now will you? Thus it seems obvious to me that I’ve struck quite a nerve

It wasn’t. And you haven’t. Tho it is funny that you are trying to “strike a nerve” with me, and at the same time accusing ME of being a troll…

No, I think you’re already angered

If me getting angry will make you feel better, I will gladly do that. Tho I should warn you that it will not make you feel any better in the long run. RAGJLEINFIEND! RAAAAAAAAAGE! YOU GET UNDER MY SKIN SO BAD!!!

Nah, jk. It’s the internet bro. I could really care less what some faceless stranger thinks of me

Much love ,

Laotzu

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

I never denied that Individuals can influence each other, which you seem to be implying. But societies cannot “act.” It is literally an impossibility.

Now, yes, sometimes we can use metaphors such as, “The State commits constant atrocities.” But the State is not actually “acting.” I am merely using a metaphor for the various individuals considered as the State.

You’ve answered your own question. It’s like an apple; a bunch of cells, really. But we can call the aggregate of its individual cells an apple, because its easier to do so than the alternative.

[RothbardsDisciple]

You’ve answered your own question.

Never asked a question. I already understood this point, but I was merely pointing out that you were collectivizing to justify aggression against private property.

“Oh, I’m a communist, I don’t believe in property LOLZ.”

[Autolykos]

@Laotzu del Zinn

Nah, jk. It’s the internet bro. I could really care less what some faceless stranger thinks of me

Except you do. The fact that you keep signing off with references to love betrays you there. If you really didn’t care, you wouldn’t even bother with that.

I’ll address the rest of your post later.

[Malachi]

Lao Tzu, The paper was more or less filled with examples of materialists being puzzled when materials did not conform to their materialistic theories. This is key to my point. You are a materialist, yet materialistic theories do not account for certain observations. How do you personally explain this? Reference to subjects that are not well understood or in contention is not an answer.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Auto, I can see that nothing productive will come from discussing with you; you will only take any response I have as evidence of you trolling and/or flaming me succesfully (do you realize you’ve admitted to trolling me?). I love ya bro. But I cannot be an enabler for your depression. Accept the light and become a beacon for it

Never asked a question. I already understood this point, but I was merely pointing out that you were collectivizing to justify aggression against private property

Was I? Perhaps you would like to elaborate?

What I was doing was pointing out that, for simplicity we can aggregate the actions of individuals together and call it a group. If you live in a society, the aggregate of individual actors involved, you will be subject to regulations by that society, the aggregate of individual actors involved. You, an individual, are only allowed to have and/or use property deemed fit by the individuals which you effect, or which have effects upon you.

If you and I are a society, for example, and you put a gun to my head, I will regulate that decision by taking it away from you. Because:

[RothbardsDisciple]

If various individuals act to outlaw private property (not that it can ever be actually outlawed), would you support that? Would you support their aggression against me?

If various individuals tell me that I cannot advance payment to labourers to till my fields and claim the product for which I paid said labourers, would you support that?

Would you support confiscating my property, which is derived from the fact that I have mixed my labour with the land? Would you support confiscating the factory I built, or paid others to build?

EDIT- My point, in short, is simply that you seem to be stating others can choose to aggress upon me. They are not allowed to, for that would be criminal activity.

And nice Ninja-ness. =)

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

If various individuals act to outlaw private property (not that it can ever be actually outlawed), would you support that? Would you support their aggression against me?

Honestly, it depends on the circumstance. The outright banning of private property, from within a propertied society, can be very nebulous and open to corruption. Who is to decide what property to outlaw? It will most likely be the “vanguard party” or some such class enforcer. I hope this doesn’t seem like a cop out. If you want specific examples I would say:

1. A factory with strong negative community and environmental effects in which the workers strike and are repressed for it, I would support the expropriation of (again depending on the circumstance, but this would be nearly universally true for me)

2. A factory which uplifts the community, is environmentally aware, and treats its workers well, I would see no reason to expropriate.

Tho I do not, and never will, rule out the need for violent revolution, I think it will be far more efficient, less prone to collapse, and less prone to tyranny, if we evolve to socialism.

If various individuals tell me that I cannot advance payment to labourers to till my fields and claim the product for which I paid said labourers, would you support that?

If you have means to leave the community, yes. If not.. probably not.

Would you support confiscating my property, which is derived from the fact that I have mixed my labour with the land? Would you support confiscating the factory I built, or paid others to build?

On the first one, probably not. You created the value, and are entitlted to the fruits of your labor (within reason). That’s what socialism is all about.

On the second one, probably. It depends upon the specific circumstance. But as long as you can leave the community, yes I would support the confiscation of your factory (within reason) and handing it over to the workers.

I don’t find forceful confiscation necessary in most cases tho. I think abundance created by capitalism will lead us to socialism far faster than aggressive imposing of it upon society. What I support is working class grabbing the reigns of power (that’s the 99%, so to say) and staving off the re-emergence of a ruling class. How the working class chooses to do that is their prerogative; I will make recomendations. But I would just be another class enforcer if I imposed my minority view on everyone else.

[Autolykos]

@Laotzu del Zinn

Auto, I can see that nothing productive will come from discussing with you; you will only take any response I have as evidence of you trolling and/or flaming me succesfully (do you realize you’ve admitted to trolling me?). I love ya bro. But I cannot be an enabler for your depression. Accept the light and become a beacon for it

Oh please, do point out where exactly I admitted to trolling you (I haven’t been, FYI). And what in the world is this “light” you’re talking about?

You betray your own exasperation here, and I accept your concession on all points.

[Autolykos]

@Laotzu del Zinn

If you and I are a society, for example, and you put a gun to my head, I will regulate that decision by taking it away from you. Because:

Dude, do you really think anyone is going to buy this? I mean, really. What’s your point with this? An obvious attempt to paint yourself as all-powerful… which only fails due to its absurdity. You really are a troll, and a fail one at that.

[RothbardsDisciple]

A factory with strong negative community and environmental effects in which the workers strike and are repressed for it.

I don’t see any aggression there…How has the factory owner initiated force against the workers? If he had stolen the factory from the workers, yes, I would support that they could take it back. But, simply, that’s not the case.

Aggression, in brief, includes assault, theft, and slavery. I do not see how the factory owner in your scenario has committed any such act, necessarily. Where there is an initiation of force, counter-force can be use in proportional measure. So, like I said, I only support the usage of force in proportional retaliation to one of the three categories of aggression.

I would support the confiscation of your factory (within reason) and handing it over to the workers.

Have I initiated Force against the labourers in some way? I could just as arbitrarily state, “if my labourers do not work to their full potential or treat me like shit, creating a strong negative comminity, I will call in my goons to seize their house and all their property.” Would that be justified?

On the second one, probably.

How have I aggressed upon anyone by paying others to build me a factory?