/liberty/ - Liberty

>>17684

>Whit say ye anarchistes?

Protecting property rights by giving an organization a monopoly on force by which to expropriate your legitimately held property is like having a guard protect a woman from rape, paid in forced sex. Sure, no one else will rape her, but you've just institutionalized a violation of her rights, which means the guard ensures that which he was meant to eliminate.

>>17744

It is by the very fact that government is the monopolist on the legitimate use of force, that government was constituted. Individuals entered into government so that could formalise the terms at which government could violate rights. You cannot do this this in anarchy, where man is at his most free but in exchange is privately responsible for the defence of his own liberty, and therefore at the whim of the forces of prediction.

The guard isn't there to eliminate violence. His job is to diminish it.

By that false analogy, I'm reminded of that stupid phrase "fighting for peace/freedom is like fucking for virginity".

Is there any (liberal) anarchist writer who has addressed this Hobbesian argument at length.

The argument generalises most good arguments against anarchy well. The basis of minarchy, and all "liberal statisms", I suppose, is the fear that without the state monopolist, liberty can't be sustained. And what good is property when property can't be enjoyed?

>>17842

*forces of predation

>>17744

Property rights depend on a government, the modern conception of property right followed from the historical development of the state and justice system.

>like having a guard protect a woman from rape, paid in forced sex.

Rape seems to be a pillar of the libertarian worldview, everything is equivocated to it. It only views the world in terms of platonic forms, not material reality.

>>17846

>Property rights depend on a government, the modern conception of property right followed from the historical development of the state and justice system.

Even if the latter were true, then it would not follow from this that property rights depend on the government. Not that I'm having an easy time accepting your premise, considering how vague it sounds.

>Rape seems to be a pillar of the libertarian worldview, everything is equivocated to it.

Rape is simply regarded as the most heinous crime nowadays. Libertarians are not any more rape-focused than everyone else these days.

>It only views the world in terms of platonic forms, not material reality.

This might be why our ethical system is coherent and applicable, unlike the subjectivism and the utilitarianism other ideologies are fucking around with.

>>17847

>Even if the latter were true, then it would not follow from this that property rights depend on the government. Not that I'm having an easy time accepting your premise, considering how vague it sounds.

Ofcourse it is "vague", the reality of our conceptions aren't made up of bite sized set piece arguments, our contemporary concepts of property rights follow from a long historical process of the development of state and law. "Behold, the NAP and self-ownership!" is not how it came into existence, that is demonstrably false idealism.

>This might be why our ethical system is coherent and applicable, unlike the subjectivism and the utilitarianism other ideologies are fucking around with.

The absolutism of it's platonic forms make it completely unpractical and unapplicable, the contradiction with material reality, that is our conceptions and behaviour not following from platonic forms, makes it unsuitable for the world outside of the lowest regions of philosophical discussion. It is coherent, but there's no value in being coherent in itself, to the contrary, it internalizes thought terminating cliché's that the incoherent can deal with better.

Read some Heidegger.

>>17849

>It is coherent, but there's no value in being coherent in itself, to the contrary, it internalizes thought terminating cliché's that the incoherent can deal with better.

I don't even know where to begin.

>Read some Heidegger.

Oh.

>>17873

>People being right for the wrong reasons is nothing know. Since the dawn of mankind, everyone kinda knew that killing another man is generally a shitty thing to do. That there are a billion justifications for this does not mean that one of them isn't right.

It means that all of them are results of the historical process, and that yours is no different in this aspect. There's a reason right-libertarianism only has any real presence in America, it's combination of enlightment thinking and reverence of capitalism gives libertarianism material-ideological base. It's arguments are not accepted because of any inherent logic.

>That doesn't mean we can't abstract these platonic forms, as you call them, from our experiences.

You can indeed anchor yourself into an absolutist idealism based on the ideology you experience, you'd just be deluded and limited.

>Thanks for admitting that you're incoherent.

True coherency implies the supreme arrogance that one knows the general principle behind anything and everything, or in the lesser sense, that one has full acces to his own platonic forms and that they override his material being.

And that's just pure ideology.

>>17889

>It means that all of them are results of the historical process

Let me give you a list of bullshit non-arguments:

-Explaining the evolutionary origin of a belief

-Explaining the psychopathological origin of a belief

-Explaining the historical origin of a belief

They're not bullshit in and of themselves, they're bullshit when people like you pretend "DURR, YOUR IDEAS DIDN'T APPEAR OUT OF NOWHERE, THEREFORE UR DUMB LEL!"

For instance, I can give a pop psychology explanation of a god belief, like an ape in Africa was better off with a "false positive" believing a threat was real, as opposed to just thinking "what are the odds that rustle of grass is a tiger," evolutionarily, much better off with a false positive to threats; hell is a threat, religion is the false positive. Okay, I can do this, but it's really shitty and dishonest in my opinion as an atheist. It's a back-door way to say LOL YOUR BELIEF IS UNRELIABLE.

>>17890

I didn't claim that you are dumb, I claim that your ideology stems from a post-hoc justification of capitalism. My ideology also stems from material conditions, the difference being that I don't delude myself into thinking that my ideology stems from the revelation of the Pure Logic of a platonic form.

>>17911

I'm not the guy you replied to the last time. I totally agree with him, though: Explaining why someone believes something is not a refutation of his beliefs, and it's dishonest as fuck.

>I didn't claim that you are dumb, I claim that your ideology stems from a post-hoc justification of capitalism.

Again: That's not an argument.

>My ideology also stems from material conditions, the difference being that I don't delude myself into thinking that my ideology stems from the revelation of the Pure Logic of a platonic form.

Also not an argument, and you've done fuck all to refute the logic of anarchocapitalism.

Now, as for your post before that:

>>17889

>It's arguments are not accepted because of any inherent logic.

I have accepted them for this reason, and because they appeal to my love for justice. My family is not particularly wealthy. I never had the ambition to become rich, and half of the shit I studied is shit that would hold zero value if libertarians had their way. So, how exactly does libertarianism give a post-hoc justification for my particular material conditions.

>You can indeed anchor yourself into an absolutist idealism based on the ideology you experience, you'd just be deluded and limited.

Another argument that's dishonest as fuck. The only way I could "prove" to you that I'm not indoctrinated was if I admitted I'm wrong.

>True coherency implies the supreme arrogance that one knows the general principle behind anything and everything, or in the lesser sense, that one has full acces to his own platonic forms and that they override his material being.

In other words, trusting your capacity to reason is ebul arrogance.

>>17925

>I'm not the guy you replied to the last time. I totally agree with him, though: Explaining why someone believes something is not a refutation of his beliefs, and it's dishonest as fuck.

That's not argument!

>Again: That's not an argument.

It's a clarification of my statement

>Also not an argument, and you've done fuck all to refute the logic of anarchocapitalism.

I described the historical process of anarcho-capitalism, it put's it's logic™ in it's material perspective.

>I have accepted them for this reason

Highly doubtfull idealism. All I have your claim is that you do, a claim that is not supported by any sound psychological theory.

>My family is not particularly wealthy. I never had the ambition to become rich, and half of the shit I studied is shit that would hold zero value if libertarians had their way. So, how exactly does libertarianism give a post-hoc justification for my particular material conditions.

That's exactly how it does so, it justifies your place in the capitalist hierarchy.

>Another argument that's dishonest as fuck. The only way I could "prove" to you that I'm not indoctrinated was if I admitted I'm wrong.

You can acknowledge it and say that it's a good thing, which is what you believe.

>In other words, trusting your capacity to reason is ebul arrogance.

That, and making Reason™ into a big other is just pure ideology and fake and gay.

>>17926

>Highly doubtfull idealism. All I have your claim is that you do, a claim that is not supported by any sound psychological theory.

Fuck me sideways. You're really going out of your way to be an asshole. Mind explaining these psychological theories? Also, please cite sauces. I want you to make a strong case that I, personally, am not following logic by supporting anarchocapitalism. In fact, I want you to prove - and I do mean prove, not show it to be merely likely - that I'm an anarchocapitalist for the particular reasons you cite.

Also, you might want to explain to me how telling people you've talked to on an imageboard for a day or two that they're deluded is not arrogant, but having a coherent worldview is.

>That's exactly how it does so, it justifies your place in the capitalist hierarchy.

Except it doesn't, because of muh cronyism, muh welfare state and muh statism. Anarchocapitalism can't justify my standing in a system that isn't even properly capitalist.

>You can acknowledge it and say that it's a good thing, which is what you believe.

How exactly would that refute your idea that I'm indoctrinated? It wouldn't. This notion of yours is unfalsifiable.

>>17932

>So what? Even if there was an embarrassing "material perspective" (and that's yet to be clearly established) that made anarcho-capitalism appear unreliable, it's not an argument. It's only meaningful to low-IQ people with a low standard of evidence,

Understanding what shapes our worldview is for low-IQ people, really? Well, I can understand why ancaps refuse to asses this, understanding doesn't do their ideology well, so it has to be kept a bay as irrelevant.

>I highly doubt that there isn't a dick in your ass.

N-O-T A-N A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T

>Anarcho-capitalism would permit voluntary co-ops within them. It does not justify your place in a "capitalist hierarchy", it fails to justify the property violations and murderous proclivities of hypocritical leftists, which is the whole point of leftist "philosophy." Oh, look, I gave a "material" perspective, and it didn't prove anything but that I have my own understanding of the origins of your belief! Wow! Maybe we should stop wasting our time with this shit! Maybe you shouldn't have been a gigantic faggot by bringing it up in the first place!

It drives capitalist ideology so far to it's end conclusions that it forms critical mass and creates an ideological blackhole, it isn't an embarrasment to the system. And yes, understanding the world, our functioning, the conditions that lead to our actions ideology is not something for ancaps. Their ideology necessarily robs them of the ability to understand the world around them, entrapping them in their own holy ideals.

Tell me, why does something have to be a set piece argument to be considered?

>Looking for any justification for stealing the property of Ebul Capitalists™ when more than 2/3rds of rich people have earned their income from a relatively low-starting place financially (but a high place in terms of work ethic and intelligence) is pure ideology too, faggot. And I'm still doubting that your asshole is free of the presence of a dick. Oh, wait, doubting something isn't an argument? SHEEEIT, then I guess we've both been wasting our time?

Stop acting like you are so emotionally attached to the molyneux cult that you rage with hostility when someone disagrees with you, it's bad PR and molyneux is the greatest philosopher ever and the saviour of the world so you shouldn't make him look bad.

>Fuck me sideways. You're really going out of your way to be an asshole. Mind explaining these psychological theories? Also, please cite sauces. I want you to make a strong case that I, personally, am not following logic by supporting anarchocapitalism. In fact, I want you to prove - and I do mean prove, not show it to be merely likely - that I'm an anarchocapitalist for the particular reasons you cite.

Because it would imply that reason is separate from incentive, material being and material conditions. If anarcho-capitalism follows from reason, and if reason is something that is present in such purity, everyone would be an anarcho-capitalist by the fact that it is imbedded in the reason that is within us.

>How exactly would that refute your idea that I'm indoctrinated? It wouldn't. This notion of yours is unfalsifiable.

You surely haven't said anything that indicates differently.

>>17954

It is an embarrasment to the system*

>>17954

>Understanding what shapes our worldview is for low-IQ people, really? Well, I can understand why ancaps refuse to asses this, understanding doesn't do their ideology well, so it has to be kept a bay as irrelevant.

First of all, this is a strawman argument. No, only low-IQ people would consider an "examination of material conditions" sufficient to rebut an idea, the origins of a belief have no bearing on its validity. You probably know full well that this is a strawman argument, but leftists simply can't help themselves, their entire tradition is founded upon a combination of self-masturbatory snark and fallacies ranging from strawman, to guilty by association, to the fundamentally fallacious "class analysis" which at best could be a descriptor of reality and in practice has been a substitute for arguments because it can be used to call out perceived indoctrination and conflicts of interest. But fine, if you want to consider "the origin of a belief" as a method for showing it arises out of a fundamental bias and conflict of interest, let's analyze leftism.

The foundations of anti-free market leftism are a combination of blood lust, selfishness, low intelligence, narcissism, concern-trolling, and false moral superiority. I will address each point. As stupid people, you rage against those who you perceive to have risen by unjust measures, no one could be better than you, right? If they were, that would call into question the basis of your narcissism. Failing to recognize that those successful CEOs who have labored for 80 hours/week for thirty years are the most valuable producers on Earth with their combination of skills, talents, connections, and experience, is necessary to square the circle of narcissism and your low-intelligence. You are just so slightly above average in intelligence that you are capable of maintaining a sense of false moral superiority, while you surely can't create an actual improvement in the material condition of workers, at least you can superior to those brilliant investors and producers by berating them for their exploitative behavior, failing to recognize that your childish cost/benefit analysis of the work CEO a does fails to recognize the massive risk and opportunity cost these genuine creators faced, you look at a successful business and fail to recognize the thousands of hours the investors and entrepreneur put into it, not to mention that the most fundamental theories leftists have about economics predict the exact opposite of reality, like greater "exploitation" in capitalist-intensive industries. Blood lust blinds you from the fact that these producers are the foundation of the well-being of the "working-class" you care about so much, without these producers the working class would be much worse off as investments in their productivity would come far too early or far too soon and in all the wrong ways, meaning that instead of being able to produce many times more and being compensated far more, in your system, workers would instead suffer as resources are squandered. Being a narcissist, it is totally outside of your feeble mind to accept that someone much more intelligent and capable and experienced than you could have earned this material wealth, and not only is infinitely more successful than you, but is also a saint for helping everyone in mutually beneficial relationships along the way. No, that can't be! Clearly they must have stolen it from hard workers like you, and clearly capitalism is fundamentally broke if it fails to reward Women's studies as highly as mechanical engineering, after all, leftism has done so much to benefit the working class by trying to abolish prices and with them any chance to rationally allocate goods (of course, the central planners of these leftist nations will immediately copy the prices of their capitalist neighbors when they realize all their theories are bullshit and they need steal price figures so their brilliant central planners don't starve all of those proles who have been freed from the chance at a higher standard of living.) Thinkers of your ilk would rather share a pie 1 inch across equally amongst 50 of your leftist peers than have to see a highly intelligent, driven producer take home 30% of a 50 foot diameter pie, after all, there's no way he could have earned it, because that would interfere with your unearned moral superiority, and narcissism, and from that it's easy to see how blood lust and impotent arises in those conditions. This is why a woman in a gender's studies program is exponentially more likely to be a Marxist than a CEO, the CEO is busy actually creating value for society while the woman (women having evolved as dependent organisms) leaches value off of society and claims moral superiority for doing so.

.

>>17954

>N-O-T A-N A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T

that's the point, saying "I highly doubt x" isn't an argument

>It drives capitalist ideology

Principles. Self-ownership and property right are principles, not ideology.

>it forms critical mass and creates an ideological blackhole

You mean logical consistency stemming from first principles doesn't always conform to the leftist caricature of an entire philosophy they think they can rebut by applying the adjective "ideology" to it? Go suck off Zizek, faggot.

>Their ideology necessarily robs them of the ability to understand the world around them, entrapping them in their own holy ideals.

Assuming the initial point, begging the question. Not an argument, it's a baseless assertion.

>Stop acting like you are so emotionally attached to the molyneux cult that you rage with hostility when someone disagrees with you,

Stop acting like you are so emotionally attached to the marxist cult that you rage with hostility when someone disagrees with you, it's bad PR and marx is the greatest historian, economist, and philospher ever and savior of the working class who he only exploited for his entire adult life via Engels, not to mention the maid he fucked ad kicked on the street or the money he stole by never paying back his family's loans

>Because it would imply that reason is separate from incentive,

Not who you replied to, believe it or not there's more than one an-cap here. Anyways, if reason is not separate from incentive, then all of your theories are completely irrational justifications for your blood lust which stems from your lack of intelligence and inability to understand that "capitalist exploitation" is the foundation of the accumulation of capital goods i.e. high wages and living standards

>>17958

> at least you can superior to those brilliant investors and producers by berating them for their exploitative behavior,

can feel* superior

>>17954

So what's your problem with property rights again?

Or are you just being a weird dick and calling it a fantasyland

>>17958

It's not a strawman argument, it's an analysis of your ideology that you don't like because it makes you look more like a bitch and less like a Man of Reason™. An analysis of the material conditions that lead to your ideology doesn't need to be an argument against it, it's a manner to help our understanding.

>As stupid people, you rage against those who you perceive to have risen by unjust measures, no one could be better than you, right?

It's about collective interests. It doesn't matter if CEO's are more intelligent, work harder or have a dick of which you so much prefer the taste of.

>>17959

>that's the point, saying "I highly doubt x" isn't an argument

That's not an argument!

>Principles. Self-ownership and property right are principles, not ideology.

Principles are ideology.

>You mean logical consistency stemming from first principles doesn't always conform to the leftist caricature of an entire philosophy they think they can rebut by applying the adjective "ideology" to it? Go suck off Zizek, faggot.

No, what I mean is you coming up with bizarre set piece arguments that actual analytical philosophers have debunked over and over again, and disregarding anything that doesn't relate to this style of argument as "not an argument" or "not philosophy".

>Assuming the initial point, begging the question. Not an argument, it's a baseless assertion.

No, it's a description of your ideological entrapment. You are the base of the assertion.

>>17964

Those rights being seen as following from intrinsic moral principles, instead of concepts that follow from the development of economy and state.

>>17969

>It's about collective interests.

And you're too blinded by your taste for leftist cock to realize that the collective interest is to allow inequality to exist so that everyone is better off, retard.

>>17969

>Principles are ideology.

Leftism is ideology.

>No, what I mean is you coming up with bizarre set piece arguments that actual analytical philosophers have debunked over and over again, and disregarding anything that doesn't relate to this style of argument as "not an argument" or "not philosophy".

>SOMEONE ELSE DEBUNKED IT SO I DON'T HAVE TO! THAT MEANS I CAN USE BULLSHIT NON-ARGUMENTS BECAUSE ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE ALREADY DEBUNKED :^)

>No, it's a description of your ideological entrapment. You are the base of the assertion.

You are a gigantic faggot. You are that assertion.

>>17973

the base of that assertion* woopsies

>>17970

Unless there's something faulty in our modern conception of property rights it seems logical to me that we're based on the intrinsic moral principle, that interfering with another person's property is wrong.

>>17970

Yeah, if we reason from first principles that might get in the way of your selfish Nihilistic blood lust, wouldn't it?

>>17975

Logical isn't the right word

I mean 'apparent' or something

>>17975

You can look up lots of libertarian authors who give a natural rights account of natural rights self-ownership. Probably not unlike what I posted here >>17733 when (I'm assuming the same faggot nihilist) started being retarded about property.

You can also look up Hoppe's argumentation ethics, meant to bolster the natural rights justification of property rights.

>>17954

>Because it would imply that reason is separate from incentive, material being and material conditions. If anarcho-capitalism follows from reason, and if reason is something that is present in such purity, everyone would be an anarcho-capitalist by the fact that it is imbedded in the reason that is within us.

This is unscientific as fuck. You're using popular scientific explanations along with flawed logical reasoning to get to this argument.

Here's the thing: People naturally strive to be both logical and good. The latter requires honesty and critical thinking, to a certain degree, amplifying the first. There you have your incentive. Now, the reasons why many people are still illogical as fuck, even though anarchocapitalism is around, are manifold. For one, embracing a new idea that's as radical as anarchocapitalism isn't easy. It took me around two or three months to become confident in my beliefs. For another, some people are masters of self-deception, and will rather invent flaws in a good, sound reasoning than go the hard way and correct their worldview. There are other reasons, too.

To sum it up: Not everyone is anarchocapitalist because not everyone is the same person. Some people have a strong desire to be reasonable, whereas for some, the incentive to keep their views fixed is much, much stronger. But both incentives are there. Again, you'll have to prove that for me, not for Bob, not for your neighbor, not for anybody else, the desire to be reasonable didn't have a say on the matter.

>You surely haven't said anything that indicates differently.

Again: I couldn't have said anything to indicate differently, except "sorry, my ideology was wrong all along". Your view is unfalsifiable.

Seriously, everything about you screams "leftist education". You love to throw the big words around and to claim the support of intellectual authorities, but as for original thought, I see none of that. Not to mention your complete lack of self-awareness. Your views are ultimately self-defeating. Hell, you gleefully told us there was no logic behind them.

You're the evil guys from Atlas Shrugged. The ones leftists claim are just strawmen. I used to think the same, until I met people like you.

>>18012

Forgot my flag of divine logicness.

>>18012

>This is unscientific as fuck. You're using popular scientific explanations along with flawed logical reasoning to get to this argument.

Yeah it's totally flawed that peoples ideologies are shaped by their enviroment. Must be genetics then.

>Here's the thing: People naturally strive to be both logical and good. The latter requires honesty and critical thinking, to a certain degree, amplifying the first. There you have your incentive. Now, the reasons why many people are still illogical as fuck, even though anarchocapitalism is around, are manifold. For one, embracing a new idea that's as radical as anarchocapitalism isn't easy. It took me around two or three months to become confident in my beliefs. For another, some people are masters of self-deception, and will rather invent flaws in a good, sound reasoning than go the hard way and correct their worldview. There are other reasons, too.

This begs the question in the sense that it defines logical and good as anarcho-capitalism. You claim those terms are property of your ideology, and then claim that your ideology follows from them. It is the other way around. You assume that anarcho-capitalism follows from reason, and that else is reason clouded, the anarcho-capitalism is the only things that follows from Reason, making reason the big other, a holy entity that is wholly different from it's common use.

>Again, you'll have to prove that for me, not for Bob, not for your neighbor, not for anybody else, the desire to be reasonable didn't have a say on the matter.

This is liking asking for evidence that a magic fairy didn't have a say in the matter. Just like I have no reason to assume it was a magic fairy, I have no reason to assume that reason, as in the pure distilled essence you make it into, had a say in the matter.

You also use the same fault again, you define reason by anarcho-capitalism and then claim that anarcho-capitalism follows from it, while it is your version of Reason that follows from your ideology.

>Again: I couldn't have said anything to indicate differently, except "sorry, my ideology was wrong all along". Your view is unfalsifiable.

I stated my views about you that I deducted from what you said, just that, stop whining about it and be the strong indepedent randian who don't need no approval. Or call me a fag.

>Seriously, everything about you screams "leftist education". You love to throw the big words around and to claim the support of intellectual authorities, but as for original thought, I see none of that. Not to mention your complete lack of self-awareness. Your views are ultimately self-defeating. Hell, you gleefully told us there was no logic behind them.

I'm not even a leftist, I'm a conservative in the sense that I reject man as a pure actor, a bodied spirit.

>>18027

>Yeah it's totally flawed that peoples ideologies are shaped by their enviroment. Must be genetics then.

You know I didn't say that. Or you would know that, if your reading comprehension hadn't failed you. At no point did I claim that people are not at all shaped by their environment.

>This begs the question in the sense that it defines logical and good as anarcho-capitalism. You claim those terms are property of your ideology, and then claim that your ideology follows from them. It is the other way around. You assume that anarcho-capitalism follows from reason, and that else is reason clouded, the anarcho-capitalism is the only things that follows from Reason, making reason the big other, a holy entity that is wholly different from it's common use.

Everything you just said is completely irrelevant. The question is not whether anarchocapitalism in particular is reasonable, it's whether people are influenced by reason in their views.

>You claim those terms are property of your ideology, and then claim that your ideology follows from them. It is the other way around.

This claim is completely unsubstantiated.

>You assume that anarcho-capitalism follows from reason, and that else is reason clouded, the anarcho-capitalism is the only things that follows from Reason, making reason the big other, a holy entity that is wholly different from it's common use.

And this sentence is barely comprehensible.

>This is liking asking for evidence that a magic fairy didn't have a say in the matter. Just like I have no reason to assume it was a magic fairy, I have no reason to assume that reason, as in the pure distilled essence you make it into, had a say in the matter.

Except I don't use some weird, alien definition of reason. You merely claim I do. This botches your comparison; while magical fairies don't exist, reason does. Prove to me that reason doesn't exist, then the comparison still stands.

>You also use the same fault again, you define reason by anarcho-capitalism and then claim that anarcho-capitalism follows from it, while it is your version of Reason that follows from your ideology.

Again, this claim is unsubstantiated.

>I stated my views about you that I deducted from what you said, just that, stop whining about it and be the strong indepedent randian who don't need no approval.

If you deduced it, then show me your reasoning.

>randian

You do know Rand was against anarchocapitalism, right?

>Or call me a fag.

Fag.

>I'm not even a leftist, I'm a conservative in the sense that I reject man as a pure actor, a bodied spirit.

That's actually an extremely leftist thing to do. If I dyed my hair pink and cut my dick off, I still wouldn't be that leftist. You're so leftist, Bernie Sanders would tell you to get a job. If a leftist died whenever someone said "looters", then it'd still take an entire reading of Atlas Shrugged to even hurt you. You could make the abolition of private property look like free market reforms. If the entirety of OKCupid decided to come together and watch all seasons of Supernatural, there'd STILL be less condensed leftism than in the sentence you just said.

>>18027

>Yeah it's totally flawed that peoples ideologies are shaped by their enviroment. Must be genetics then.

How about both, and then a bunch of other factors? Belief formation is infinitely complex, but only a giga nigger leftist cocksucker like you would try to demonize the formation of a particular belief as a backdoor method of proving the principles/logic are invalid.

>This begs the question in the sense that it defines logical and good as anarcho-capitalism.

Saying people naturally strive to be logical and good is not begging the question about the validity of anarcho-capitalism you stupid nigger

>You claim those terms are property of your ideology

We didn't. Faggot. He was explaining that, even though Anarcho-Capitalism is reasonable (See: For a New Liberty, Ethics of Liberty, The Myth of National Defense, etc.) there's plenty of reasons as to why people wouldn't believe in it.

>You assume that anarcho-capitalism follows from reason, and that else is reason clouded, the anarcho-capitalism is the only things that follows from Reason, making reason the big other, a holy entity that is wholly different from it's common use.

You assume that if shit keeps flowing out of your keyboard and or mouth that leftist cock will keep following your faggot ass.

>You define reason by anarcho-capitalism and then claim that anarcho-capitalism follows from it, while it is your version of Reason that follows from your ideology.

You define reason as MUH ENLIGHTENED LEFTIST AMORALISM , then claim that your brilliant ideology follows, while it is your version of Pathology Makes Me Smart At Philosophy­™ that follows from your ideology

>Or call me a fag.

Nigger

>I'm not even a leftist, I'm a conservative in the sense that I reject man as a pure actor, a bodied spirit.

Nigger.

>>18052

wrong flag, was memeposting in another thread

>>18048

>You know I didn't say that. Or you would know that, if your reading comprehension hadn't failed you. At no point did I claim that people are not at all shaped by their environment.

No, you claimed Reason being a separate property that exists separately from our ideology. There's less evidence for that than there is for genetics influencing ideology.

>Everything you just said is completely irrelevant. The question is not whether anarchocapitalism in particular is reasonable, it's whether people are influenced by reason in their views.

As you claim that anarcho-capitalism follows from reason, and that all else is reason being clouded or by being purposefully unreasonable, you make Reason a property of anarcho-capitalism, embedding it in reason and therefor in the premise of People naturally strive to be both logical and good . Here is where you do so Not everyone is anarchocapitalist because not everyone is the same person. Some people have a strong desire to be reasonable, whereas for some, the incentive to keep their views fixed is much, much stronger. But both incentives are there.

There is no such thing as Reason, as in Reason being an essence that exists separately from human cognitivity and all that comes with it. There is reasoning it is something we all do, it is a cognitive skill, not a separate essence.

>This claim is completely unsubstantiated.

>And this sentence is barely comprehensible

>Again, this claim is unsubstantiated.

No, I analyse and explain what you do but don't explicity state.

>If you deduced it, then show me your reasoning.

It is the term I use for what I observe in you ideological entrapment, the difference being that you see this as a good thing and that you don't like the term I use because it doesn't sound very nice.

>That's actually an extremely leftist thing to do. If I dyed my hair pink and cut my dick off, I still wouldn't be that leftist.

Hey, atleast you tried..

>>18052

>Saying people naturally strive to be logical and good is not begging the question about the validity of anarcho-capitalism you stupid nigger

It is if you claim that anarcho-capitalism follows from logic, embedding the conclusion of anarcho-capitalism into the premise that is logic.

>We didn't. Faggot. He was explaining that, even though Anarcho-Capitalism is reasonable (See: For a New Liberty, Ethics of Liberty, The Myth of National Defense, etc.) there's plenty of reasons as to why people wouldn't believe in it.

"reasons are something different than reason'' , he claimed that the reason people aren't anarcho-capitalist, is having reasons for being unreasonable. Anarcho-capitalism is reasonable in the sense that it is a logical conclusion of capitalist ideology.

>You define reason as MUH ENLIGHTENED LEFTIST AMORALISM , then claim that your brilliant ideology follows, while it is your version of Pathology Makes Me Smart At Philosophy­™ that follows from your ideology

Do they actually tell you to only read ancap philosophers?

>>18065

>It is if you claim that anarcho-capitalism follows from logic,

It follows logically from the premise of self-ownership which can be proven via Hoppe's argumentation ethics approach or just a variety of other arguments; these non-Hoppean approaches aren't really definitive proofs, they just prove that literally every other options to self-ownership is completely retarded and wouldn't even be beneficial if your goal was to justify taxation.

>Anarcho-capitalism is reasonable in the sense that it is a logical conclusion of capitalist ideology.

Self-ownership, you meant. Autist.

>Do they actually tell you to only read ancap philosophers?

If you ask enough rhetorical questions will the collective snark and faggotry coalesce into an argument?

>>18075

>It follows logically from the premise of self-ownership which can be proven via Hoppe's argumentation ethics approach or just a variety of other arguments; these non-Hoppean approaches aren't really definitive proofs, they just prove that literally every other options to self-ownership is completely retarded and wouldn't even be beneficial if your goal was to justify taxation.

Self-ownership… you mean the retarded claim that there is a man inside the man because you are incapable of not seeing every issue as a property issue? The alternatives don't prove self-ownership, because one faulty argument does not prove another, and they are retarded because they assume the premise that we have to property, and the only question who gets to own it, starting with property to conclude property.

No, anarcho-capitalism is not embedded in logic, logic is a cognitive function, not an essence containing anarcho-capitalism.

>Self-ownership, you meant. Autist.

Self-ownership is capitalist ideology, it is it's reverence of property taken to an extreme, used as the base for everything. It's a totalitarian whole of critical ideological mass.

>If you ask enough rhetorical questions will the collective snark and faggotry coalesce into an argument?

A statement that is an argument is not intrisically more valuable than a statement that isn't. When it comes to ancap arguments, the value is lower than the screams of an autist that bangs his head against the wall, there is more sense to his distress than there is to ancap ideology.

>>18096

You're not even arguing m8

And the claims you do make have been answered already

I suggest you spend your time constructively instead of shitposting

>>18101

And here we see the ancap breaking down to it's learned feutal state, whenever he is confronted with what goes against the ancap ideology, he repeats a catch phrase that has been installed as an emergency valve. He has been made wholly unable to asses anything that doesn't take ancap property as a premise.

>>18103

but that's not an argument!

>>18104

nice constructive deb8 m8

>>18107

No, it's a critical analysis. It's a description of you that carries more insight than any ancap argument does.

>>18109

>No, it's a critical analysis.

I've provided my own critical analysis, >>17958

I'm not retarded and my analysis is actually based in reality, so I win.

>It's a description of you that carries more insight than any ancap argument does.

Not an argument.

>>18112

And great keks were had from it, it's like you fully wet your pants in a case of ideological incontinence.

>Not an argument.

Give me an argument for why that is a valid dismissal.

>>18113

>And great keks were had from it, it's like you fully wet your pants in a case of ideological incontinence.

Not an argument

>Give me an argument for why that is a valid dismissal.

You are retarded and I do not value your subjective opinion, provide me a logical argument based on true premises and I might give a shit. There is no logical reason for me to be convinced by your opinions, whereas there is some value in an argument based on true premises that tells something that is true or is probably true. If the best you can give me is your faggot opinion that tells me nothing other than you've deluded into thinking it's true. I don't care.

>inb4 not an argument

Okay.

1. Everyone capable of rational thought has subjective opinions

2. That someone has an opinion is not a remotely objective signal of truth

3. Therefore, we should rely on reasoned arguments, and not subjective opinions, as a means of proving the truth of a position

>>18119

>Not an argument

>You are retarded and I do not value your subjective opinion, provide me a logical argument based on true premises and I might give a shit. There is no logical reason for me to be convinced by your opinions, whereas there is some value in an argument based on true premises that tells something that is true or is probably true. If the best you can give me is your faggot opinion that tells me nothing other than you've deluded into thinking it's true. I don't care.

That's not an argument, still you stated, you therefor acknowledge that not everything that is said has to be an argument, and that it can't be dismissed on the base of not being argument.

>Therefore, we should rely on reasoned arguments, and not subjective opinions, as a means of proving the truth of a position

Hillarious. This would mean that I can't say that there is a bird sitting in a tree, because that's not argument.

>>18121

>That's not an argument, still you stated, you therefor acknowledge that not everything that is said has to be an argument,

You're right. It wasn't an argument. I was telling you my thoughts, it was in no way intended to be convincing to you.

>and that it can't be dismissed on the base of not being argument.

Except you should dismiss that non-argument in terms of something that is persuasive and provides proof of my position

>Hillarious. This would mean that I can't say that there is a bird sitting in a tree, because that's not argument.

Except that's a statement of belief, which is not meant to convince anyone, it's meant to encourage them to use their own faculties (which they necessarily consider reliable to talk to you in a discussion) to look at the evidence for themselves if they doubt that your belief is justified.

Nice non-argument there, faggot.

>>18122

>You're right. It wasn't an argument. I was telling you my thoughts, it was in no way intended to be convincing to you.

*claps*

Now stop responding with "not an argument" because it makes you more autistic than you are.

>Except that's a statement of belief, which is not meant to convince anyone, it's meant to encourage them to use their own faculties (which they necessarily consider reliable to talk to you in a discussion) to look at the evidence for themselves if they doubt that your belief is justified.

That's not an argument.

>>18126

ebin trollololol

>>18126

>*claps*

Not an argument

>Now stop responding with "not an argument" because it makes you more autistic than you are.

Not an argument

>That's not an argument.

It was a statement of fact, which was affirming exactly what you said. You said "there is a bird sitting in a tree" and that's not an argument. It's absolutely true that such a statement is not an argument, even if it is true; however, if you wanted to provide an argument for that obviously true empirical claim, you could. This would rely on certain premises like the reliability of sense data (implicitly accepted in all debate), consistency of universe (non-randomness in physical laws), one's own sanity, etc.

>>18063

>No, you claimed Reason being a separate property that exists separately from our ideology.

Sure ideology influences reason, to a certain degree. As anarchocapitalism has no unique epistemic component (unlike objectivism), and as I accepted anarchocapitalism back when I was still a left-leaning empiricist, I don't see how that matters. You're claiming anarchocapitalism clouds our capacity to reason. You haven't described how.

>As you claim that anarcho-capitalism follows from reason, and that all else is reason being clouded or by being purposefully unreasonable, you make Reason a property of anarcho-capitalism

So I'm indoctrinated because I believe that if people refuse to see what I regard as the truth, they must be doing something wrong? Then you must be indoctrinated too, because you're doing the exact same thing. In fact, everyone is doing that.

>There is no such thing as Reason, as in Reason being an essence that exists separately from human cognitivity and all that comes with it. There is reasoning it is something we all do, it is a cognitive skill, not a separate essence.

Yeah. I know. So?

>No, I analyse and explain what you do but don't explicity state.

That doesn't make it substantiated or comprehensible.

>It is the term I use for what I observe in you ideological entrapment

My ideological entrapment that you still haven't proven.

>the difference being that you see this as a good thing and that you don't like the term I use because it doesn't sound very nice.

Fun fact: If you constantly tell people what they feel and think, it makes you sound like an asshole.

>Hey, atleast you tried..

Lame comeback.

>>18096

>Self-ownership… you mean the retarded claim that there is a man inside the man because you are incapable of not seeing every issue as a property issue?

Property can be defined as the right of free disposition over a given object. Self-ownership therefore means having the right of free disposition over yourself and your body. It's the leftist inability to grasp what property actually means and their inability to abstract property from a relationship between two distinct entities that creates many a misunderstanding about the concept of self-ownership.

Self-ownership does not require a dualistic view of the human being. I'm a pretty convinced monist, and I see no conflict between that and my belief in the right of self-ownership. You simply don't need to establish a relationship between two distinct entities to be able to say that you have a right of free disposition over yourself, and as that is exactly the definition of property, you can just as well say that you are your property.

>When it comes to ancap arguments, the value is lower than the screams of an autist that bangs his head against the wall, there is more sense to his distress than there is to ancap ideology.

Of course you'd defend the value of autistic outbursts. ( ° ʖ °)

>>18113

>And great keks were had from it, it's like you fully wet your pants in a case of ideological incontinence.

You're the only one who's laughing, weirdo.

>>18142

>>18144

Why do I keep forgetting my flag?

>>18142

>You're claiming anarchocapitalism clouds our capacity to reason. You haven't described how.

zizek said so, so this means I think it is to say ideology you are clouded by *sniff*

>So I'm indoctrinated because I believe that if people refuse to see what I regard as the truth, they must be doing something wrong?

precisely

>Then you must be indoctrinated too, because you're doing the exact same thing. In fact, everyone is doing that.

no it's different I am enlightened by my communism

>That doesn't make it substantiated or comprehensible.

but my sociology professor said white people are evil :/

>Fun fact: If you constantly tell people what they feel and think, it makes you sound like an asshole.

but I know what people think better than they do so it's my right to say so

>Lame comeback.

this is like american judge failing to rate glorious soviet ice skater as most brilliant

>>18144

>Self-ownership does not require a dualistic view of the human being.

Ownership is by definition a dualistic relationship.

>I'm a pretty convinced monist, and I see no conflict between that and my belief in the right of self-ownership. You simply don't need to establish a relationship between two distinct entities to be able to say that you have a right of free disposition over yourself, and as that is exactly the definition of property, you can just as well say that you are your property.

You don't need a concept of property or rights to just.. do.. Ancaps can't comprehend this because they take property as a base, so the only question is who owns you.

>>18179

>Ownership is by definition a dualistic relationship.

No, the definition of ownership is "the moral right to use or to exclude" :^)

>You don't need a concept of property or rights to just.. do.. Ancaps can't comprehend this because they take property as a base, so the only question is who owns you.

No, you fucking retard. We understand that actions can be done whether or not self-ownership is a universally true moral standard, however, we also (unlike you, apparently) possess the IQs in excess of the single digit range necessary to follow the logical conclusions of "no self-ownership." The logical conclusion of "no one has the moral right to use their body or exclude others from it" is that #1. Rape is not a moral crime, nor is any forcible extraction/use of a human body (because no self-ownership means no woman has a moral right to exclude others from her body) #2. No one has a moral claim to/responsibility for the products of their body, this means if they use their unowned body to produce a statue they do not have a moral claim to it, nor do they have a moral "indebtedness" to any physically harmful act (organ extraction/murder/assault), nor do they have a moral claim to LITERALLY ANYTHING they produce. This means, if we have no self-ownership, there is no such thing as "my" argument or "your" argument, there are only unowned arguments that no individual is morally responsible for, meaning that if you prove that no one owns their body you're saying that there's no reason for the judges of the debate to vote in your favor since you do not own the body that was used to produce the arguments, hence we can not morally ascribe them to you and credit you as such. You are also saying that you have no moral right to use your body to produce those arguments.

It would be nonsensical to debate with someone if no self-ownership was indeed moral truth, as you could not disprove "their" arguments since they are not morally responsible for those arguments produced with their body, in fact, they could just say that they have an equal moral claim to any argument that is voiced/presented to the world by use of an unowned body, so this means if we're in a debate about whether or not it would be practically beneficial for the US to pull out of Japan, neither of us owns our body, and the arguments produced by your unowned body are far more persuasive/valid, I can just say "while it's true the arguments produced by this unowned body I have been using are worse, you have no more of a moral claim to the good arguments voiced in this debate than I do, thus we should declare this debate a tie."

>>18184

>No, the definition of ownership is "the moral right to use or to exclude" :^)

It's not.

>The logical conclusion of "no one has the moral right to use their body or exclude others from it" is that

That's a non-sequitur. There being no such thing as self-ownership doesn't mean that ownership can therefor be claimed by others. It implies that there is ownership, and that the only question is who the owner will be.

>>18191

Sure, you can use your special snowflake definition of property, and henceforth call the right of self-ownership the right of free disposition over your own person or body, or the right to use your body and excluse others from using it. Those two ways to paraphrase the right of self-ownership may be clumsy as fuck, but they are both coherent and applicable.

So, let's apply one of them, shall we?

>1. Everyone has a right to use his own body and exclude others from his use

Anarchocapitalism wins and all the roads are replaced with supermarkets, or something. Also Somalia.

>2. No one has a right to use his own body and exclude others from his use

Then who does have this right? This question has to be answered. It doesn't matter if you see this as an issue of property or not, you must answer this question, and if you don't, then ur fagit.

Now, do us all a favor and don't half-ass your next response, like you just did.

>>18201

Property is a legal construct, not a moral right. You still haven't proven that people are necessarily property, you gave me a choice between two versions of property.

If people would indeed be neccesarily property, they would be the property of others because self-ownership is a logical contradiction. There is no intrinsic difference in "me the person" and "me the body", self-ownership would therefor mean that "the body owns the body", this a contradiction because there can be no ownership of an entity and itself.

>Then who does have this right?

That's begging the question, it implies that there is a right, and that the only question is to who it belongs, without providing logical argumentation for why there is indeed such a right to distribute.

>>18191

>It's not.

Not an argument. Legitimate ownership implies a moral claim in modern usage, so if you want to use your amoral gaynigger definition of property, you can say "my definition of ownership" since MY definition actually is far closer to the common English usage.

>That's a non-sequitur. There being no such thing as self-ownership doesn't mean that ownership can therefor be claimed by others. It implies that there is ownership, and that the only question is who the owner will be.

If you admit that no one has the moral right to use their body, since you're a retarded term-equivocating nigger we'll substitute the "individuals do not have the moral right to use their body and exclude others from using it" with the variable A.

If A is true, no person has any moral claim to their body. They have no moral right, in particular, to use their body, or to exclude others from the use of it. This does not mean they are physically unable to use their body, or prevent others from using, it means they have no moral right to do so.

If A is true, no person has any moral claim to the products of their body. This logically follows, because if the body is unowned, by definition, no one has a moral claim to it- at least, any moral claim is "equal" among all individuals, and therefore irrelevant (saying I have the equal right to use something might as well be saying neither of us have any moral claim on it, as a moral claim would imply that I in particular have some special right to it.) It would be impossible to say (if A is true) that the use of an unowned body legitimizes some other claim to property; if you do not own a cotton gin, or the cotton that goes into it, you have no moral claim to the products of that processing. This does not mean you can not possess a cotton gin, or the products, it means in this case you wouldn't have a moral right to the products. Similarly, if A is true, that means you do not own (but can use) that which is put into and used by your body, nor do you have any special moral claim to the products of that body (we can say you had a special role in production, but no particular moral right to that which is produced by your body.) If A is true, no argument is owned, which means it is impossible to say that "this is MY argument" you can say "My consciousness was the first to direct this unowned body to produce that argument" but that would not imply any moral claim to the argument, if A is true. You can only have a moral claim to an argument if a body is owned. You can not have a moral claim to the products of something which, by definition, no one has the moral right to use or exclude others from; such an object is unowned, and no individual has a valid moral claim, in particular, to the products of that action.

Now stop being a retarded faggot.

>>18203

>Property is a legal construct, not a moral right.

If we are using a ownership as a substitute for "moral right to use and exclude" you might point out that this usage is ahistorical/not generally accepted, this does not mean that you can ignore the fact that we have put forward a definition for use in an argument, pretend instead that the definition of the word we are using is some other definition, and then "disprove" our argument by saying "lol if I change the meaning of a word you defined your argument don't sense make11!"

You're such a faggot.

>>18202

Self-love is a term used for people who are very fond of themselves, narcissistic. It is distinct from romantic love, they are two separate things that share the same term. Other languages have more words for different terms of love, this shows the lacking of the english language, not the validity of self-ownership.

>>18184

use and exclude* woopsies!

>>18204

>Not an argument. Legitimate ownership implies a moral claim in modern usage, so if you want to use your amoral gaynigger definition of property, you can say "my definition of ownership" since MY definition actually is far closer to the common English usage.

This means that people ascribe morality to it, it doesn't mean that it is intrinsically moral.

>If A is true, no person has any moral claim to their body.

There is no such thing as "a claim to their body", because there is no intrinsic difference between person and body.

>>18208

>This means that people ascribe morality to it, it doesn't mean that it is intrinsically moral.

IF IT IS DEFINED AS INTRINSICALLY MORAL THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS YOU FUCKING RETARD

>There is no such thing as "a claim to their body", because there is no intrinsic difference between person and body.

Given that "intrinsic" means "belonging naturally" this is trying to debunk self-ownership via naturalistic fallacy.

>>18209

>IF IT IS DEFINED AS INTRINSICALLY MORAL THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS YOU FUCKING RETARD

By libertarians who are deluded about what property actually entails, and believe that there is an essence intrinsic to it.

>Given that "intrinsic" means "belonging naturally" this is trying to debunk self-ownership via naturalistic fallacy.

There is no intrinsic indifference between person and body, the concept of self-ownership requires this. The naturalistic fallacy is not pointing out that the premise of an argument is a wrong assumption about our nature.

If anything, the naturalistic fallacy would apply to your reasoning since you claim self-ownership follows from our nature of person and body.

>>18210

>By libertarians who are deluded about what property actually entails, and believe that there is an essence intrinsic to it.

You're not refuting what I said you stupid fuck. If I say "it is defined as intrinsically moral, that's what it means" and you reply "yeah, but it's only defined that way because you guys are people I don't like because you aren't impressed by my stupidity :(" that's not an argument.

>There is no intrinsic indifference between person and body, the concept of self-ownership requires this.

Not an argument.

1. You did not prove that there is no difference between personhood and the physical body (and there clearly is, as we would not ascribe personhood to a body which has had every part of its brain removed except for that which is necessary for the heart to beat/basic biological functions.)

2. You did not prove that a difference between personhood and physical body is required for the concept of self-ownership to be valid

3. You're still a gigantic faggot

> The naturalistic fallacy is not pointing out that the premise of an argument is a wrong assumption about our nature.

Except it is. The fact that a difference between two things (consciousness) is "not natural" does not mean that no relevant philosophical distinction exists. Cunt.

>If anything, the naturalistic fallacy would apply to your reasoning since you claim self-ownership follows from our nature of person and body.

Except I've literally never done this. I've merely gone after all the alternatives to self-ownership, leaving us with a great variety of absurd and ridiculous options ranging from "rape is completely morally neutral" to "everyone is a slave", or self-ownership.

>>18211

> The fact that a difference between two things (consciousness)

AND physical body. Forgot that part. wew.

>>18211

>You're not refuting what I said you stupid fuck. If I say "it is defined as intrinsically moral, that's what it means" and you reply "yeah, but it's only defined that way because you guys are people I don't like because you aren't impressed by my stupidity :(" that's not an argument.

You define it that way because ancaps instill morality as an essence into property, without proving it's presence. "That's just how it's defined"

>Not an argument.

Gosh, you're panicking again?

>You did not prove that there is no difference between personhood and the physical body (and there clearly is, as we would not ascribe personhood to a body which has had every part of its brain removed except for that which is necessary for the heart to beat/basic biological functions.)

This means that personhood is dependend on the brain, which is dependend on the body. The only thing that it states is that a person does not exist in parts, but is a whole.

>You did not prove that a difference between personhood and physical body is required for the concept of self-ownership to be valid

It is since you define self-ownership as "the moral right to use your body". This implies a difference between you and your body, "a body owning a body" is nonsensical because there can be no relationship of control between an entity and itself.

>Except I've literally never done this. I've merely gone after all the alternatives to self-ownership, leaving us with a great variety of absurd and ridiculous options ranging from "rape is completely morally neutral" to "everyone is a slave", or self-ownership.

The alternatives were made from the premise that we are property and that the only question is who owns us. You never proved that premise. Even if we accept the premise that we are the anarcho-capitalist version of property, and that the only question is who owns us, self-ownership still wouldn't follow from that. Even if the only other options would be the ones you described, self-ownership still wouldn't follow from it because it would be an argument from consequences, which is a fallacy.

Self-ownership fails on every level.

>>18213

>"That's just how it's defined"

Only means that libertarians allocate morality into property, not that property necessarily indicates morality.

>>18213

>You define it that way because ancaps instill morality as an essence into property, without proving it's presence. "That's just how it's defined"

If you don't like the way we define a term that does not mean that you can disregard the way that term is defined in our arguments. You can argue that we should try to use a different term, but if a communist gives his fucktarded definition of theft as part of an argument, I can't pretend that the definition he gave for theft is irrelevant, use some other definition in its place, and then pretend that the resulting absurdity is proof of the unsoundness of his position.

>Gosh, you're panicking again?

Gosh, you're still under the impression I give a fuck about your opinion? No, I don't, so give me a reasoned argument. Not to mention, you acquiesced to my own proof of the importance of arguments of your bullshit subjective lefty psychoanalysis and faggotry, so if you don't accept that arguments are superior for determining truth, address my argument :^)

>This means that personhood is dependend on the brain, which is dependend on the body. The only thing that it states is that a person does not exist in parts, but is a whole.

That's the exact opposite of what it means, my example proves that personhood is separate from a human body. It means that the core of personhood is dependent upon the emergent properties resulting from the processes taking place in the neocortex, and that a brain in a vat could have personhood whereas a physically human body missing a brain could not have personhood.

Dumb ass.

>It is since you define self-ownership as "the moral right to use your body". This implies a difference between you and your body,

Actually, self-ownership is the moral right of an individual to use their physical body and exclude others from its use, if we want to be precise. If we say that a slave has the moral right to use a slave's body, and exclude others from using it, we do not also imply that he owns the slave's "personhood"- which means you're wrong. If you were right about the lack of distinction between body and personhood, claiming the moral right to use and exclude others from an individual's body would be exactly as claiming the moral right to use and exclude an individual's personhood, which is completely nonsensical.

>"a body owning a body" is nonsensical

That a personhood could lack the moral right to use the body that sustains their consciousness, and to exclude others from it, is the nonsensical proposition.

>The alternatives were made from the premise that we are property

Bodies are matter, there is no reason we should not examine the consequences from proposed principles such as all individuals are owned by the state (whether that be in part or whole), or that individuals do not own themselves at all. You say that I start from the premise that "we are property," when in reality the majority of my thought experiments here have been based on the premise that what would it be like if a personhood had no moral right to use/exclude individuals from their body?

>You never proved that premise

I was examining the consequences of alternative principles to prove they were absurd. That I can not prove the premises to the alternatives to self-ownership only bolsters the goal of those arguments: to prove that the alternatives to self-ownership are absurd and irrational.

>Even if we accept the premise that we are the anarcho-capitalist version of property, and that the only question is who owns us, self-ownership still wouldn't follow from that.

All the alternatives are absurd, I've been over all of them in depth, but since you're a retarded nihilistic nigger we've been dealing with no self-ownership primarily

>Even if the only other options would be the ones you described, self-ownership still wouldn't follow from it because it would be an argument from consequences, which is a fallacy.

I was making a variety of arguments. I can not objectively proof that self-ownership is a valid principle, nor can I objectively prove that language is meaningful (even empirical tests would only lead us to the conclusion that this is very likely) I can, however, prove that by engaging in a debate you accept both premises. That language is meaningful is a necessary premise to accept, in a debate, without declaring one's self insane. Similarly, that a personhood has the moral right to use their physical body, and exclude others from it, and that they are morally responsible for that which they produce, is a necessary premise to accept in order for a personhood to have a moral claim to any argument voiced by their body, and in order for that personhood to not declare themselves a moral criminal by making use of a body they have no moral right to use.

>>18215

>of arguments of your bullshit subjective lefty…

instead of your bullshit subjective analysis*

>>18215

>If we say that a slave has the moral right to use a slave's body

slave owner*

>>18215

can not objectively prove* that self-ownership..

>>18215

>If you don't like the way we define a term that does not mean that you can disregard the way that term is defined in our arguments. You can argue that we should try to use a different term, but if a communist gives his fucktarded definition of theft as part of an argument, I can't pretend that the definition he gave for theft is irrelevant, use some other definition in its place, and then pretend that the resulting absurdity is proof of the unsoundness of his position.

The problem lies in you claiming that self-ownership is neccesarily for morality, because you define property as moral. That is like stating that boozippybobs are necessary for morality, because I define boozippybobs as moral.

>All the alternatives are absurd, I've been over all of them in depth, but since you're a retarded nihilistic nigger we've been dealing with no self-ownership primarily

1) You did not list not all the alternatives, you took property as premise and then gave examples that don't even follow from it. Egoist anarchism can be an alternative, christian theology can be an alternative, zen buddhism can be an alternative.

2) This is an argument for consequences, which is a fallacy

>That's the exact opposite of what it means, my example proves that personhood is separate from a human body. It means that the core of personhood is dependent upon the emergent properties resulting from the processes taking place in the neocortex, and that a brain in a vat could have personhood whereas a physically human body missing a brain could not have personhood.

Which means that personhood is dependend upon the brain, with the brain being dependend on the body. It means that personhood does not exist separately from the body, that there is no man owning the machine.

>Bodies are matter, there is no reason we should not examine the consequences from proposed principles such as all individuals are owned by the state (whether that be in part or whole), or that individuals do not own themselves at all. You say that I start from the premise that "we are property," when in reality the majority of my thought experiments here have been based on the premise that what would it be like if a personhood had no moral right to use/exclude individuals from their body?

1) You beg the question by assuming that morality objectively exists because you define property as moral

2) You assume that there can be no morality without people being property

3) You assume that such a moral right is a necessity for people to fend people of, it's not

4) You assume that only self-ownership can be a reason for why people see being infringed as morally wrong

I'm having a field day here.

>I was examining the consequences of alternative principles to prove they were absurd. That I can not prove the premises to the alternatives to self-ownership only bolsters the goal of those arguments: to prove that the alternatives to self-ownership are absurd and irrational.

You didn't. You stated that it would imply that rape isn't bad, and that because we see rape as bad, that self-ownership is therefor correct. That is a classical example of an appeal to consequences.

>>18221

>The problem lies in you claiming that self-ownership is neccesarily for morality, because you define property as moral. That is like stating that boozippybobs are necessary for morality, because I define boozippybobs as moral.

I have never claimed that self-ownership as a recognized/valid concept was necessary for moral truth to exist. +1 internet to you for strawmanning :)))!

>you define property as moral.

No, I define ownership as the moral right to use etc., I never said that "property is moral" nor any phrase closely resembling that. A property claim is a moral claim, which may or may not be valid.

>1) You did not list not all the alternatives, you took property as premise and then gave examples that don't even follow from it. Egoist anarchism can be an alternative, christian theology can be an alternative, zen buddhism can be an alternative.

I've done so, see:

>>17733

The alternatives to full self-ownership are full slavery, a variety of "partial" slavery (30% owned by your mother, 30% by the state, etc.), or no self-ownership. Partial non-ownership is irrelevant, either the parts that are owned are a "controlling share" or they are not, if the latter, the case might as well be full self-ownership as there is no logical distinction in practice.

>2) This is an argument for consequences, which is a fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I don't see the word "fallacy" on that page, except for the explanation of the strawman fallacy.

>Which means that personhood is dependend upon the brain, with the brain being dependend on the body. It means that personhood does not exist separately from the body, that there is no man owning the machine.

First of all, it's dependent, so feel free to spell it properly any time. Personhood is dependent upon the brain, but could also be sustained by exceptionally complex computers that were capable of "emulating" a consciousness. Personhood is dependent, essentially, upon a complex interplay of information being exchanged, this is dependent on a physical brain only due to the limitations of technology.

>It means that personhood does not exist separately from the body,

But it could, so this is a naturalistic fallacy again; even if, in natural terms, consciousness was necessarily dependent upon a biological/organic brain, it does not logically follow that there is no philosophical distinction between personhood and body. A baby is dependent upon nutrition, and by extension, mother for survival, this does not mean there is no moral distinction between the two

>that there is no man owning the machine.

This is a non-sequitur, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

>1) You beg the question by assuming that morality objectively exists because you define property as moral

See the top, I didn't.

>2) You assume that there can be no morality without people being property

This is a non-sequitur. The fact that I have proposed a logically consistent moral theory founded upon property rights does not mean I have necessarily claimed to thereby prove that no other statement about morality can be true. I might believe that to be the case, but you are making an unfounded assumption by assuming I have assumed that :)

>3) You assume that such a moral right is a necessity for people to fend people of, it's not

Necessary for it to physically happen? No, I never assumed this, in fact I made quite sure to distinguish between the moral and physical consequences of my moral theory. Yet you still managed to fuck it up.

>4) You assume that only self-ownership can be a reason for why people see being infringed as morally wrong

Wrong, I explain clearly why, if there is no self-ownership, rape is by definition morally neutral. At least, the rape is not an infringement on the victim's rights, it might be considered a violation in that the rapist does not have the moral right to use his body to rape.

>I'm having a field day here.

A rainy one, and you're the only one who thinks you've accomplished anything.

>You didn't. You stated that it would imply that rape isn't bad

That's exactly what is implied by the statement "a woman does not have the right to exclude other people from her body." If that is true, which is necessary to say "there is no self-ownership", rape is by definition morally neutral. Sorry you're retarded and can't follow simple logic.

>and that because we see rape as bad, that self-ownership is therefor correct. That is a classical example of an appeal to consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

>>18222

>I have never claimed that self-ownership as a recognized/valid concept was necessary for moral truth to exist. +1 internet to you for strawmanning :)))!

You did state that self-ownership is necessary for there to be a "moral claim", which applies to making any moral argument whatsoever. Similarly, that a personhood has the moral right to use their physical body, and exclude others from it, and that they are morally responsible for that which they produce, is a necessary premise to accept in order for a personhood to have a moral claim to any argument voiced by their body, and in order for that personhood to not declare themselves a moral criminal by making use of a body they have no moral right to use.

>This is a non-sequitur. The fact that I have proposed a logically consistent moral theory founded upon property rights does not mean I have necessarily claimed to thereby prove that no other statement about morality can be true. I might believe that to be the case, but you are making an unfounded assumption by assuming I have assumed that :)

You stated that for an argument to be true, that there needs to be self-ownership. You stated that the only alternatives to self-ownership, are other forms of ownership. You presented those as the only alternatives for morality.

>First of all, it's dependent, so feel free to spell it properly any time. Personhood is dependent upon the brain, but could also be sustained by exceptionally complex computers that were capable of "emulating" a consciousness. Personhood is dependent, essentially, upon a complex interplay of information being exchanged, this is dependent on a physical brain only due to the limitations of technology.

So it does not exist as a separate entity, it's a function, not a dualism.

>But it could, so this is a naturalistic fallacy again; even if, in natural terms, consciousness was necessarily dependent upon a biological/organic brain, it does not logically follow that there is no philosophical distinction between personhood and body. A baby is dependent upon nutrition, and by extension, mother for survival, this does not mean there is no moral distinction between the two

It is not the naturalistic fallacy since self-ownership relies on a natural claim, one that you so far haven't be able to prove.

>This is a non-sequitur. The fact that I have proposed a logically consistent moral theory founded upon property rights does not mean I have necessarily claimed to thereby prove that no other statement about morality can be true. I might believe that to be the case, but you are making an unfounded assumption by assuming I have assumed that :)

You stated that you went through all the other alternatives for morality other than self-ownership, which you didn't do. You posted a few other propositions that all held ownership as a necessity for morality in it's premise. You didn't go through all the other alternatives, not zen buddhism, not egoist anarchism, not stoicism, not christian theology.. not through anything that doesn't follow from your particular definition of property.

>Wrong, I explain clearly why, if there is no self-ownership, rape is by definition morally neutral. At least, the rape is not an infringement on the victim's rights, it might be considered a violation in that the rapist does not have the moral right to use his body to rape.

The fact that I have proposed a logically consistent moral theory founded upon property rights does not mean I have necessarily claimed to thereby prove that no other statement about morality can be true.

Here you are contradicting yourself. You state that self-ownership is necessary by definition to morally condemn rape, while at the same time claiming that you didn't state that other forms of morality that are not self-ownership are necessarily untrue.

>The fact that I have proposed a logically consistent moral theory founded upon property rights does not mean I have necessarily claimed to thereby prove that no other statement about morality can be true.

You claimed that the examples you gave of there being no self-ownership were the only other options, and that they are false. You therefor necessarily claimed so.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

No, you made a few faulty arguments, pretending that they were only other options for morality other than self-ownership and you appealed to consequences of there being no self-ownership.

You making a moral proposition in which rape isn't immoral, and presenting self-ownership as the only way for it to be immoral, is both a false choice and argument from consequences. Even if rape not being immoral would be the only other option, that wouldn't make it reductio_ad_absurdum because that isn't logically absurd, it's unwanted. There is a fundamental difference between something being unwanted and something being absurd.

>>18226

>You did state that self-ownership is necessary for there to be a "moral claim", which applies to making any moral argument whatsoever.

Arguments can be made, but no individual has a moral claim to the argument produced by an unowned body.

>You stated that for an argument to be true, that there needs to be self-ownership

No, I didn't.

>You stated that the only alternatives to self-ownership, are other forms of ownership. You presented those as the only alternatives for morality.

No ownership is not "a form of ownership."

>You presented those as the only alternatives for morality.

They are the only possible answers to: "Who has the right to use an individual's body, and exclude others from it?" Without denying the premise with something like "well, actually, individuals can have the right to use but not to exclude, meaning rape is morally neutral but there's no inherent contradiction in individuals using a body they have no moral right to use- that is the problem with 'no self-ownership'."

That denies the premise in that it separates use and exclusion.

>So it does not exist as a separate entity, it's a function, not a dualism.

It has a distinct existence, hence it is dualism :^)

>It is not the naturalistic fallacy since self-ownership relies on a natural claim, blah blah bullshit

No it doesn't, prove me wrong.

>You stated that you went through all the other alternatives for morality other than self-ownership, which you didn't do. You posted a few other propositions that all held ownership as a necessity for morality in it's premise. You didn't go through all the other alternatives, not zen buddhism, not egoist anarchism, not stoicism, not christian theology.. not through anything that doesn't follow from your particular definition of property.

Alternatives that fail to answer the above outlined question in any remotely relevant way. I went through the alternative principles in answer to that question, alternatives that don't simply ignore the question.

>Here you are contradicting yourself. You state that self-ownership is necessary by definition to morally condemn rape

If we're not arbitrarily saying that women can exclude others from their body, but not use that same body, then use, self-ownership is necessary for a woman to be able to have a moral right to refuse sex, if she was a slave, she'd still have no right to refuse, it would be the slave owner's decision

>while at the same time claiming that you didn't state that other forms of morality that are not self-ownership are necessarily untrue.

If I put forward a moral theory I claim as valid this does not necessarily mean that I assume all true statements about morality are contained within that theory.

>You claimed that the examples you gave of there being no self-ownership were the only other options, and that they are false. You therefor necessarily claimed so.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? No, I was showing the alternative answers to the question of self-ownership that do not deny or ignore the question/premise are absurd. Not every other potential theory.

>>18227

>No, you made a few faulty arguments, pretending that they were only other options for morality

LE STILL PULLING THIS MEME

>You making a moral proposition in which rape isn't immoral, and presenting self-ownership as the only way for it to be immoral, is both a false choice and argument from consequences

No, it's a reductio ad absurdum showing the ridiculousness of all alternative answers to the question of self-ownership that do not deny the question altogether.

>is both a false choice and argument from consequences.

No, and no.

> Even if rape not being immoral would be the only other option, that wouldn't make it reductio_ad_absurdum because that isn't logically absurd, it's unwanted.

"An absurdity is a thing that is extremely unreasonable, so as to be foolish or not taken seriously,"

The idea that rape is morally neutral is absurd to me. If it is not absurd to you, please post the address and photos of any women you happen to care about and I will do my best to have a rapist sent there at their soonest possible convenience.

>There is a fundamental difference between something being unwanted and something being absurd.

Le see above. If we can't take for granted that brutal, forcible rape because "I was kinda horny" is closer to evil than morally neutral, or that murder because "I was sorta bored" is similarly at least slightly closer to evil than a purely morally neutral statement, you're an amoralist, at which point I'd like you to answer that if there is no such thing as good or bad then why in the fuck would you waste your time trying to dispel a moral theory given that #1. you can't be helping anyone or helping to solve anything since there is nothing bad that needs to be corrected #2. why anyone should prefer truth to falsehood in morality given that you don't believe in any moral truth beyond "morality is irrational", it is either good that people prefer truth or there is no reason for you to promote amorality beyond sadism, and admitting the latter why would I wish to discuss or concede anything to you given you only wish to do me harm

>>18227

>No ownership is not "a form of ownership."

To clarify

"No ownership" is not "a form of ownership."

>>18228

#1. you can't be helping anyone or helping to solve anything since there is nothing bad that needs to be corrected #2. why anyone should prefer truth to falsehood in morality given that you don't believe in any moral truth beyond "morality is irrational", it is either good that people prefer truth or there is no reason for you to promote amorality beyond sadism, and admitting the latter why would I wish to discuss or concede anything to you given you only wish to do me harm

You might also be roleplaying as an amoralist because you're an intellectually dishonest faggot

>>18227

>They are the only possible answers to:

You repeat this over and over again, without actually proving that acts concerning our bodies, are necessarily a property issue. You did not go through all the moral philosophies, and therefor did not address all the possible alternatives.

>No it doesn't, prove me wrong.

How is dualism not a claim about our nature?

>Alternatives that fail to answer the above outlined question in any remotely relevant way. I went through the alternative principles in answer to that question, alternatives that don't simply ignore the question.

1) You have failed to show that actions taken against a person are necessarily a question of rights and property, with those rights and property being the ancap version

2) The alternatives didn't even follow from there being no self-ownership if this frame was taken as a premise

>If I put forward a moral theory I claim as valid this does not necessarily mean that I assume all true statements about morality are contained within that theory.

You do if you claim that any argument made that does not accept this premise, is immoral.

>Are you being intentionally obtuse? No, I was showing the alternative answers to the question of self-ownership that do not deny or ignore the question/premise are absurd. Not every other potential theory.

You have failed to show that these are the others only possible other options. You embedded the anarcho-capitalist version of property into the existence of bodies Who has the right to use an individual's body, and exclude others from it? implies that a person performing actions, or a person commiting actions against another, are necessarily a question of anarcho-capitalist property rights, without actually providing an argument of why it must be so.

If I hit you on the head with a spade that would be seen as morally wrong in hundreds of philosophies, you haven't provided an argument why the anarcho-capitalist concept of self-ownership is the only one that is correct in morally condemning this. For that, you would have to go through to all of them.

>>18228

>The idea that rape is morally neutral is absurd to me. If it is not absurd to you, please post the address and photos of any women you happen to care about and I will do my best to have a rapist sent there at their soonest possible convenience.

That's an argument from consequences. Calling the consequences "absurd to me" doesn't make it logically absurd, as you use absurd as a value judgement. I can call drinking a can of soda not being morally wrong an absurdity, this does not invalidate arguments for why this wouldn't be morally wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise's consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

You take a premise "rape is bad", create a frame in which rape is seen as morally wrong, and then claim that the frame is correct because it condemns that what you already condemned as a premise for the theory. That's not only an argument from consequences, but circular logic too.

>If we can't take for granted that brutal, forcible rape because "I was kinda horny" is closer to evil than morally neutral, or that murder because "I was sorta bored" is similarly at least slightly closer to evil than a purely morally neutral statement, you're an amoralist

My moral judgements about a subject does not make an argument against my judgements logically absurd. Logic before feels fam.

>>18231

>You repeat this over and over again, without actually proving that acts concerning our bodies, are necessarily a property issue.

Self-ownership and property rights are not invalided by the statement "bodies are not necessarily a property issue", hence I have no need of proving it.

>You did not go through all the moral philosophies, and therefor did not address all the possible alternatives.

I was only trying to address proposed answers to the moral question, as I said many times you dyslexic fuck

>How is dualism not a claim about our nature?

"Self-ownership relies on dualism." First of all, I've already established that your argument against dualism is false, and you have not addressed any of mine, not to mention "dualism" isn't a claim about our "nature" but rather it is a claim about whether or not there is a meaningful distinction between mind and body, and since we know that a human body absent a neocortex and the capacity for rational thought is not a person in moral terms, voila, we know there's a distinction between physical body and personhood.

>1) You have failed to show that actions taken against a person are necessarily a question of rights and property, with those rights and property being the ancap version

This is begging the question in saying that every argument I have made is false, those arguments where I showed self-ownership is the only non-absurd answer to the question of "do individuals own themselves", assuming the answer does not fundamentally disregard the question… by outright ignoring it. Which virtually every other moral theory does.

>You do if you claim that any argument made that does not accept this premise, is immoral.

I claimed that if you say "I have no self-ownership" you are immoral for both

1. Using your physical body to voice that argument

2. Being a moral agent (having personhood)

3. Admitting you have no moral right to use that body

Some moral theory that does not address this question? Well, I would like to see it try.

>You have failed to show that these are the others only possible other options.

You're a retarded nigger I already told you these are the potential alternatives that do not disregard the question itself or go off on a tangent like "well, individuals have the right to use their body but not to exclude others from it"

(disregarding the question)

>implies that a person performing actions, or a person commiting actions against another, are necessarily a question of anarcho-capitalist property rights, without actually providing an argument of why it must be so.

You haven't provided an argument of why it should not be so :^)

>If I hit you on the head with a spade that would be seen as morally wrong in hundreds of philosophies, you haven't provided an argument why the anarcho-capitalist concept of self-ownership is the only one that is correct in morally condemning this. For that, you would have to go through to all of them.

They fail to address the question of self-ownership which is a fundamental moral question.

>That's an argument from consequences. Calling the consequences "absurd to me" doesn't make it logically absurd, as you use absurd as a value judgement.

I said absurd. I did not say logically contradictory. "Extremely unreasonable" is synonymous with absurd. If you refuse to admit that rape is slightly closer to moral evil than moral neutral you're an amoralist and you could have no "good" motive, except for a sadistic or random one (lol bored), in trying to convince me of amoralism

>I can call drinking a can of soda not being morally wrong an absurdity, this does not invalidate arguments for why this wouldn't be morally wrong.

Yes, because unlike condemning rape which no one does, 99% of philosophers would endorse your statement about drinking soda.

>You take a premise "rape is bad", create a frame in which rape is seen as morally wrong, and then claim that the frame is correct because it condemns that what you already condemned as a premise for the theory. That's not only an argument from consequences, but circular logic too.

Nice job at being retarded. No, I showed that no self-ownership, as an answer to a moral question, endorses rape and murder as morally permissible in any and all cases, which is absurd assuming you accept the most basic virtually universal moral standards necessary not to be a 2deep4u edgy faggot nihilist.

>My moral judgements about a subject does not make an argument against my judgements logically absurd. Logic before feels fam.

see

>please post the address and photos of any women you happen to care about and I will do my best to have a rapist sent there at their soonest possible convenience.

You can then make a logical argument as to why those rapes were bad after they've been raped. Show me how it's done:^)

>>18239

>>18239

>You haven't provided any reason why they necessarily are so.

What does it mean for bodies necessarily being a property rights issue, even? You keep saying that I need this to be necessarily the case, if someone were to jump off of an unowned cliff that would, to me, be evidence of a psychological issue and not a property rights issue, does the fact that I can look at it from a different lens mean that the concept of self-ownership is invalidated? No. So, even if it is not necessary to look at all "bodies" as "a property issue" that does not invalidate the foundational concept my deontological ethics rest upon. So, no need for me to prove that bodies are necessarily such an issue. Let's say for the sake of argument they are not necessarily a property issue. So what? This does not hurt my argument. Not all "bodies" must be seen as property at all times by all people in order for self-ownership to be a universally true moral standard.

>Which acted from the assumption of it being a property issue and is therefor begging the question… yawn..

see above

>Your entire argument rests upon the premise that it is necessarily so,

You assert this and do not prove it

>Don't respond to anything above this sentence, as I won't respond to you if you do.

rip

>So self-ownership is a fundamental moral question because the anarcho-capitalist version of property and morality relies on it, and the anarcho-capitalist version of property and morality is true because of self-ownership!

How about it's a fundamental question because any answer to it is hugely consequential to a wide range of moral issues ranging from taxation, to rape, to murder…? Would that not be a significant consequence from the question? Would the answer to a question not be "fundamental" if it was either a reigning endorsement of murder or an outright prohibition of it?

>You invoked reductio ad absurdum, which implies logical absurdity, not absurdity as in a value judgement. It is therefor an appeal to consequences, which is not a logical argument.

Again, reductio ad absurdums can be used to show that the logical consequences of an idea are so UNLIKELY (not just contradictory) that the idea/argument can not be sound. If an endorsement of rape and murder for literally no reason is not absurd, this means that basically moral intuition is worse than meaningless and we will never be able to understand moral truth as our basic intuitions are so far removed from moral reality that unless we evolve to be fundamentally beings there is no chance we will ever be capable of grasping moral truth.

Also, no self-ownership is contradictory, because it requires that an individual use their body to sustain their consciousness without having the right to either feed that body (chew/digest) or to destroy that body to escape the trap of permanently using a body you have no moral right to exercise control over.

>>18239

>>18241

>Broaden your horizons now, take a Watts pill.

Broaden your horizons, take the brown pill. It's made of poop.

>99% of people aren't anarcho-capitalist. If a position is absurd when the majority of people don't share it, then anarcho-capitalism can dismissed as an absurdity.

See above. Not only is no self-ownership contradictory, it is absurd if you grant any credence to the MOST universal moral standards. Anarcho-capitalism is an all-encompassing ideology that has existed that has existed for about 50 years, the exact "anarcho-capitalist" position on everything (like abortion) isn't clear. 99% of people agree with some aspect of any ideology, even one they ascribe to, so that's not a fair comparison given that virtually every human being that has ever lived and was not profoundly abused or psychologically damaged would oppose random rape and murder if they had any moral code at all. These are two specific issues, not two all-encompassing ideologies.

>1) You didn't

yes I did. Oh, look, if you're going to say I'm wrong it's not enough to assert the contrary. And yes, if you've read any of what I've written, it should be very clear exactly why the premise of no self-ownership would logically conclude that rape and murder are not a violation of a moral right that, by definition, no individual has.

>and it was begging the question to begin with as it assumes that moral judgement of actions is only possible when bodies are seen as property

How do you know that it makes this assumption

>1) rape is bad

>2) the anarcho-capitalist version of self-ownership states that rape is bad

>3) rape is therefor bad and self-ownership is true

No.

1. No self-ownership is proposed as a principle

2. The logical conclusion from this is that rape, murder, stabbings, any unwanted alteration/use of another individual's rights is not a violation of rights (this is true by definition, no slf.ownr.= no moral right to exclude). This is absurd.

3. This means that all individuals are moral criminals for making use of a physical body they have no moral right to use.

>I see you are already trying to make into the edgy nihilist rape fanboy, I can assure you that I am not.

Then let's hear your moral theory, fagola

>If we take that rape is bad as a starting premise that doesn't need a logical argument, as you are doing here, then you don't need self-ownership in order to condemn rape as bad.

That's not the goal of self-ownership. There isn't a "goal" to it. It's just a principle that either does or does not have absurd conclusions like "lol rape is totally morally neutral, except for the fact that the victim is a moral criminal for using her lungs for breathing when she doesn't have the moral right to use her body, by definition."

>>18242

>How about it's a fundamental question because any answer to it is hugely consequential to a wide range of moral issues ranging from taxation, to rape, to murder…? Would that not be a significant consequence from the question? Would the answer to a question not be "fundamental" if it was either a reigning endorsement of murder or an outright prohibition of it?

Begging the question. You state that all base morality follows from self-ownership, and can only follow from self-ownership, and then state that it is therefor a fundamental question. This is like stating that we need pink unicorns for morality and that the existence of pink unicorns are therefor a fundamental question.

>Again, reductio ad absurdums can be used to show that the logical consequences of an idea are so UNLIKELY (not just contradictory) that the idea/argument can not be sound.

Reductio ad absurdums relate to logical absurdities, not absurdities as in subjective value judgements. Otherwise, one only has to judge something as absurd to be able to invoke it. The 16th century Italians, who saw homosexuality as worse than rape, as many people in this world still do, could have just well dismissed anarcho-capitalism on the base of it allowing an absurdity. You root the term absurdity into commonly shared morality, it can therefor be used against every argument that goes against commonly shared morality, as anarcho-capitalist arguments do.

>The logical conclusion from this is that rape, murder, stabbings, any unwanted alteration/use of another individual's rights is not a violation of rights (this is true by definition, no slf.ownr.= no moral right to exclude). This is absurd.

>his means that all individuals are moral criminals for making use of a physical body they have no moral right to use.

>yes, if you've read any of what I've written, it should be very clear exactly why the premise of no self-ownership would logically conclude that rape and murder are not a violation of a moral right that, by definition, no individual has.

>Also, no self-ownership is contradictory, because it requires that an individual use their body to sustain their consciousness without having the right to either feed that body (chew/digest) or to destroy that body to escape the trap of permanently using a body you have no moral right to exercise control over.

This implies that being allowed to be a living functioning organism has to be a question of property rights and that rape and murder can only be condemned using property rights. You haven't provided any reason why this has to be so, you only repeated ad nauseam that it is so by definition because people would criminals otherwise without ever proving that it must be a question of property to begin with, you've even argued against it by taking "rape is bad" as a base statement that doesn't need a logical argument, and therefor no property rights either. You cannot state something as a base principle, and then state that you need property rights for it be so, that's a contradiction. If rape being bad is base statement that requires no logical argument, then it does not require self-ownership as an argument for why rape is bad.

>this is true by definition no slf.ownr.= no moral right to exclude

This implies that we are property, and that the only question is who gets to own it. You haven't provided a single argument why it is so, only taking it as definition.

>See above. Not only is no self-ownership contradictory, it is absurd if you grant any credence to the MOST universal moral standards. Anarcho-capitalism is an all-encompassing ideology that has existed that has existed for about 50 years, the exact "anarcho-capitalist" position on everything (like abortion) isn't clear. 99% of people agree with some aspect of any ideology, even one they ascribe to, so that's not a fair comparison given that virtually every human being that has ever lived and was not profoundly abused or psychologically damaged would oppose random rape and murder if they had any moral code at all. These are two specific issues, not two all-encompassing ideologies.

>>18245

If something is absurd on the base of the majority of people not sharing it, and if argumentum ad populum is therefor no fallacy, then anarcho-capitalism is absurd, you cannot logically work around that by moving the goalpost without dropping your definition of an absurdity.

This also shows that you don't need to believe anarcho-capitalist property rights to condemn rape, as 99% of people do and 99% of people are not ancaps. It shows that there are other forms of morality possible than self-ownership, which have you claimed as definition for being morally allowed to be a functioning human being.

>That's not the goal of self-ownership. There isn't a "goal" to it. It's just a principle that either does or does not have absurd conclusions like "lol rape is totally morally neutral, except for the fact that the victim is a moral criminal for using her lungs for breathing when she doesn't have the moral right to use her body, by definition."

By stating that is so by definition, you are begging the question by stating that property rights are the only form of morals, and that you therefor need them to be a living functioning human being without being a criminal, without explaining why this is neccesarily a matter of property rights. By stating that unwanted consequences follow from there being no self-ownership, you are using an argument from consequences. By stating that those consequences are absurd by the nature of the vast majority of people morally condemning them, you are using the argumentum ad populum fallacy. By using this ad populum argument, you acknowledge that you don't need anarcho-capitalist self-ownership to condemn rape, or they wouldn't be able to do so. The very fact that they do, proves that it is not necessarily a question of property rights, which you have claimed as definition all along. You jump from fallacy to fallacy, with one not even following from the other.

Now please awnser my question, the most important one in all my posts, how deep are you into the molyneux organisation of peace, love and liberty?

>>18241

>>18243

This makes the ancap brain hurt, not enough property, the thing he has been conditioned in to control his entire worldview.

>>18245

>Begging the question. You state that all base morality follows from self-ownership, and can only follow from self-ownership, and then state that it is therefor a fundamental question. This is like stating that we need pink unicorns for morality and that the existence of pink unicorns are therefor a fundamental question.

No, I just said the ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF SELF-OWNERSHIP has huge consequences regardless of whether you answer we're all slaves/unowned/self-owned, not that "self-ownership" as an answer itself is necessarily fundamental just because lol I like it :^)

>Reductio ad absurdums relate to logical absurdities, not absurdities as in subjective value judgements.

Okay, well it's logically absurd for individuals to be trapped in a state where they are defined as having no moral right to use their body, or destroy it (use it), but still being forced to use it to breathe/think, it's defining living as a moral crime which is unavoidable and therefore it's absurd. Just like saying that gravity is evil.

>This implies that being allowed to be a living functioning organism has to be a question of property rights

No, it does not imply that.

>You haven't provided any reason why this has to be so, you only repeated ad nauseam that it is so by definition because people would criminals otherwise without ever proving that it must be a question of property to begin with,

Your options are either logically contradictory no self-ownership, slavery (infinite variety if you include partial ownership), and full self-ownership. Why is it important to consider the question in the first place? Because the answer is so wide reaching. Why must we consider the possibility of a God? Well, we don't have to, but we should consider the possibility given how consequential concluding that a faith tradition was valid might be. Essentially, it is important to consider because if it is true it is so consequential, and if there seems to be a good argument for a specific answer to the question it's pretty childish to say, at that point "WELL WHY ARE WE EVEN ASKING THIS QUESTION :(((("

>This implies that we are property, and that the only question is who gets to own it. You haven't provided a single argument why it is so, only taking it as definition.

Yes, as I've explained, if our bodies are not property you have (by definition) no moral right to use your body and exclude others. You can call this something else, but it's property. You can say that you have the right to use your body, but not to exclude others, in which case it's sorta like self-permission. You can say you have the right to exclude but not use, which is logically contradictory, so doesn't really warrant a name beyond "impossible." You can say that there is neither the right to use or to exclude, no self-ownership, again, you don't have to call this a "property rights" issue, if that triggers you so much we can instead call it the "do individuals have the moral right to use their body and/or exclude others from it" issue.

>>18246

>If something is absurd on the base of the majority of people not sharing it,

Comparing the % of functioning people who condemn random rape and murder to a mere "majority" is a hyperbole, in that a majority is merely > 50%, whereas the figure I am talking about is > 99.5%

But, anyway, it's "logically absurd" and not just absurd in terms of values as I've explained.

>By stating that is so by definition, you are begging the question by stating that property rights are the only form of morals,

There are only so many answers to the questions "who has the moral right to use an individual's body, and to what extent" and that same question with "the right to exclude" instead of use. This means that any moral theory will implicitly address this, as virtually all of them will say "oh yeah, individuals have the right to use their body" but they might make a lot of exceptions for this, if they don't use the lens of property, they might suggest their own consistent or arbitrary reasons for saying that the right to use is limited/ends here/is shared.

>By using this ad populum argument, you acknowledge that you don't need anarcho-capitalist self-ownership to condemn rape, or they wouldn't be able to do so.

k dropped it, mission accomplished

>Now please awnser my question, the most important one in all my posts, how deep are you into the molyneux organisation of peace, love and liberty?

You never told me about your brilliant moral theory my nihilist comrade :^)

>>18248

>Okay, well it's logically absurd for individuals to be trapped in a state where they are defined as having no moral right to use their body, or destroy it (use it), but still being forced to use it to breathe/think, it's defining living as a moral crime which is unavoidable and therefore it's absurd. Just like saying that gravity is evil.

>Yes, as I've explained, if our bodies are not property you have (by definition) no moral right to use your body and exclude others.

You keep repeating yourself that self-ownership is the definition of being a functional human being that is not committing a crime by existing, without ever explaining why this is a property issue, or even a moral issue to begin with. You take everything as a property and simply can't comprehend that this isn't by definition so at all, it is your ideology.

>Comparing the % of functioning people who condemn random rape and murder to a mere "majority" is a hyperbole, in that a majority is merely > 50%, whereas the figure I am talking about is > 99.5%. But, anyway, it's "logically absurd" and not just absurd in terms of values as I've explained.

Wait.. they condemn murder, but they still want you shot? You know all non-ancaps support you getting shot, don't you?

And you know.. if all people who aren't ancaps support you getting shot, and only ancaps which are 0.1% of the population at best don't want you shot.. then being against people being shot is the absurdity!

You used absurdity as a value judgement for an unwanted consequence, not to describe a logical fallacy. Using ad populum is still a fallacy, using absurdity in the sense of it being a value judgement, as you do, is therefor an argument from consequences that doubles it fallaciousness by being based on an ad populum argument.

>You never told me about your brilliant moral theory my nihilist comrade :^)

Why are you so shy about it?

I know this means a lot to and that you are probably very proud of being a student of the most brilliant philosopher that ever lived and saviour of the world.

Have you read into egoist anarchism, like stirner? It's like anarcho-capitalism but without the spooks.

>>18249

I actually like Hoppe, he is an absolute conformist in the sense that he so dilligently follows libertarianism, that he openly praises the consequences that others try to hide. I can imagine

>>18251

>You keep repeating yourself that self-ownership is the definition of being a functional human being that is not committing a crime by existing, without ever explaining why this is a property issue, or even a moral issue to begin with. You take everything as a property and simply can't comprehend that this isn't by definition so at all, it is your ideology.

You're suffering from the misapprehension that a rose by any other name is not as sweet.

All ideologies presuppose, and do not even examine, the premise that individuals usually have the right to use their body if it does not violate the rights of others… tho somehow smoking weed which only harm's one's own body is also a violation of someone else's rights.. Basically, all ideologies "cover" this issue, they just don't do it very consistently or explicitly. If you say rape is a crime and that it's okay to breathe, you implicitly accept most of the consequences of self-ownership, but you might arbitrarily abridge the right to self-ownership with drugs, for example.

>Wait.. they condemn murder, but they still want you shot?

I said random murder

>You know all non-ancaps support you getting shot, don't you?

In a sense, yes. But only if I act on my beliefs.

>You used absurdity as a value judgement for an unwanted consequence, not to describe a logical fallacy.

Okay, well I dropped the former, but I still maintain that there is a logical fallacy inherent in "no self-ownership." No one would propose this standard, all ideologies would implicitly accept some form of self-ownership without calling it that, by saying for example that it's morally permissible for an individual to occupy space that's acknowledging that they also have the right to breathe/use their body which is necessary to even then be permitted to use that body to occupy space.

>I know this means a lot to and that you are probably very proud of being a student of the most brilliant philosopher that ever lived and saviour of the world.

Good meme. Let's hear about your world view :^) Why are you so shy about it?

>Have you read into egoist anarchism, like stirner? It's like anarcho-capitalism but without the spooks.

Read into? No, but I know what it is. Pure edginess. Nihilism. More to it than that, but that's the gist, that people should only associate when it's beneficial to them and saying "random homicides done only to satisfy what appears to be the desires of your 'magic 8 ball' is evil" is lol totes irrational :^)

>I actually like Hoppe, he is an absolute conformist in the sense that he so dilligently follows libertarianism, that he openly praises the consequences that others try to hide. I can imagine

You mean he's not a cuck.

>>18252

>All ideologies presuppose, and do not even examine

USUALLY* do not even…

>>18252

>In a sense, yes. But only if I act on my beliefs.

Soooo….

If not morally condemning rape is an absurdity because 99.5% of people do so, then it logically follows that if 99.5% of people support you getting shot if you act on your believes, it is an absurdity to morally condemn that.

>Okay, well I dropped the former, but I still maintain that there is a logical fallacy inherent in "no self-ownership." No one would propose this standard, all ideologies would implicitly accept some form of self-ownership without calling it that, by saying for example that it's morally permissible for an individual to occupy space that's acknowledging that they also have the right to breathe/use their body which is necessary to even then be permitted to use that body to occupy space.

Which has been my point all along. It doesn't have to be a question of property, you just define it that way because you see everything through the lense of property and rights.

>Good meme. Let's hear about your world view :^) Why are you so shy about it?

Anarcho-conserativism.

Now tell me about your position in the organisation that is going to safe the world, lead by the most brilliant philosopher of all time. And tell me, do tell me, about the immense succes people had in their relationships after following RTR, how happy they are, how well they get along with their friends and family!

>Read into? No, but I know what it is. Pure edginess. Nihilism. More to it than that, but that's the gist, that people should only associate when it's beneficial to them and saying "random homicides done only to satisfy what appears to be the desires of your 'magic 8 ball' is evil" is lol totes irrational :^)

Yeah, like that, It's like anarcho-capitalism, with actual freedom and without spooks, but ultimately can't be used as a base for anything, which is what /leftypol/ forgets. Heidegger and Nietzsche do a lot better in defining Being and Alan Watts is just perplexing, read them, give it a try atleast.

The big man does allow you to read other philosophers than him, I hope?

>You mean he's not a cuck.

This psycho-sexual fixation is suspicious.

>>18254

>If not morally condemning rape is an absurdity because 99.5% of people do so, then it logically follows that if 99.5% of people support you getting shot if you act on your believes, it is an absurdity to morally condemn that.

I already dropped that argument negro

congrats

I see that, indeed, it was a fallacious argument

notify the national news

>Which has been my point all along. It doesn't have to be a question of property, you just define it that way because you see everything through the lense of property and rights.

But they still address the issue, just in a highly inconsistent way where self-ownership is only granted where convenient, so everyone addresses the problem implicitly, pretty much, but since they fail to acknowledge the bigger moral question about a more broad recognition of individual's right to use their body (even to sell it for sex, put drugs into it, destroy it in various ways)

>Anarcho-conserativism

so hoppe

>

Now tell me about your position in the organisation that is going to safe the world, lead by the most brilliant philosopher of all time. And tell me, do tell me, about the immense succes people had in their relationships after following RTR, how happy they are, how well they get along with their friends and family!

I haven't read RTR, have you?

and I'm not in "the organization."

>Yeah, like that, It's like anarcho-capitalism, with actual freedom and without spooks, but ultimately can't be used as a base for anything, which is what /leftypol/ forgets. Heidegger and Nietzsche do a lot better in defining Being and Alan Watts is just perplexing, read them, give it a try atleast.

Sounds lame af

>The big man does allow you to read other philosophers than him, I hope?

good meme

>This psycho-sexual fixation is suspicious.

not my term, fam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckservative

>>18255

>I see that, indeed, it was a fallacious argument

pic related

>But they still address the issue, just in a highly inconsistent way where self-ownership is only granted where convenient, so everyone addresses the problem implicitly, pretty much, but since they fail to acknowledge the bigger moral question about a more broad recognition of individual's right to use their body (even to sell it for sex, put drugs into it, destroy it in various ways)

They don't believe that people should do whatever the fuck they want to other people, while not making this an absolutist principle. It doesn't have to be a black/white issue, a principle taken to it's absolute is self-destructive and ironic, look at the Molyneux and Rand cults to see what I mean with that, or the SJW cults. They talk about the fullest of freedom, while the implication of their ideology doesn't allow it's members any freedom whatsoever. All cults, being very consistent, are alike, the greatest differences in ideology are very close to each other in actuality.

>so hoppe

No, Hoppe advocates for capitalist totalitarianism in order to create a godless biblebelt disney dystopia. He is neither an anarchist, nor a conservative.

I'm an anarcho-conservative in the sense that I don't adhere to authority, while holding conservative values when it comes to philosophy (no systems, no grand narratives) and personal life.

>Sounds lame af

You have been able to read Hoppe and Molyneux, if you didn't find them lame, Nietzche and Heidegger must be like crack to you. They were pretty /pol/ tier too, as you are.

>and I'm not in "the organization."

Don't you trust them?

>not my term, fam

Cuck, cuck, cuck… it's like they want you to internalize that word.. it's psy-ops.

You do realise the cuck meme spams from cuck porn being spammed on /pol/?

>>18257

>pic related

kek

>

They don't believe that people should do whatever the fuck they want to other people, while not making this an absolutist principle. It doesn't have to be a black/white issue, a principle taken to it's absolute is self-destructive and ironic, look at the Molyneux and Rand cults to see what I mean with that, or the SJW cults. They talk about the fullest of freedom, while the implication of their ideology doesn't allow it's members any freedom whatsoever. All cults, being very consistent, are alike, the greatest differences in ideology are very close to each other in actuality.

muh horseshoe meme

>No, Hoppe advocates for capitalist totalitarianism in order to create a godless biblebelt disney dystopia. He is neither an anarchist, nor a conservative.

wrong >:(

>You have been able to read Hoppe and Molyneux, if you didn't find them lame, Nietzche and Heidegger must be like crack to you. They were pretty /pol/ tier too, as you are.

rude lad, I am actually not what I would consider a genuine bigot but I do like to spew some of my edgiest views about women and racial IQ differences in particular :^) maybe it's just because I am a bit of a concerned troll after Socrates' own heart

>Don't you trust them?

Good meme, no, haven't bothered

>Cuck, cuck, cuck… it's like they want you to internalize that word.. it's psy-ops.

no u

>You do realise the cuck meme spams from cuck porn being spammed on /pol/?

No, it actually spawns from the term cuckold

So, anyways, while I still believe that no self-ownership is a retarded principle, as is any variation of logically consistent slavery wherein the slaveowner is morally responsible for the labor AND the moral crimes a slave commits thereby making slavery awful as fuck for both slave and slaveowner, and somewhat contradictory in the idea that two identical twins, owned by two different owners, would have a completely different range of behaviors permitted by their slave owners, so while they would be moral criminals for doing anything outside the list of permissible behaviors, the slave owner would still also be morally responsible for the moral crimes permitted. Essentially, if a slaveowner says "no breathing" it's immoral for a slave to continue breathing, and if a slave commits a murder the slave owner is morally responsible for all actions of the slave, regardless of permission the slave was granted. The permission is only important to the slave's murder in so far as it just means that if a slave has permission to murder it's only the slave owner's crime, whereas if he goes outside of permitted behavior. Fundamentally, there are an infinite variety of mixed slaveries, they all suffer from this seemingly obvious logical inconsistency whereas morality for two identical slaves can be totally different based on the arbitrary whims of an owner, and if the owner demands that a slave not do something necessarily done by a slave (breathing/thinking) essentially the slave owner has created a paradox where it is immoral for the slave to exist, continue surviving, and to kill himself. The option of everyone owning one other person as a slave creates a 7.2 billion long person chain where one person wants to do something, asks their slave owner for permission to do that, and they ask their slave owner for permission to grant permission, ad infinitum, so that option is obviously unworkable, but why couldn't the state be the 51% owner of every citizen as a slave? Well, firstly, this would mean the morality for every single citizen is determined solely by the state which has a controlling share, which goes back to the original problem of morality being determined by the arbitrary whim of an owner, even if the owner proposes a paradoxical moral standard for his slaves.

>>18260

Then of course there's the question as to why individuals can not have a mix of self-ownership and no self-ownership. If you define this mix as a sit of limits on the usage of own's own body, this vastly complicated the question; a "mix" that was not a set of clear limits but rather just that IN GENERAL a restriction of self-ownership wouldn't make sense (suffers from the same problems of pure no self-ownership), but when "no self-ownership" is only "triggered" with certain acts (meaning that you don't just have a 60% right to breathe, but rather you have a right to do most things except for a few specific actions like smoking marijuana or whatever) then this means you can propose a variety of limits on self-ownership without running into the problems of slavery or no self-ownership. Of course, this still doesn't justify taxation, as if self-ownership is restricted, this does not mean that other individuals are morally responsible for the products of an individuals' actions, if they were, that would inherently justify a moral claim to the products of that individuals' labor (but also justify an inherent debt to that individuals' crimes). Essentially, this just proves that slavery would suck for everyone, though I'm not 100% sure it's logically absurd, whereas no self-ownership defines as evil unavoidable breathing, but this leaves lots of room for specific restrictions of self-ownership. Again, I'm not sure how saying "individuals do not have the right to sell their bodies for sex" (besides lacking justification) how such restrictions on self-ownership. Actually, one problem with such restrictions is they restrict moral responsibility. If I only have the moral right to breathe, think, eat, and a few choice survival things, we'll just call this like 4% self-ownership, this means I am 96% not responsible for my actions. This means, if the "perfect" sentence for a murder is 100 years, I should only get 4, as 96% of the moral responsibility for my crime can not be attributed to me. This would also mean that 96% of the value/labor I create would be unowned, as to how this "unowned value" and how these "unowned moral crimes" would be apportioned to the state/other individuals is a mystery, but I think it's useful in that it helps show a certain arbitrary nature in the alternative to full self-ownership.

So imagine I could, in theory, do 100 acts but only had the moral right to do 4 of them. This means I have 4% self-ownership, and am 96% "not the owner" of my body. Now, imagine I made a clear, very explicit 1000 page book delineating a clear list of every action permissible, and let's say there was 10,000 of them. This would mean, on one hand, I had the moral right to use my body for 10,000 things, and on the other hand had an infinite variety of acts I could do which I was not allowed. If (4/total number of acts) times 100 = % I own my body (it does, it's .04 x 100 = 4%) then in this case where there are strict limits on the list of permissible acts, I have (10,000/infinity) x 100 = % of stuff I can do, any # divided by infinity is 0, meaning I have 0% self-ownership, and as we've established (pls) you need to own a body to have a moral claim to the good results of it and responsibility for the negative results. This would mean that anything less than absolute self-ownership, where individuals have the moral right to use their body, means that the list of permissible actions are in essence quantifiable, meaning that impermissible actions are infinite, meaning as a % you have a 0% right to use your body with regards to the number of things you could do, meaning you lack self-ownership. Right now, I recognize I'm not really addressing the right to exclude. I also realize that this whole 0% calculus could be said to invalidate my own moral theory as property rights are a limit to self-ownership. My response is that property rights are only the logical conclusion of self-ownership, and that without full property rights self-ownership is actually restricted, meaning that in order to have a moral theory that implicitly or explicitly admits humans are morally permitted to act within their own body, you must necessarily admit that they have full self-ownership OR they have no moral responsibility for the nasty shit they do.

>>18260

>Don't you trust them?

>Good meme, no, haven't bothered

To be clear, I didn't mean "no, I don't trust them" I meant "no, the reason I haven't gotten into their forum is that I haven't bothered to register." I also haven't donated cuz poor student

I am working on a comprehensive formulation of this whole argument now

>>18261

it'll be so dense, like poetry, it'll rhyme

>>18206

The reason why self-love, romantic love and platonic love all include the word "love" because they have something in common, namely the deep affection you feel for the object of your love. "Love" characterizes the relationship; the other word mainly describes the subject and object of the relationship.

And no, self-love is NOT used as a term for narcissists. "Love yourself!" is advice that's commonly thrown around whenever someone is a sadcunt.

Your grasp of language is lacking. This isn't even my first language, and I understand how the word "platonic love" functions.

>>18257

>a principle taken to it's absolute is self-destructive and ironic

You treat that like a truism. This claim has to be justified, you know?

>look at the Molyneux and Rand cults to see what I mean with that

That's because their ideologies are strongly tied to the personas of Molyneux and Rand, not because of the ideology. Religious cults are even worse and they don't follow absolute principles. On the other hand, a cult of anarchocapitalism doesn't exist because anarchocapitalism is not as centralized as these other ideologies. And there goes your only argument for the thesis that absolute principles are self-destructive.

You're deluded as fuck. I can't say I'm particularly sad about that, though. I know some left-leaning, naive idiots who nevertheless got their heart in the right place, but I can't say the same for you.

>>18264

Forgot flag.

>>18263

To be honest it's a mess and I'm under the impression that you weren't thinking clearly when you wrote it, I'll see what I can discern from it and will formulate a response later.

>>18262

Please donate 1$, one fucking dollah!!!111

>>18264

Which would imply that the only difference being is the subject, your grasp of emotion is lacking. The self-love of narcissism, a term that stems from the myth of narcissus, the man who fell in love with his reflection, is indeed ultimately phony and ironic, like self-ownership.

>>18265

>You treat that like a truism. This claim has to be justified, you know?

Observation of principles taken to their absolutes in actuality, reasoning how their absolutes will materialise and being aware of the distinction between the idealism from which they sprung and the material in which they manifest

>That's because their ideologies are strongly tied to the personas of Molyneux and Rand, not because of the ideology.

With the conclusion of the ideology being total devotion to the persona. Defoo, change your name, your parents want shot… the whole world is the enemy, good can only be found in the cult.

>On the other hand, a cult of anarchocapitalism doesn't exist because anarchocapitalism is not as centralized as these other ideologies. And there goes your only argument for the thesis that absolute principles are self-destructive.

1) It does exist, it's called FDR which is extremely centralized

2) The material manifestation of absolute principles leads to the cult, this doesn't mean that every crank that has his own set of absolutism is by definition in a cult. Not that they are less imprisoned by irony and ideology, though.

>You're deluded as fuck. I can't say I'm particularly sad about that, though. I know some left-leaning, naive idiots who nevertheless got their heart in the right place, but I can't say the same for you.

So I'm a cold hearted bloody bastard.. I was almost going to taunt you with "NOT AN ARGUMENT" , or ask you to justify that claim, but then I realised that you know that you are an intellectual inferior and that your poor attempt of making a stab at me is only a display of the lack of wit with which you desire to sting me with, and that by rubbing that fact into your face I will cause more butthurt.

You will gain no further response from me, as you are completely undeserving of one. Don't pretend to be someone else in an attempt to get a response from me, your idiocy will betray you.

>>18268

I DID it.. and I just realized my seemingly brilliant point about "infinitely small responsibility" doesn't really apply..

1. The question of "do individuals have the moral right to use their own body" and "do individuals have the moral right to exclude others from their own body" is implicitly (or explicitly) addressed by all moral theories. To answer in the affirmative to both questions produces "full self-ownership", which is essentially a (to be proven) objective property claim, wherein the individual has the moral right to use their body until the point of violating an another valid claim (as all individuals having unlimited right to use their body would necessarily preclude the possibility that other individual has the right to exclude others from the use of their own body). This definition of “full self-ownership” will be expanded below; while some individuals may define ownership as mere possession and the ability to defend that possession, focus on the meaning of the term as defined here and not its perceived relevance to its appropriate usage in everyday language.

2. The asking of the two above questions about those two respective moral rights (usage/exclusion) does not depend upon a mind/body dualism, but even if those rights did depend on such a dualism, such dualism would be presupposed by every moral theory as all moral theories presuppose that some actions are morally justified, were that not the case, the "act" of existence would be an unavoidable crime that would define all capacity for rational thought as a fundamental evil, which would mean that thought as an act would only be recognized as permissible by irrational thinkers. This means that all rational thinkers would select themselves out of existence, leaving the remaining thinkers as necessarily irrational in their belief that they are morally permitted to exist. This means that all consistent moral theories (that will be proposed) grant at least some form of limited self-ownership (wherein the individual may do many things and exclude virtually everyone from their body), any moral theory which forbids any action at all would declare the proponent, the thinker producing that theory in urgent need of execution so as to save that thinker from committing a moral crime by enabling his still continued existence. One alternative to "full self-ownership" is "no self-ownership", besides leading to the perhaps undesirable conclusion that rape and murder are not a violation of an individual's rights, it also leads to the logically absurd conclusion that all men are trapped within a body they, by definition, have no moral right to use. This case is distinct from having the right to use own's body in some things but not others, as the former is far more obviously absurd than the latter- the latter only being absurd if logical consistency is not dutifully considered with regards to ownership, moral responsibility, etc. (do not give this point about consistency too much consideration for now, though it should be clear what is meant by the end.) Any situation that defines men as fundamentally having no moral right to use their body, at all, defines existence of moral agents (though unavoidable at the time the theory is proposed) as evil and is necessarily absurd.

3. Those theories which do not grant full self-ownership are flawed. If these theories were consistent, and followed the logical conclusions of restrictions, it would be recognized that the restrictions the "principles" of moral theories place on self-ownership are fundamentally absurd. The reason that these restrictions on full self-ownership are inherently flawed is that they which are not the conclusions following from full self-ownership as a principle in and of itself, so they suffer from a "responsibility" problem, which I will elaborate on further below. This is the claim which will be proven, at this point an unfounded assertion to the reader.

>>18269

4. The only legitimate restrictions on "self-ownership" are those that logically follow from full self-ownership. To prove this claim, there must be a clear definition of full self-ownership and why other restrictions are necessarily logically absurd. An attempt to achieve both is further below.

5. Before proof of full self-ownership can be made, some basic truths must be established for the sake of clarifying the premises to later arguments:

-Property rights logically follow from self-ownership, even "abbreviated" or limited self-ownership. While "limited" self-ownership (which I will explain further later on) has been claimed and (hopefully) will be proved to be logically impossible, for the time being, it is useful to explain how property rights are a natural conclusion even in the case of arbitrarily restricted self-ownership. Consider an analogy: taking for granted that such things can be owned, imagine that a man owns 4 robots programmed for toy making and that he also owns the inputs necessary for the robots to operate/have material to work with, it logically follows that since all the inputs (including labor) were owned by that man, he owns the results as well (at no point would his moral claim to any matter in the process, logically, evaporate due to some arbitrary physical manipulation or brief progression of time.) Similarly, if a man owns his body, and take for granted that he can own tools and a chunk of marble, it logically follows that, were he to sculpt that marble into a statue, he would still own that valuable end product. This means that any moral theory which recognizes that men have the right to use their bodies and exclude others from them implicitly accept that individuals have a special moral claim to the results of the actions of their bodies (were their bodies unowned, it would follow they do not own the value produced by the labor of that body, or the debts of the damage inflicted with it.) Theories that fail to recognize the absurdity of alternatives to full self-ownership can, due to their arbitrary nature, propose ad hoc restrictions on property rights- because those theories restrict full self-ownership, it logically follows that they also might restrict “full property rights.”

-Moral responsibility is directly tied to self-ownership. This was briefly touched upon just above. To elaborate, imagine that a factory with 100 machines and four of those machines (and their inputs) we will take for granted are owned by a man. It logically follows, that if all the machines work at the same rate, the man will own roughly 4% of the products of that factory, and is in a sense “responsible” for them and has a special moral claim to them (assuming, again, he owned the robots and inputs in the first place.) Similarly, if no one owned the inputs or the factory or the robots functioning inside of it, it would logically follow that the aforementioned man owns 0% of the products of the factory, and that all men would have an equal moral claim to those products, and that no man had any particular moral claim to any robot or product of that factory. This is important, self-ownership or a lack thereof is indicative of moral responsibility, or a lack of moral responsibility. While it has been proven that “no self-ownership” is logically absurd (in defining the existence of moral agents as necessarily and unavoidably evil in all cases), it would also follow (if it could be and were a universally valid principle) that no individual has moral responsibility. This is because no man would have a moral claim to the results of his actions, whether the result of his actions was useful, productive labor, or the intentional homicide of another man. It seems to follow, logically, that if the ability to quantify degree of value and ownership was available to man and exact, that a man who had “4% self-ownership” would only have a 4% claim to every acre of land he homesteaded, and dollar he traded in exchange for his labor or good; similarly, it would also follow that if it was known for certain that murder was a crime that warranted a “perfect punishment” of 100 years, that a man with 4% ownership of his own body would be 96% “not responsible” for the murder he committed and only deserve a sentence of 4 years. This also raises the question: what happens to the other 96 years in his sentence and what happens to the other 96 cents he earns, that these questions have no good answers is no harm to the case for “full self-ownership”.

>>18270

6. “Full self-ownership” is the principle that a man has the moral right to use his body, and to exclude others from his body, until the exercise of such "usage rights" to his own body results in a logical contradiction by infringing upon another man’s “exclusion rights”; this was mentioned but should be restated due to its importance. This means that, by virtue of including both usage rights and exclusion rights, there are inherent restrictions in the moral right individuals have to act. However, as will be shown below, any restriction that is added in addition to those inherent to the definition of full self-ownership necessarily restricts full self-ownership and creates a situation of infinitely limited moral responsibility, as will be shown below (restrictions in addition to, or in place of the inherent restrictions usage rights create are “non-inherent” restrictions.) In practice, it is useful to think of this principle of full self-ownership as “a man has the right to use his body until it would result in the contradiction of violating another man’s exclusion rights.”

7. Before elaborating upon the impossibility of some variety of “individuals obviously have the right to use their body and exclude others from it, except in (insert case where such action violates an alternative moral theory)” it would be useful to examine the system of permissible and restricted behavior created by acceptance of full self-ownership. Full self-ownership leads to the logical conclusion that individuals own and are responsible for the value of their labor, which they can sell, or infuse with their own “owned” inputs (be it clay, marble, wood, or the complex amalgamation that is a modern computer and its power supply). It follows that the only behavior that is not permissible (the limits to “usage rights”) is that which is a violation of exclusion rights, another valid property claim. Without delving into the complexities of homesteading, first appropriation, abandonment, and de minimus pollution such as exhaling carbon dioxide, recognize that full self-ownership is at least a consistent theory in principle, even if its enforcement would be impossible due to depending on arbitrary answers to “gray areas” like “how long may property be unattended to before it is abandoned.” At this point, it has been established that no self-ownership is absurd, and that self-ownership is not absurd (though it may depend upon subjective implementation of general principles, in practice). This means that full ownership of one individual by another (universal slavery), mixed ownership of individuals (infinitely variable slavery), ownership of some individuals by others and self-ownership for others (selective slavery), and “every other moral theory” (some restrictions on “full self-ownership” and the property rights that necessarily follow that principle) have all yet to be proven false.

8. Recalling what was established in number five, all alternatives (classified in #7 as “every other moral theory”) to full self-ownership are absurd- while “every other moral theory” may exclude an exceptionally small number of theories founded on some principle of universal/variable/selective slavery, it is a generally accurate phrase. All alternative moral theories (virtually), whether utilitarianism or Kant’s categorical imperative, recognize a man’s right to use his body, but place restrictions on the usage of that body that are not inherent (there are inherent restrictions on the use of a man’s body that he is the full-owner of, given that other men have the right to exclude him from their bodies.) These restrictions may be suggested for a variety of reasons that are quite plausible until the realization of a startling logical conclusion. It is best to explain this with an analogy. Imagine that a man was capable of doing 100 things with his body, but only had the moral right to use his body for 5 of those acts, even though those other 95 acts were not a violation of “exclusion” rights (which are inherently prohibited by a recognition of ownership.) We could say that this man had “5% usage rights” and had full “exclusion” rights (this is entirely not like an example in #5).

>>18271

This formula, I will call the “usage rights equation” is important, but not (obviously) exactly quantifiable, as a contributing factor to the degree to which a man owns himself = (permissible acts/total acts including morally impermissible acts) x 100 = % of usage rights.

9. It logically follows that as the degree to which a man does not have usage rights grows, the degree to which he owns his body decreases. The weaker his moral claim on the property he produces, the lesser his moral responsibility for the crimes he commits (if we could quantify that he only owned 0.1% of his body and his brother owned the other 99.9%, it would follow that his brother would bear most of the moral responsibility for a crime he committed.) With regards to a body, assuming the degree to which a man has “usage rights” is not infinitely less important than the degree to which he has “exclusion rights”, it logically follows that a non-inherent restriction on self-ownership results in a man having no moral responsibility (this is actually too bold a claim, as I will show.) Put simply: unless “exclusion rights” are the sole determinant of the degree to which a man has “self-ownership” (which would seem impossible on its face given the definition of self-ownership includes the right to use), a restriction on a man’s behavior (which is not a result of another man’s “exclusion rights”) results in a situation where a man has infinitely limited self-ownership, and as such, infinitely small self-ownership (recall that ownership is necessary for moral responsibility from #5). Why the infinitely small self-ownership and therefore responsibility? Remember the Consider this example: imagine a long, but nonetheless finite list of behaviors that restricted usage of a man’s bodies that did not violate any other man’s exclusion (property) rights. Let’s say this finite list of behaviors is 10,000 actions long, this would mean (10,000 permissible acts/infinitely many impermissible acts) x 100 = % of usage rights. Given that there are infinitely many things he is not allowed to use his body for (restrictions not inherent in the definition of ownership), and a finite list of things he can do, he essentially has “0% usage rights”, assuming usage rights to be an important part of the “self-ownership” calculus which is basically the “degree to which a man has usage rights and exclusion rights over his own body” calculus, this would mean that man’s moral responsibility is exceptionally low; in fact, the right to exclude (while relevant to “% self-ownership”) is not relevant to the degree to which a man his morally responsible.” Only the right to use is relevant to moral responsibility, this is obvious when we recognize that a man with 100% usage rights who has no right to exclude (“self-permission” we can call having the right to use but not exclude) other men from the usage of his body (whether that be to steal organs or damage his body) he would still be morally responsible for the actions he took given that he is the only man with the right to use his body (remember from #1 that zero usage rights defines existence of moral agents as evil which is an absurd proposition outside of the fact that it defines the theorist proposing the standard as an inherently evil agent unworthy of existence.) Actually, this proof of absurdity only works if it can be established that a moral theory, which grants the existence of some usage rights to men in principle (thereby avoiding #2’s proof of absurdity), has a finite limit to “permissible behavior” and infinite behavior. This proof actually only works as a proof of the absurdity of a moral theory if a moral theory has infinitely, or at least significantly more behaviors that are impermissible than permissible; this is because the absurdity is rooted in more impermissible than permissible behavior = low usage rights (a man has little to no right to use his body) = low moral responsibility = a man is not the primary “holder” of the damage he causes of the value he produces. It would seem, in some sense, that all moral theories forbid and enable an infinite amount of behaviors, like not-raping is okay in infinitely many situations, and raping is a violation in infinitely many similar situations. However, given that finite means “subject to limitations” we know that all of these theories create a standard where moral behavior is “finite”, unfortunately, it does not logically follow that

>>18272

the restrictions are “not finite” or infinite. One could apply “special pleading” and say that moral theories have “one category for ‘permissible behavior’ and infinitely many violations, whether that be a rape, a rape on Tuesday, a rape in a park, etc.” the problem, of course, is that this is special pleading since the rapes could all be grouped under “impermissible” behavior, and such classification would be more consistent given the prior one. What this all means is that a moral theory that proposes a finite list of acceptable behaviors and thereby implies infinitely many unacceptable behaviors, this theory creates a situation of infinitely limited usage rights, so this proof is only useful in disproving theories that are defined in just the right way to be applicable. You might wonder how this is at all relevant, to some degree this proof is mostly fruitless, however, we do know that any moral theory that restricts usage of a body on a basis that is not the exclusion (property) rights of another man, by definition, limits usage rights and therefore limits moral responsibility (as proven above). This means that, although it’s impossible to quantify, “non-inherent” contradictions create “unowned” property and “unowned” crimes (individuals are not fully morally responsible, and as such do not have a full moral claim to what they produce whether that is a statue or a broken window.) Given this, it is fair to say any moral theory that does not recognize this issue is, at the least, incomplete. However, this is insufficient to say that any moral theory that does not recognize full self-ownership and the property rights that follow is necessarily false. This means further methods are required to debunk “all other ethical theories.”

10. One approach would be to suggest that all individuals implicitly suggest the validity of self-ownership as a principle by engaging in debate. This is, to my mind, only superficially plausible, as it is entirely consistent to state that individuals have the moral right to exercise ownership of their body in all cases except to smoke methamphetamine- while that drug might be arbitrarily selected, the proponent accepts most forms of “usage rights” and only forbids exercise of those “usage rights” in some arbitrary cases. Sadly, full self-ownership is not necessarily an all-or-nothing deal, even though limited self-ownership leads to limited moral responsibility; that complication of limited responsibility creates a difficult if not unanswerable moral question of “what happens to the ‘leftover’ value of property and the debt of crimes, given that we know individuals are not 100% morally responsible for the actions of their at least slightly unowned bodies.” This “implicit acceptance” argument is only effective if what I call “non-inherent” restrictions on self-ownership can be proven to be inherently illogical, in that “full self-ownership” IS an all-or-nothing deal. ACTUALLY, if you get someone to admit, just ask, “you would agree that I am completely responsible, in moral terms, for my arguments,” or if you can get them to say that they are “completely responsible for their actions as a moral agent” this precludes the possibility of non-inherent contradictions; however, if they understand these arguments, and have a moral theory in the “all other theory” category, they will concede that they do not believe everyone has As yet, #3 and #4 are unproven.

11. One could point out that “non-inherent” restrictions do create the problem of “why do you arbitrarily give moral agents full exclusion rights (they can refuse access to any individual to their body) but then apply non-inherent restrictions on their agency (usage rights)?” Even if these theories do not “match” the degree of exclusion and moral rights, this might call into question their reliability, but is not an objective proof. In the same way “unowned crimes” resulting from non-inherent restrictions creates a small “responsibility” problem, said problem is not so significant as to fundamentally disprove all those theories.

12. At this point, the primary way to provide an irrefutable proof against competing moral theories is to prove one of two things:

-That self-ownership is necessarily an all-or-nothing deal, or

-Non-inherent restrictions on usage rights (those restrictions not implied by the existence of “exclusion rights”) result in logical contradictions

I’m not ruling it out as impossible, but it seems quite difficult at this point. I am hoping that framing this subject in a… somewhat clear and enlightening way, it will enable us to at least better work towards solving these problems.

13. I did not address the alternatives of universal slavery, mixed slavery, etc. as they are not really relevant to competing moral theories, and they are not interesting to me, though I can make arguments against their validity, I am just going to focus on the more pressing issue.

>>18269

>>18270

>>18271

>>18272

>>18273

You make the same mistake as you have done over and over again. You assume that morality and responsibility are necessarily property issues, and that all forms of morality implicity state this, that they are all ancaps without realising it .You conclude from that that absolute ancap property is the only conclusion, because otherwise there would no self-ownership that would make everything a crime or percentual self-ownership, this is begging the question because the conclusion, being ancap property, is embedded in the premise. You haven't provided any explanation why morality is necessary an issue of ancap property, because you are incapable of not seeing everything as a property issue. You cannot see us anything else but a piece of property, that is either owned or stolen.

Property is a social construct, not an absolute platonic form that underlines everything. There has not been a single society that followed absolute ancap property, because property isn't an idealist absolute that follows from the material conditions of a society, a construct that has differed from culture to culture, some societies had no concept of property, others only had a communal concept of property. Property doesn't "logically follow" from the idealism of self-ownership, as in the sense that every society with the concept of property does not hold the ancap version of self-ownership.

You place the term logically follows a lot where you haven't provided any evidence why something logically follows but you assume it does.

>One alternative to "full self-ownership" is "no self-ownership", besides leading to the perhaps undesirable conclusion that rape and murder are not a violation of an individual's rights, it also leads to the logically absurd conclusion that all men are trapped within a body they, by definition, have no moral right to use.

by definition…..

I could state that pink unicorns are necessary for not being a criminal by being alive, by stating that the definition of there being no pink unicorns would be to commit a crime by being alive. It's begging the question by stating that being ancap property is neccesary for not committing a crime by being alive, by simply defining it as being so, so that the conclusion, being that we are necessarily thieves or owners, is embedded in the premise of the argument. For something to be able to be stolen, it must first be property, therefor the conclusion that we are thieves by being alive if we are not, follows from the premise that we neccesarily are a piece of ancap property without ever proving that we are.

This argument only makes sense if we accept the premise that we are pieces of property, and also accept that the ancap concept of absolute and inalienable private property. You start from property, to conclude with property, it's circular reasoning.

I'm going to ask you one more time, prove that self-ownership is neccesary for not being a criminal by being alive without working from the fallacious assumption that we are either thieves or owners of ourselves, that a human being is necessarily absolute ancap property that is stolen if he is not.

If you are still confident in your theory, you can send it to this guy for a proofread and crititque, he has a much better grasp and knowledge of terminology of analytical philosophy than I do.

http://anarchopac.weebly.com/

>>18280

>You assume that morality

No I don't. Virtually all ethical theories address this problem by implicitly recognizing individuals have the moral right to use their bodies

>You assume responsibility are property issues

Don't call it property. But if you have no right to use your body, and no right to exclude others from it, you can't be said to be morally responsible.

>They are all ancaps without realising it

No, they are all fucking up for the following reason:

-Self-ownership is defined as, put simply, usage rights and exclusion rights to a body (usage being valid until the point of violating valid exclusion rights).

-As explained in #5 and #9, some degree of self-ownership is necessary for moral responsibility. Put simply, if you do not have any moral right to your body, you have no special claim to any result of your body, meaning everyone is equally responsible for the labors and murders your completely unowned body causes.

*-Any restriction on usage rights that is not "inherent" is a step away from "full self-ownership" and a step closer to "no self-ownership" (no self-ownership being the principle that no act is morally permissible for a man, and that no man has a moral claim to the products of his actions, or a moral responsibility to the negative consequences he causes. This means "full self-ownership" entails "full moral responsibility." Remember that, while full self-ownership means you have full usage rights to your own body, usage rights are inherently reined in by exclusion

>>18282

continued

rights; put simply, usage rights end where "exclusion rights" begin, sorry to repeat myself, but this is what I mean by an "inherent" moral limit on usage rights.

-As explained in #2, all moral theories presuppose the moral "usage rights" and "exclusion rights," even if they fail to consider these concepts in property terms, a utilitarian stating that "men have the moral duty to maximize utility" obviously implies that men have the right to use their bodies towards that end. If men were required to maximize utility, but did not have usage rights, this would mean that a man is either evil for using his body without the right to do so, and/or he is evil for failing to meet his obligation to maximize utility. Unless a moral theory is founded upon the idea that individuals are granted the right to use their body by some slave-owner, be it the state or their parents, it falls into what I will classify as (virtually) "All Alternative Ethical Theories" (AAET), AAETs presuppose the moral right to use one's own body. However, as these AAETs are not anarcho-capitalism, they do not recognize full self-ownership and the property rights that logically follow. Instead, they place restrictions on full self-ownership according to some standard that they have

-AAETs limit the degree to which individuals may exercise self-ownership (usage rights), beyond "inherent" exclusion restrictions, which means they are, necessarily, creating a moral theory founded upon the idea that individuals do not have full self-ownership. Whether this means individuals are 99.9% self-owned and the remainder is unowned, owned by the state, or some other answer, the specific owner of that remainder is irrelevant. The vital point here is that such a limit on self-ownership exists, meaning that (given the above premise marked with an asterisk*) AAETs take away full moral responsibility from individuals, by taking away full self-ownership (which is necessary to have a full moral claim to the result's of one's own actions.)

-AAETs therefore create a moral gray area of "incomplete moral responsibility" in the process of proposing "non-inherent" restrictions on self-ownership

-There is no objective answer to the question of: if individuals are only 99.9% self-owned, what happens to the "unowned" consequences of their actions: the debts of crime, or the value produces, is that lack of moral responsibility exercised every other second, built up and released over time, constantly released as a fractional form meaning we're only 99.9% morally responsible for any action we take?

-We can not quantify the degree to which individuals have self-ownership if they are somewhere between full self-ownership and no self-ownership. All we can know, in principle, is that they do not have full moral responsibility, and they do not have full ownership of the results of their actions.

-Because there is no objective answer to the two above questions, a perpetrator of a crime has as valid a claim about the truth of the two directly above questions as any judge does. This means that any perpetrator can point out that they have limited self-ownership, therefore necessarily limited moral responsibility, and that this lack of moral responsibility was actually all "released" during the time of a crime. There can be no valid argument against this, one can only assert their subjective opinion to the contrary.

-Hence, all "non-inherent" restrictions on individual "usage rights" result in an absurdity where no one can objectively be said to have been responsible for the crimes they committed, even if it is well established that a man's body was used in a crime, if we admit he does not have full moral responsibility it can not also be established that the individual was not releasing (at the time of the crime) "pent up deficits of moral responsibility." Therefore, AAETs are subjective and, in their attempt to propose additional restrictions, make the enforcement of restrictions necessarily impossible to do consistently and confidently.

>>18280

>because otherwise there would no self-ownership that would make everything a crime or percentual self-ownership,

I have proven in the above 2 points why "limited self-ownership" is necessarily absurd, so you can take your "MUH QUESTION BEGGING" and shove it up your bum

>Property is a social construct,

A property claim is a claim to moral usage and exclusion rights, not a claim to MUH SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

>I could state that pink unicorns are necessary for not being a criminal by being alive, by stating that the definition of there being no pink unicorns would be to commit a crime by being alive.

Not an argument

>It's begging the question by stating that being ancap property is neccesary for not committing a crime by being alive, by simply defining it as being so, so that the conclusion, being that we are necessarily thieves or owners, is embedded in the premise of the argument

Nigga, what the fuck are you smoking? I have proven that COMPLETE non-ownership is absurd because it defines existing as a moral evil, I used the above arguments after your post to debunk the alternative ethical theories which rely upon implicit use of limited self-ownership

>I'm going to ask you one more time, prove that self-ownership is neccesary for not being a criminal by being alive without working from the fallacious assumption that we are either thieves or owners of ourselves, that a human being is necessarily absolute ancap property that is stolen if he is not.

If you, by definition, have no moral right to use your body, you are a criminal for doing that which you have just been defined as having no moral right to do. If we accepted that a certain rule against murder was valid, I would (by definition) have no moral right to murder, and murder would be evil. If we say that NO INDIVIDUAL has the right to use their body or the right to exclude others from it, we are defining individuals as universally evil for the moral crime of existing/making use of a body they have no right to use.

>>18282

>No I don't. Virtually all ethical theories address this problem by implicitly recognizing individuals have the moral right to use their bodies

Not seeing being alive as a crime does not imply that one implicitly believes in anarcho-capitalist property rights.

>As explained in #5 and #9, some degree of self-ownership is necessary for moral responsibility. Put simply, if you do not have any moral right to your body, you have no special claim to any result of your body, meaning everyone is equally responsible for the labors and murders your completely unowned body causes.

>Any restriction on usage rights that is not "inherent" is a step away from "full self-ownership" and a step closer to "no self-ownership" (no self-ownership being the principle that no act is morally permissible for a man, and that no man has a moral claim to the products of his actions, or a moral responsibility to the negative consequences he causes. This means "full self-ownership" entails "full moral responsibility." Remember that, while full self-ownership means you have full usage rights to your own body, usage rights are inherently reined in by exclusion

This acts from the unproven premise that we are all pieces of ancap property, and that everything we do is a piece of ancap property without ever proving that premise.

It only makes sense, if the premise that we and all our actions being ancap property is proven.

>I have proven in the above 2 points why "limited self-ownership" is necessarily absurd, so you can take your "MUH QUESTION BEGGING" and shove it up your bum

While acting from the assumption that we are by definition ancap pieces of property, with the only questioning being who gets to own us. Limited self-ownership is absurd because the premise is absurd to begin with.

>A property claim is a claim to moral usage and exclusion rights, not a claim to MUH SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

Here you define all morality as being intrinsically about ancap property. Property is by definition a social construct that fluctuated in different societies, not one followed the ancap version of property.

Property is not intrinsically moral, it is taken as absolute moral by ancaps who then claim that everything moral is a property question by definition.

>Not an argument

It's an example of what you do. By defining pink unicorns as necessary for morality, I can state that the non-existence of pink unicorns would make everything immoral without ever explaining why they are necessary for morality. There is no difference in doing with pink unicorns and doing it with property.

>Nigga, what the fuck are you smoking? I have proven that COMPLETE non-ownership is absurd because it defines existing as a moral evil, I used the above arguments after your post to debunk the alternative ethical theories which rely upon implicit use of limited self-ownership

This acts from the premise that we are pieces of ancap property by definition. Non ancap morality and ethics don't rely upon the implicit use of limited self-ownership, because they don't see people as pieces of ancap property by definition.

>If you, by definition, have no moral right to use your body, you are a criminal for doing that which you have just been defined as having no moral right to do.

>If we say that NO INDIVIDUAL has the right to use their body or the right to exclude others from it, we are defining individuals as universally evil for the moral crime of existing/making use of a body they have no right to use.

This acts from the assumption that bodies are ancap property, that can only be owned in the ancap property sense or stolen. You start with us being a piece of ancap property, to conclude with property.

You haven't provided any argument why we are necessarily a piece of ancap property.

>>18285

>ancap property

Confirmed for assburgers.

The logical flaw ancaps make is that they define non self-ownership as immoral, without ever having established their morality in the first place. They claim their hypermoralism by definition , and that everything would immoral without it, rather than amoral.

>>18289

>Ancaps define non-self ownership as immoral

What the fuck does that even mean m8

>everything would be immoral without it, rather than amoral

There are actions which they claim are always immoral because they violate natural rights

The belief that things are moral or not, is inconsequential

>>18285

>Not seeing being alive as a crime does not imply that one implicitly believes in anarcho-capitalist property rights.

It is a recognition of both usage rights and exclusion rights

The definition of self-ownership

dumb fuck

>This acts from the unproven premise that we are all pieces of ancap property,

All ethical theories accept that to "some degree" we are property, else we have no right to use our bodies. By acknowledging humans have the right to use their bodies and that they have the right to exclude others from their bodies you are acknowledging that bodies are property, even if you give some ad hoc justification as to why this is not the case

>>18303

>It is a recognition of both usage rights and exclusion rights

>The definition of self-ownership

No, it isn't. You repeat this ad nauseam, without ever proving that this is indeed the case. It is begging the question because it assumes ancap absolute property based morality, without ever justifying it.

Morality does not exist by virtue of you claiming something as moral. If you were able to logically prove this, you would be the greatest philosopher of all time.

>All ethical theories accept that to "some degree" we are property, else we have no right to use our bodies.

It is only so, in the utterly absurd idealism that is ancap property. To assert that we are criminals if we are not ancap property follows from the premise that we are ancap property and that without a moral right to act based in ancap property, acting would be immoral, and is therefor begging the question because it concludes ancap property, from ancap property.

You conclude your morality of us being ancap property, on the base of you morality's condemnation of us not being property. That's like saying that pink unicorns are the base of morality, because if they weren't all would be immoral. Replace pink unicorns with property and you have your argument.

>By acknowledging humans have the right to use their bodies and that they have the right to exclude others from their bodies you are acknowledging that bodies are property

No, it doesn't and you are incapable of seeing this because you are completely steeped in hypermoralist capitalist idealism, you are so utterly cucked by capitalism that you actually believe that breathing would be a crime without it.

Not being a criminal by being alive does not mean that we have a right to use our bodies as in bodies being ancap property. It is circular reasoning because it claims us as being property, on the base of us needing ancap property rights to act which are only needed if we are indeed pieces of ancap property, you thus conclude us being ancap property on the base of ancap absolute property rights.

The trick you use is framing not being a criminal by being alive as us having usage rights over ourselves in the ancap absolute property sense of rights.

>>18303

Please don't respond to my post >>18308

This discussion is dead, since you are convinced you have proven ancappery to be the only logical conclusion, you would be better of by logically beating actual philosophers into a pulp with it than by debating me.

>>18308

>No, it isn't.

You are literally telling me that the definition of self-ownership, which I have given, as the moral right to use (usage rights) and exclude (exclusions) rights, does not include usage rights or exclusions rights

k, thanks for telling me the philosophical term I have proposed has a different meaning than the one it was originally assigned by me, I didn't know you can win debates by just redefining the terms your opponent uses

not gonna read the rest of your bullshit if it's based off of this "criticism"

>>18313

One would only need ancap property rights to state that a person is not morally justified in doing whatever he wants to another person, if we are a piece of ancap property to begin with, from which self-ownership follows. It is therefor circular reasoning.

"But I define it as so!" is not an argument that justifies a moral claim, if it were so, you could replace self-ownership with pink unicorns and it would be just as valid, all moral claims would be self-justifying.

>>18314

>One would only need ancap property rights to state that a person is not morally justified in doing whatever he wants to another person,

Assertion with no relevant conclusion

>if we are a piece of ancap property to begin with, from which self-ownership follows. It is therefor circular reasoning.

No it's not, retard. No self-ownership is not an option because of the contradiction outlined above, not the one about rape, the one about being forced to use a body you have no right to use etc. All other moral theories, virtually, (those not based on the idea that all human action is unjustified, or that the vast majority of mankind is a slave and that objective morality stems from a slave master) assign humans the moral right to use their bodies, and this is usually coupled with some moral right to exclude. Limited self-ownership means that individuals have some moral right to use and some moral right to exclude others from their body. Hence, virtually all moral theories grant human beings at least some form of limited self-ownership, if you want to call it "self-permission" because you're a fucking retard go ahead.

>"But I define it as so!" is not an argument that justifies a moral claim

I wasn't justifying a moral claim with a definition I was creating a term that is shorthand for the definition that is used to justify arguments against the absence of all usage/exclusion rights (no self-ownership) and "limited self-ownership" (which is a principle inherent in moral theories, which creates the above explained "responsibility problem" which, paradoxically, prevents justifiable enforcement by making it impossible to assign moral responsibility to a criminal during the time he commits a crime.)

>if it were so, you could replace self-ownership with pink unicorns and it would be just as valid, all moral claims would be self-justifying.

If I defined "pink unicorn" as synonymous with "replace," and defined "you're still a faggot" as synonymous with "valid", and defined "justifying" as synonymous "you should go fuck yourself because apparently you don't own your own body but rape also isn't a moral crime" I could pink unicorn with pink unicorn and it would still be just as you're still a faggot, all moral claims would be self-you should go fuck yourself because apparently you don't own your own body but rape also isn't a moral crime and your sentence wold still make just as little sense.

>>18316

>No it's not, retard. No self-ownership is not an option because of the contradiction outlined above, not the one about rape, the one about being forced to use a body you have no right to use etc.

You would only need ancap property rights to be a functioning human being, if a person is a piece of ancap property, from which property rights follow. It's circular logic.

>Limited self-ownership means that individuals have some moral right to use and some moral right to exclude others from their body

Limited self-ownership follows from the premise that we are a piece of ancap property to begin with, you have yet to prove that premise.

>I wasn't justifying a moral claim with a definition I was creating a term that is shorthand for the definition that is used to justify arguments against the absence of all usage/exclusion rights (no self-ownership) and "limited self-ownership" (which is a principle inherent in moral theories, which creates the above explained "responsibility problem" which, paradoxically, prevents justifiable enforcement by making it impossible to assign moral responsibility to a criminal during the time he commits a crime.)

You justified property rights as being moral, and as being the only form of morality that all forms of morality use, by defining property as moral. You didn't prove it is.

>>18318

>You would only need ancap property rights to be a functioning human being, if a person is a piece of ancap property, from which property rights follow. It's circular logic.

Here's circular logic:

A is true because B is true

B is true because A is true

or A is true because B is true, B is true because C is true, C is true because A is true.

If you can not show my ideas fit into this logic, shut the fuck up about circular logic, thanks.

>Limited self-ownership follows from the premise that we are a piece of ancap property to begin with, you have yet to prove that premise.

No, you ass-gobbling cockgoblin, I am saying limited self-ownership follows from usage rights and exclusion rights which approximately 99% of competing moral theories presuppose to exist. That argument about moral responsibility is meant to debunk those theories as they create an irrational gray area.

>You justified property rights as being moral,

I did not define them into existence

I claimed that, if they exist, property rights are the moral right to use and exclude, usage and exclusion rights. I then seek to prove that they necessarily exist in "full" form, as no self-ownership (no usage rights) is logically contradictory, the 99.99% of competing moral theories that "covertly" grant limited self-ownership create a retarded gray area of limited moral responsibility, I did not spend most of my efforts debunking slavery, but basically, even "amoralists" define humans as having the moral right to use their own body, but they deny full self-ownership by denying the existence of exclusion rights, this puts "amoralism" into the same category as "99.9%" of competing moral theories which do not start from the absurd premise that the "act" of existing is evil for humans. The idea "all human action is justified" is not logically tenable, actually, whose arguments are you arguing against? Clearly, I don't have any moral claim to these arguments which are a result of my arguments, you must be pretty insane to believe that no one has full self-ownership yet you still recognize that they have full moral responsibility for the results of their actions, like their arguments.

>and as being the only form of morality that all forms of morality use, by defining property as moral. You didn't prove it is.

except i did :^)

>>18321

>rguments which are a result of my arguments,

result of my unowned body* therefore I have no claim to them

>>18321

>If you can not show my ideas fit into this logic, shut the fuck up about circular logic, thanks.

I did. You claim that the ancap moral system is true, because according to the ancap moral system, we would be criminals if it weren't so. You can't prove a moral system, by referencing to said moral system. That's begging the question.

(A) self-ownership is true because according to (B) anarcho-capitalist property rights we would be criminals if it weren't so

(B) anarcho-capitalist property rights are true because it follows from (A) self-ownership being true

If you still don't see the fallacy you are commiting because you are so emotionally attached to your ideology, point out the fallacy in this example.

I define pink unicorns as creatures that we need to worship in order to not be immoral by being alive. If you therefor claim that being alive is not immoral, you have to recognise pink unicorns. Because pink unicorns are necessarily for morality, every moral system implicitly acknowledges them.

>I claimed that, if they exist, property rights are the moral right to use and exclude

You don't prove that something is objective morality by defining it as as so, that's beggin the question. Property rights are a social construct that has multiple interpretations and multiple forms over the ages and in different cultures. You have yet to prove that they constitute an objective morality, so far you have only claimed they do.

>you must be pretty insane to believe that no one has full self-ownership yet you still recognize that they have full moral responsibility for the results of their actions

Yes, everyone who isn't an ancap must be insane. It's just the conspiracy of leftist academia why this hasn't been recognised yet. Believe me, you would be the greatest philosopher alive if you could prove that there is an objective morality. It would be the end of most of philosophy.