unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'

[henry quirk]

A man belongs to himself. (Or, as my good friend, age put it: A man is free).

It is what it is.

I belong to myself; you belong to yourself.

This is self-evident.

It's the universal intuition of every man, anywhere, at any time, that he is his own.

Even the slaver believes he is his own and would never accept wearin' the leash as his birthright.

Questions are welcome.

[henry quirk]

A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

A man belongs to himself: what exactly is it that's his?

His life: his existence, his substance, his identity, his mind.

His liberty: his aims, his choices, his actions, his consequences.

His property: his desires, his thoughts, his creations, his possessions.

The totality of him: reason, free will, conscience; blood, bone, muscle.

His soul: and all that extends from it.

Questions are welcome.

[Lacewing]

Do you have dementia?

[henry quirk]

Alone, a man has no need for codification: he knows he is his own; knows his life, liberty, and property are his. Alone, no one challenges this intuition. He's free.

Alone, the problems faced are stark, direct, and basic. They can be summed as staying alive.

Most men, however, do not live alone.

Each lives with, or in proximity to, others: others with wildly different strengths and weaknesses, personalities, capabilities, and notions about themselves, others, the world, and how things ought be done.

Difference breeds contempt: conflict is inevitable. Moreover, a man's right to himself, to his life, his liberty, his property is threatened.

In the company of others, this problem -- staying alive -- is multiplied and complexified. Whereas one has only to wrestle with himself for a solution, two or many bring to the table multiple solutions, many at odds with one another. This of course, introduces further conflict as each has his own notions on how to resolve difference.

To bridge those differences -- in solutions, and in solutions to differences in solutions -- between and among themselves, men consider what is common between and among them.

I suggest, as a man's intuition of ownness, of self-belonging, is the only unadulterable universal commonality, it is the basis for determining what is and isn't permissable between and among men.

A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

As a man recognizes the other's ownness: murder, enslavement, rape, theft are recognized as the violations of the other's ownness, and as impermissible, and self-defense, defense of other, defense of property are recognized as permissible, perhaps even obligatory.

The other is his own as I am my own. His life, liberty, and property are his as mine is mine. To murder him, enslave him, rape him, steal from him is wrong in the same way it would be wrong if I were murdered, enslaved, raped, or stolen from.

Questions are welcome.

-----

more to come...

[FlashDangerpants]

A man belongs to himself. (Or, as my good friend, age put it: A man is free).

So this property-of-self deal isn't predicated on anything mystical about Crom divinely gifting your self to you, but is rather as Age implies, simply a statement of agency - I make my own decisions about what I want to do?

Does a coma patient, a fetus or a cow have such things?

[Age]

A man belongs to himself. (Or, as my good friend, age put it: A man is free).

I have NEVER and would NEVER "put it" NOR say, 'A man is free' without acknowledging that absolutely EVERY thing is free, including women and children. That is; until 'you', adult human beings, prison or contain things.

But how I would ACTUALLY "put it" OR say, is; 'you', human beings, are FREE and absolutely FREE. (That is; until 'you' contain "yourselves" with your own limited or constrained thinking and thoughts).

It is what it is.

I belong to myself; you belong to yourself.

Who does a new born human child belong to, to you?

This is self-evident.

It's the universal intuition of every man, anywhere, at any time, that he is his own.

Even the slaver believes he is his own and would never accept wearin' the leash as his birthright.

Questions are welcome.

Who does a new born human child belong to, to you?

Who does a woman belong to, to you? And,

Who does an older child belong to, to you?

[FlashDangerpants]

But how I would ACTUALLY "put it"

I can assure you that Henry doesn't care about that any more than I do. This conversation absolutely not about you.

[Age]

A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

A man belongs to himself: what exactly is it that's his?

His life: his existence, his substance, his identity, his mind.

What is this 'mind' thing, EXACTLY, which you speak of and mention here?

His liberty: his aims, his choices, his actions, his consequences.

But what happens if ANY of these aims, choices, actions, consequences end up causing the abuse of some thing/some one else?

His property: his desires, his thoughts, his creations, his possessions.

What EXACTLY could a man 'possess', which could be his ALONE?

Also, what happens if ANY desires, thoughts, creations, possessions lead to the causing of abuse to some thing/some one else?

Furthermore, how could you 'possess' now, what was ACTUALLY TAKEN and STOLEN from 'another'?

The totality of him: reason, free will, conscience; blood, bone, muscle.

His soul: and all that extends from it.

Questions are welcome.

How could the male gendered reference word be in part reason, free will, conscience, blood, bone, muscle, soul, and ALL that extends from 'it'?

What does the 'it' word refer to here?

Also, if you would like to LEARN and DISCOVER how to word, what you are 'trying to' say and express here, in a way that can NOT be REFUTED by ANY one forever, then just let me know.

[Age]

Do you have dementia?

Is there ANY who has TOTAL RECALL, or, in other words, can remember EVERY thing that they have experienced?

If no, then could ALL of 'you', human beings, have 'dementia', to some degree or other?

[Age]

Alone, a man has no need for codification: he knows he is his own; knows his life, liberty, and property are his. Alone, no one challenges this intuition. He's free.

What do you mean a man "knows his life is his"? What does it even mean to "know one's life is theirs"?

Either one is alive or they are not, correct?

In a way I am challenging this CLAIM of yours, alone.

This happens in two ways;

1. If you do NOT answer FULLY and Honestly my clarifying, (or challenging?), questions.

2. You CLAIM that this is an 'intuition' to me, ALONE. Yet, here I am NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTANDING your CLAIM. So, I am challenging that supposed "intuition" I am MEANT TO HAVE, according to the one known here as "henry quirk", because I do NOT have NOR feel this "intuition" of supposedly "Knowing my life is mine".

To me, 'I' am just alive, and, to me, there is NO human being "having its OWN life".

Alone, the problems faced are stark, direct, and basic. They can be summed as staying alive.

I suggest that if you TOLD us what these supposed "problems" ARE, EXACTLY, then, at least, I would KNOW what "problems" that you are allegedly faced with, and which are supposedly stark, direct, and basic, whatever that ACTUALLY MEANS.

Most men, however, do not live alone.

I do NOT know of ANY man, woman, NOR child who 'lives alone'.

Also, from what I have observed NONE of 'you', ACTUALLY could live Truly 'alone'.

Each lives with, or in proximity to, others: others with wildly different strengths and weaknesses, personalities, capabilities, and notions about themselves, others, the world, and how things ought be done.

For example there are some who BELIEVE "a man knows he is his own; knows his life, liberty, and property are his." while there are "others" who do NOT feel it necessary to have NOR hold ANY such distorted views nor beliefs.

Difference breeds contempt: conflict is inevitable. Moreover, a man's right to himself, to his life, his liberty, his property is threatened.

If one BELIEVES that, LAUGHABLY, "conflict is inevitable", then they will obviously do what it takes to make sure that this BELIEF remains TRUE.

In the company of others, this problem -- staying alive -- is multiplied and complexified.

Staying alive is just about one of the most simplest and easiest things to do, especially for the species known as the 'human being'.

Whereas one has only to wrestle with himself for a solution, two or many bring to the table multiple solutions, many at odds with one another. This of course, introduces further conflict as each has his own notions on how to resolve difference.

The only True DIFFERENCE in life is just among the thinking within human bodies, which is OBVIOUSLY of your OWN making.

To bridge those differences -- in solutions, and in solutions to differences in solutions -- between and among themselves, men consider what is common between and among them.

QUITE SIMPLY, if you do NOT create ANY DIFFERENCE, in the beginning, then you will just HAVE UNITY.

Which is were 'you' are ALL heading to, and going to just end up ANYWAY.

I suggest, as a man's intuition of ownness, of self-belonging, is the only unadulterable universal commonality, it is the basis for determining what is and isn't permissable between and among men.

And yet it is this one who ALSO CLAIMS that it can SHOOT DEAD ANOTHER HUMAN BEING just because the "other" is standing in "his" home at 3am or because the "other" "touched "his" toothpick".

Talk about TOTALLY CONTRADICTING the 'self-belonging' intuition or rule, VERY HYPOCRITICALLY.

A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

We have gone through this before, and you do NOT YET seem to be able to GRASP a True UNDERSTANDING here.

In fact you STILL have such a narrowed field of view and perspective of things you can NOT even SEE that there is MORE than just 'you', men, here.

As a man recognizes the other's ownness: murder, enslavement, rape, theft are recognized as the violations of the other's ownness, and as impermissible, and self-defense, defense of other, defense of property are recognized as permissible, perhaps even obligatory.

Yes "henry quirk" you are OBLIGED and OBLIGATED to SHOOT DEAD ANOTHER HUMAN BEING just because they "touch" "your" stuff or just because they
"enter" "your" so-called "home".

You are STILL so short-sighted and even BLINDED to the FACT that "your" so-called "home" is built on STOLEN PROPERTY. Why do you NOT give that back to its RIGHTFUL OWNERS?

The other is his own as I am my own. His life, liberty, and property are his as mine is mine. To murder him, enslave him, rape him, steal from him is wrong in the same way it would be wrong if I were murdered, enslaved, raped, or stolen from.

Questions are welcome.

-----

Have you answered ALL of the ones above Honestly?

more to come...

Please, and let us NOT FORGET that so far it has only been "more" of the SAME.

[Age]

But how I would ACTUALLY "put it"

I can assure you that Henry doesn't care about that any more than I do. This conversation absolutely not about you.

I will CORRECT what I want when I want to, okay? And, especially in regards to what is said ABOUT 'me'.

LOOK, if ANY one wants to 'try to' put words "into my mouth", as some of you would say, then let me inform you that if I want to, then I will CORRECT it.

If 'you', "flashdangerpants", or "henry quirk", do not care about what I would have ACTUALLY SAID, then let it be KNOWN that I do NOT care. I can and will CORRECT, when I want to.

Also, if this conversation is NOT about 'me', then I suggest that BOTH of 'you' do NOT bring 'me' into this conversation, as 'you' have, ONCE MORE, done here, YET AGAIN.

[FlashDangerpants]

Also, if this conversation is NOT about 'me', then I suggest that BOTH of 'you' do NOT bring 'me' into this conversation

Shut up Age, sometimes we reference you, but it's not because we care.

[henry quirk]

So this property-of-self deal isn't predicated on anything mystical about Crom divinely gifting your self to you, but is rather as Age implies, simply a statement of agency - I make my own decisions about what I want to do?

They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights and agency: both.


Does a coma patient, a fetus or a cow have such things?

Most of the previously comatose describe havin' had dreams of a kind. They're not brain dead, so they retain their natural rights.

Elsewhere, I argue from 12 weeks on, a pregnant woman carries a person with natural rights.

When a cow evidences reason, free will, and conscience: I won't eat it.

I grew up on farmland: most animals are bio-automata (every so often, though, I'd run across one -- a dog, cat, horse -- that got me to wonderin').

[FlashDangerpants]

So this property-of-self deal isn't predicated on anything mystical about Crom divinely gifting your self to you, but is rather as Age implies, simply a statement of agency - I make my own decisions about what I want to do?

They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights and agency: both.

Is your argument dependent on a religion that pretty much nobody shares where your deity is cribbed from a Conan the Barbarian film?
Or is it shorn of the mystical stuff and predicated on observation of self-awareness and moral agency?

Does a coma patient, a fetus or a cow have such things?

Most of the previously comatose describe havin' had dreams of a kind. They're not brain dead, so they retain their natural rights.

Elsewhere, I argue from 12 weeks on, a pregnant woman carries a person with natural rights.

When a cow evidences reason, free will, and conscience: I won't eat it.

I grew up on farmland: most animals are bio-automata (every so often, though, I'd run across one -- a dog, cat, horse -- that got me to wonderin').

Yeah, the 12 week zygote is bio-automata to at least as great an extent as the cow, and so are most coma patients.
I mean it's different if there's souls involved, with specific religious implications.

[FlashDangerpants]

I suggest, as a man's intuition of ownness, of self-belonging, is the only unadulterable universal commonality, it is the basis for determining what is and isn't permissable between and among men.

In other business, and without prejudice to the question of whether a fetus has an intuition of ownness...

What is the supporting argument for self-belonging being the only commonality?

And why does the basis for determining this need to be a universal commonality rather than somehting else like compassion or something which psychopaths happen to lack?