Libertarian Principle of Self-Ownership

[ForgedinHell]

The principle of self-ownership is one of a handful of principles that guide a Libertarian. To date, no one has presented any refutation of the principle, and it is a fundamental principle that makes slavery immoral, whereas, all claims dismissing self-ownership give a moral free-pass for slavery.

The idea that self ownership cannot exist because it must involve a relationship between two objects, the owner and the owned is a ridiculous notion. What this means is that slavery may exist, because there is a real separation between the slave owner and the slave as distinct entities, but a person may not be free from slavery, and become the owner of herself.

Self-ownership means you own yourself. This gives rise to a second principle of Libertarianism, that one owns the fruits of one's own labor. There are only four alternatives that can exist, and the only alternative that is both functional, and makes slavery immoral, is self-owership. Believing in a principle that both illegitimizes slavery while creating a functional environment to live in would seem to be enough, but socialists want nothing to do with such success stories. However, no socialist has put forth an alternative principle that stands against slavery, that's because socialism is slavery; nor leads to a functioning society, socialism always goes bankrupt in the end.

The four possibilities are 1. self-ownership, 2. everyone owns everyone, 3. no one owns anyone, 4. some people own some other people. The second principle would literally mean that you own people you have never met, and don't want to meet, and don't want to own. It would also mean that everyone on the planet has as much interest in whether you use the restroom as you do, and you would need to ask everyone for permission. This is an absurd idea. The third position, would mean no system of ethics or politics or economics could exist, save for one where pure chaos reigns. If no one owns anyone, not even themselves, then no one has the right to any property, nor may they govern anyone else, nor be held accountable for their own actions. The fourth possibility, that some people own some others, that is slavery, and one would think people would accept the idea that this position is immoral on its face. But, the problem is how does a handful of people end up owning a group of other people? This is socialism outright where a small handful of political elites boss everyone else around. How do the handful acquire ownership over anyone else? If self-owenrship does not exist, where does the right of the elite come from to enslave others? Similarly, if people do not own themselves, then they never could have rightfully given consent to be owned by a handful. No socialist, or slave owner, has ever justified their position.

[Kayla]

The principle of self-ownership is one of a handful of principles that guide a Libertarian. To date, no one has presented any refutation of the principle,

what would constitute an adequate refutation

if you cannot answer that question you are speaking gibberish

[ForgedinHell]

The principle of self-ownership is one of a handful of principles that guide a Libertarian. To date, no one has presented any refutation of the principle,

what would constitute an adequate refutation

if you cannot answer that question you are speaking gibberish

What do you think a refutation would be? So, let me get this straight? You are seriously arguing that I am the one who must explain to my opponents what they need to argue to defeat my position? Seriously? Here's my answer then: Since my opponents are so intellectually lame that they need my advice on how to defeat the principle of self-ownership, that just goes to show how valid the principle of self-ownership is and how lame the opposition is. I'm not wasting my time arguing against myself and for the opposition. My opponent's have the responsibility to think for themselves.

[Kayla]

What do you think a refutation would be? So, let me get this straight? You are seriously arguing that I am the one who must explain to my opponents what they need to argue to defeat my position? Seriously?

i am assuming basic grasp of philosophy on your part yes

i am not asking you to do anyone's work for them

only a simple question

would would have to be shown as true in order for your view to be false

i am not asking you to help show that it is true or even how one might go about


if this is too complex for you perhaps you can state the position that you are trying to refute

[Notvacka]

There is nothing to refute. This joker ForgedinHell has a principle he calls "self-ownership", but he can't explain what it is or how it comes about. Ownership is generally understood as a relationship between two separate entities, where one is owned by the other. What relationship can there be between one entity? How does it come about? I have asked ForgedinHell over and over and even suggested several possible interpretations, but so far he hasn't produced anything even close to an answer. I have given up on him.

Now, I have a principle too; I call it the supreme principle of blahaha. Nobody has been able to refute blahaha.

[ForgedinHell]

What do you think a refutation would be? So, let me get this straight? You are seriously arguing that I am the one who must explain to my opponents what they need to argue to defeat my position? Seriously?

i am assuming basic grasp of philosophy on your part yes

i am not asking you to do anyone's work for them

only a simple question

would would have to be shown as true in order for your view to be false

i am not asking you to help show that it is true or even how one might go about







if this is too complex for you perhaps you can state the position that you are trying to refute

My position is that it is up to my opponent to offer a refutation, not me. Is this your view of philosophy? That a person who states a position is obligated to show what the refutation of the position would be; otherwise, the person must not stake out a positon? If so, then I'm glad I spend my time studying science, not philosophy, because I can't think of a more ridiculous subject if that's one of its basic requirements.

[ForgedinHell]

There is nothing to refute. This joker ForgedinHell has a principle he calls "self-ownership", but he can't explain what it is or how it comes about. Ownership is generally understood as a relationship between two separate entities, where one is owned by the other. What relationship can there be between one entity? How does it come about? I have asked ForgedinHell over and over and even suggested several possible interpretations, but so far he hasn't produced anything even close to an answer. I have given up on him.

Now, I have a principle too; I call it the supreme principle of blahaha. Nobody has been able to refute blahaha.

I have explained it. You merely asserting otherwise does not refute my position. "Ownership is generally understood as a relationship between two separate entities..." You think that is a serious argument to make? LOL. Really? First, your statement merely states that it is "generally" true, and does not even state it is by necessity always true. Therefore, my position is perfectly consistent with your "general" proposition. Second, because you have no stated that by necessity there must be two separate entities involved to establish ownership, you have not refuted my position. Third, you are stating that ownership of one human being by another is okay, because they are separate entities but that one cannot establish that slavery is immoral by pointing out that free people own themselves. On its face then, you are putting slavery above freedom, which puts you back into the morally bankrupt slot.

I have repeatedly shown how pathetically stupid you are, so please feel free to continue with your ongoing absurd claims. I know more about how to argue a position than anyone here.

[Kayla]

My position is that it is up to my opponent to offer a refutation, not me. Is this your view of philosophy? That a person who states a position is obligated to show what the refutation of the position would be; otherwise, the person must not stake out a positon? If so, then I'm glad I spend my time studying science, not philosophy, because I can't think of a more ridiculous subject if that's one of its basic requirements.

you dont know much about philosophy of science either do you

if you are going to make some scientific claim there has to be some conceivable way to show that your claim is false

if there isn't one you are doing homeopathy or some such shit not science

you want to be convinced of something - it is very reasonable to ask what your criteria for being convinced are

otherwise you are just as much of a waste of oxygen as satyr

[Notvacka]

I know more about how to argue a position than anyone here.

Let me show you how far off the mark you are:

I have explained it. You have? Please show me where, then.

You merely asserting otherwise does not refute my position. But you don't have a position yet. So how can I refute it, if I can't even understand it?

"Ownership is generally understood as a relationship between two separate entities..." You think that is a serious argument to make? LOL. Really? It's not an argument. I'm simply stating how the word "ownership" is generally understood. You obviously mean something else by it, which is fine. But if you wish to give words new meanings, you have to explain what they are supposed to mean. And since you have failed to explain, I guess that you haven't figured it out for youself yet.

First, your statement merely states that it is "generally" true, and does not even state it is by necessity always true. You don't have a clue about how clueless you are, do you? Truth has absolutely nothing to do with it. We are nowhere near any assessment of truth here. I'm merely trying to understand what you mean, by helping you explain yourself. It's okay to give words new meanings. But don't be surprised if others don't understand what you mean if you do. At this stage, your claim isn't true or false, it's simply meaningless.

Therefore, my position is perfectly consistent with your "general" proposition. I haven't made any proposition. I understand "ownership" as a relationship. If you understand it in some other way, you must explain what it is.

Second, because you have no stated that by necessity there must be two separate entities involved to establish ownership, you have not refuted my position.We haven't gotten to the part where ownership is established yet. First you must explain what ownership is when there is only one entity involved. Then you can explain how it's established.

Third, you are stating that ownership of one human being by another is okay...No! I have never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I't not okay, dammit! Ownership of one human being by another is known as slavery, and it's not okay. But unlike self-ownership, it's easy to understand what it is and how it's established.

[stsoc]

Argumentation ethics (also called Discourse ethics or Communicative ethics) show the existence of an a priori principle - right to the exclusive use of one's body.

Calling that principle self-ownership is not true, and saying that it implies self-ownership is non-sequitur. Even if we disregard the fact that we are commiting a category error by putting people in the sphere of property, and go on to that, the right of exclusive use is not ownership.

Right to property says that you have the right to exclude others from in any way using the property untill you transfer the title over it to someone else, and you can rent it until then. Right to possession is simply that you have right to exclusive use of something until you abandon it. As said- communicative ethics show that the norm of ethics is "right to exclusive use of one's body". Principle of self-possession covers that.

Using self-possession insted of self-ownership creates a problem for capitalists, because it invalidates rent (and renting oneself is employment), so they ofcourse jump to the non-sequitur notion of self-ownership (and as said, that's even if we disregard the category error of calling people property).