You’re asking too much from me. Sum it up?

At a glance: owenership is a legal relation, and all legal relations only make sense when defined and enforced by a state; what self-respecting anarchist would define their own actions by means of a category of the state?

Would also be relevant to mention the genealogy of the idea of self-ownership, which was derived from Roman law and more specifically, the right to own slaves: "When Medieval political theorists spoke of "liberty," they were normally referring to a lord's right to do whatever he wanted within his own domains - his dominium. This was, again, usually assumed to be not something originally established by agreement, but a mere fact of conquest ... This is a tradition that assumes that liberty is essentially the right to do what one likes with one's own property. In fact, not only does it make property a right, it treats rights themselves as a form of property.

...If freedom is basically our right to own things, or to treat things as if we own them, then what would it mean to "own" a freedom — wouldn't it have to mean that our right to own property is itself a form of property? That does seem unnecessarily convoluted. What possible reason would one have to want to define it this way? Historically, there is a simple — if somewhat disturbing — answer to this. Those who have argued that we are the natural owners of our rights and liberties have been mainly interested in asserting that we should be free to give them away, or even to sell them. ... And this is exactly what natural-rights theorists came to assert. In fact, over the next centuries, these ideas came to be developed above all in Antwerp and Lisbon, cities at the very center of the emerging slave trade."


https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/openeconomy/two-notions-of-liberty-revisited-or-how-to-disentangle-liberty-and-slavery/

In addition to what Streetlight said regarding the awkward application of legalese to selfhood, any sense of self is natally given, so he's starting from a false ontology of an atomistic self.

:up: :clap:

Clearly, what one owns one can sell or bequeath to another, or one could've bought or inherited from another. Thus, it's a category mistake to claim "one owns oneself" and so on ... It's like claiming "a hand holds itself" (implying a hand also "picks-up" or "drops" or 'throws' itself).

I agree that the idea of self ownership is flawed. The self cannot own itself anymore than it can possess itself.

Ancap_Society claims to have discovered an "apodictic proof" of self-ownership. His writing is mostly incoherent; however, I'll copy and paste several important ideas that are central to his entire pseudo-philosophy.

"Action Ownership: The Scientific Proof
Many have challenged my postulation and conclusion that actions are necessarily owned. A number of attacks have been directed at the assertion; so this essay is entirely necessary to reveal further and scrutinize the rationale in the goal of ascertaining an apodictic statement on the nature of action.
First we must define our terms.
Entities: That which exists within space-time, following the requirements of dimensional consequences that can be perceptually detected.
Action: An event in time and space with dimensional characteristics that are perceivable.
Ownership: The demonstrated nature of ultimately exclusive power over and dimensional responsibility for an entity.
Event: An interaction between entities that is perceivable.
Both events and actions can be described as a number of energy state changes for objects."

"How does an individual human necessarily “own” their individual action?
When a conscious agent perpetrates an event they do so based on some conditional preference. This conditional preference can be anything from blinking to flirting with a prospective sexual partner. These events are physically observable insofar that one can perceive their existence and describe their distinct dimensional consequences."

"In conclusion, the events perpetrated by conscious entities can themselves be described as independently existing phenomena that possess the descriptive qualifier of “Ownership” as the individual body reveals autonomy in its discernment of preferential events and its perpetration of them. Therefore, actions which are events which have observable physical properties that are perpetrated by conscious agents based on conditional preferences have an agent of which expresses exclusive power over and responsibility for the events dimensional consequences. Actions are entities with discernible and observable space-time characteristics and thusly do exist as a phenomena and therefore can be owned.

Entities in my discernment of epistemology and oncology are that which exist within space time; actions or events to some cannot be entities due to their intangible nature. This premise of my critics suffers when scientific analysis is employed. Events are merely fast state changing entities relative to conscious observers and objects are slow state changing entities relative to conscious observers making them existing phenomena which can necessarily be owned by autonomous and conscious agent based on sole perpetration/creation. This is true as the agent of perpetration is completely incremental to the fast state change of energy known as action."

Anticipated rebuttal: “Events occur, entities exist.” The error in this attempted epistemological discernment is the failure to realize that in order for an event to occur there must be entities of interaction present. We do not perceive a rolling shutter gap between the position of a hand in the action of waving, rather we perceive a motion that required the transfer of physical energy in a system that has dimensional consequences and limitations to get hand through subsequent position to its planned position by the operator of the hand. Electro chemical impulses in the arm, spinal cord and brain are the physical phenomena responsible for the occurrence of such an event and are thusly the physical entities the occurrence of an event require, making the event an entity subsequently. In conversation one would not say the stabbing of Caesar exists, it makes convoluted communication, rather they would say it occurred; this is the limitation of the modes of language. The stabbing was an existing entity in a certain state that possessed distinct physical elements of action wherein impulses occur in the brain and spinal cord to make the knife enter the said victim. The event is perceptually present and therefore exists as an entity in changing states. We say occurrence or has occurred because it makes sense to describe an event with such languages for we are referring to a set of actions. The physical nature in both its execution and dependence cannot be denied, this does not mean you can hold an action but rather it can be produced and observed and is therefore an entity reliant interaction. All entities in interactions must subject onto each other a force in order for the occurrence to be qualified as an interaction. Subject A stabbing subject B is by all logic and science an event of physical phenomena. Interactions can be measured, they possess distinct physical qualities and are therefore entities reliant on two or more bodies interacting.

Anticipated rebuttal: “Fast state relationships vs slow change objects.”
There is a special pleading fallacy committed by the critiques of my theory of action ownership, wherein one claims that an object that they can touch can be owned and the event of moving one’s arm cannot be. This is a failure to recognize that the particular energy conversion demonstrated in an action is merely the entities path, just as the object has dimensional consequences subject too and contingent upon space-time so to do the chemical electrical, relationship between that of the spinal cord and that of the moving arm. When one moves their arm from position A to position B they move through subsequent positions based on the movement upward(In this particular case) and flow of energy is directed by the autonomous agent. This energy movement is occurring in what I refer to as a fast state change. This energies direction and form are being directed in a relationship which is relative to conscious observers as “Fast.” The matter in the situation of the arms movement is converted to another form wherein it is not necessarily realized that the energy has shifted. An observer wouldn't call this relationship an object and they’d be correct in that it is not necessarily an object; it is however the objects path based on its nature as a particular object.

One claims that the tangibility of the apple makes it an existing entity and the intangibility of the action makes it a non-existing phenomena; this is based solely on tangibility and disregards entirely that the action is necessarily an event of the objects nature existing contingent of the object itself. The action can be observed and measured just as the apple can, but one is applying existence to the apple based on its perceptually slower transfer of energy into a state change compared to the actions relatively faster energy state change. This is a special pleading fallacy as one is saying based on the tangibility of apple that it exists over the action which necessarily has dimensional consequences and can be perceived just as the apple can be. We don’t need to touch Jupiter to know its there, just as we do not need to touch gravity waves to know that they’re there, we can detect them just as we can detect action/events.

The Grant Exclusion Principle: Based on the Pauli Exclusion Principle a principle of quantum mechanics that generally states that a fermion in a given state “excludes other fermions of the exact same type from that exact state (ex: if electron A is in the exact state of A within a given system then electron A* is "excluded" from that exact state A). The dependent variables of actions are the objects that are involved in the interactions the energy that is transferred between the objects in the interaction, the space in which the interaction occurs and the time over which it occurs; thus actions while enduring some of the same spatiotemporal degrees as objects, actions have more degrees of freedom then objects do. Action in the GEP(Grant Exclusion Principle) follow the same nature and reasoning of the Pauli Exclusion Principle; as actions can possess similar energy transfers and even identical spatiotemporality, two or more actions cannot possess all of these variables with identical magnitudes, simultaneously. Thus, given some action for these variables, other actions are excluded from the exact same state of variables.

I'll provide an overview of several of my arguments in the next comment.

This seems nothing more than running with the common phrase “you need to own your actions”. Self-help guru stuff.

Curious how your adversary never defines a "self", which is the paramount issue of his argument

I agree that the idea of self ownership is flawed. The self cannot own itself anymore than it can possess itself. — NOS4A2

In addition to what Streetlight said regarding the awkward application of legalese to selfhood, any sense of self is natally given, so he's starting from a false ontology of an atomistic self. — Maw

Is the problem with the term "ownership" and "own"? Would it help if I just said that we are causally responsible for our actions?

It doesn't make sense to say that we don't own our selves in a world where we have plagiarism and copyright laws. What are those laws based on if not some atomistic view of the self? If we didn't have those laws, sure I could pass someone else's work as my own, but that would be wrong in the ontological sense, not in some moral/ethical sense. What about the right to have an abortion? Isn't that based on the idea that the woman owns her body?

It seems to me that an atomistic view of the self is the basis for having laws in the first place. If atomistic self is a false ontology, then why do we need laws at all?

Also, what is identity politics if the atomistic self is a false ontology?

Original argument is stupid crap. What's ownership in the Treatise?

Ownership: The exclusive power over and responsibility for a physical item and or phenomena.

To find rightful ownership over a thing or a phenomenon we must discern where it came from in the most feasible sense.

Person A conducts action to procure gold from a mine which has no prior claims to it and there is no established agreement in which Person A agrees to procure the gold in exchange for something else with another person.
|Conclusion: Person A is the sole entity which procured and claimed procurement of such gold and thusly possess a rightful claim to it.

Whoops I seem to have found one of those widely occurrent natural phenomena, the gold mine and used my free will (which no one else had anything to do with) to get some gold out of it with a tool I used my free will to use and hey wait how did this fucking gold mine and tool get here before I did Jesus fucking christ on a bendybus how in the hell do you write 87 pages of this dreck.

Is the problem with the term "ownership" and "own"? Would it help if I just said that we are causally responsible for our actions?

I think it would. If we were to devise a "treatise" it would help to be careful with the use of terminology.

:lol: :up:

It doesn't make sense to say that we don't own our selves in a world where we have plagiarism and copyright laws. What are those laws based on if not some atomistic view of the self? If we didn't have those laws, sure I could pass someone else's work as my own, but that would be wrong in the ontological sense, not in some moral/ethical sense. What about the right to have an abortion? Isn't that based on the idea that the woman owns her body? — Harry Hindu

That individuals have autonomy and agency is separate from the construction and development of a self, which is inherently social and socialized (which is a byproduct of a body). An atomistic self is as incoherent as private language, nevertheless specific languages exist.

Also, what is identity politics if the atomistic self is a false ontology? — Harry Hindu

Identity politics is predicated on the idea that the atomistic self is false.....

:smirk: Don't confuse 'em ...

If I say "I own myself" or "I own my actions" this is often taken to mean "I am responsible for myself" or "I am responsible for my actions". The extension of this is sometimes a claim that I have a right to do whatever I want, provided I accept responsibility for what I have done. I don't believe this latter follows. I can, within limits, do whatever I want, even, and perhaps especially, if I don't accept responsibility for my actions. Yet sometimes I will be held responsible for my actions regardless of whether I accept responsibility for them. Am I stating the obvious? Jesus, I hope so!

Identity politics is predicated on the idea that the atomistic self is false..... — Maw

Since identity politics is false, does it follow that the atomistic self is true? Well, of course not!

Since identity politics is false, does it follow that the atomistic self is true? Well, of course not! — Janus

People who think identity politics is false might as well have been born yesterday, no understanding of history or politics whatsoever.

It depends on what you mean by "false". I don't deny that many, even most, people are firmly focused on identity politics. I see that focus as basing political thinking on false premises; i.e. some form or other of tribal thinking.

I see that focus as basing political thinking on false premises; i.e. some form or other of tribal thinking. — Janus

Nothing false or bad about building a political movement in order to support groups who have historically suffered from prejudice, discrimination, and disfranchisement and material privation.

That is a 'straw man' argument. Ownership does not require that the item can be sold or whatever.

Of course we are responsible for our actions; however, he's saying that we own actions in the same way that we can own a table or a chair. He claims that actions can be bought and sold as "services," despite the fact that in the business world, "services" are not owned by anyone--they are simply performed. He reifies "actions" and thus ends up making a categorical error. Actions and objects occupy distinct ontological classes.

↪180 Proof
That is a 'straw man' argument. Ownership does not require that the item can be sold or whatever. — A Seagull

Well, what context other than legal, economic and political contexts (re: 'libertarianism') are you referring to with your objection to my usage?

I agree, just as long as that doesn't distract from more overarching issues that affect all human, animal and plant life such as climate change, resource depletion, habitat loss, species extinctions, financial manipulation and the economic instability that brings and so on.

Sounds like capitalistic bullshit taken to its extreme logical conclusion, then! :wink:

I'd love to see you guys tear his "treatise" to pieces with facts and logic, epic style.

That individuals have autonomy and agency is separate from the construction and development of a self, which is inherently social and socialized (which is a byproduct of a body). An atomistic self is as incoherent as private language, nevertheless specific languages exist. — Maw

I don't see the distinction between "self" and "individual". In my mind, they are synonyms.

Languages wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have separate, individual minds that we need access to and the only way to access them is via language. There would be no such thing as miscommunication, or using words in new ways. The new way a word is used starts with an individual use of it that is then shared with others who find it useful.

If the self is socially constructed, then how can you say that the individual has autonomy? What relationship does the constructed self have with the individual self? It seems to me that if what you are saying is true, then the constructed self would dictate the actions of the individual.

This also doesn't seem to allow for individuals to go against the social grain. If the self is socially constructed, then how does anyone get the idea that their self is NOT part of the social norm?

Identity politics is predicated on the idea that the atomistic self is false..... — Maw

Then identity politics is as incoherent as the idea that individuals and selves are not the same.

If the self is socially constructed, then how can you say that the individual has autonomy? What relationship does the constructed self have with the individual self? It seems to me that if what you are saying is true, then the constructed self would dictate the actions of the individual. — Harry Hindu

How did you come to understand and speak language? Behavioral norms? Ideology? Concepts? Where did you get food and water? How did you form an identity or character? Personality? Through a complete lack of social interactivity? With an absolute deprivation of other people? Did you pull your Self up like Baron Munchausen? No, the development of who you are is made possible only by being a social and natal being. This does not entail that your individual actions are dictated by some background collective as if you were a member of the Borg. I could digress into how socialization, material opportunities and lack thereof affect an individual, their character and actions, but that's unnecessary.

Responses to cherry-picked sections of another's post misses the points made in the rest of the post.

Languages wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have separate, individual minds that we need access to and the only way to access them is via language. There would be no such thing as miscommunication, or using words in new ways. The new way a word is used starts with an individual use of it that is then shared with others who find it useful. — Harry Hindu

How did you come to understand and speak language? Behavioral norms? Ideology? Concepts? Where did you get food and water? How did you form an identity or character? Personality? Through a complete lack of social interactivity? With an absolute deprivation of other people? Did you pull your Self up like Baron Munchausen? No, the development of who you are is made possible only by being a social and natal being. This does not entail that your individual actions are dictated by some background collective as if you were a member of the Borg. I could digress into how socialization, material opportunities and lack thereof affect an individual, their character and actions, but that's unnecessary. — Maw

This seems to imply that there was a me before coming to understand and speak language. You can only become socialized once you understand the words that are being used to share the ideas in the word-user's head. There are people who have lived into their adulthood without learning a language, or even understanding what a language is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_Without_Words

The development of who I am was made possible by natural selection and the contribution of my parent's genetic code. My development continues within a social structure, but what I'm saying is that isn't what exhausts the definition of me - my self.

How would the philosophical idea of a private language even come about if we aren't cut off from each other in certain ways?

This does not entail that your individual actions are dictated by some background collective as if you were a member of the Borg. I could digress into how socialization, material opportunities and lack thereof affect an individual, their character and actions, but that's unnecessary. — Maw

Then you'd have to explain how that can't be the case, because if we are defined only by our social interactions then our actions would be dictated by the collective and there would be no room for original thought. Explain how original ideas, or discoveries, arise within a social system.

"The essence of discovery is seeing what everybody else has seen, and thinking what nobody else has thought."
-Dr. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

You still haven't explained the distinction you are making between the self and individual.

You still haven't explained the distinction you are making between the self and individual. — Harry Hindu

That's because I never made such as distinction, or said that we are defined by social interactions. I'm not sure how I can make it more clearly to you. Perhaps the only other analogy I can offer is that an individual comes to understand and speak a language through socialization, yet what she says isn't directed by some abstract societal force, or whatever concept you have in mind. She has agency to say what she ever she wants to say.

That's because I never made such as distinction, or said that we are defined by social interactions. I'm not sure how I can make it more clearly to you. Perhaps the only other analogy I can offer is that an individual comes to understand and speak a language through socialization, yet what she says isn't directed by some abstract societal force, or whatever concept you have in mind. She has agency to say what she ever she wants to say. — Maw

Then we were talking past each other?

In addition to what Streetlight said regarding the awkward application of legalese to selfhood, any sense of self is natally given, so he's starting from a false ontology of an atomistic self. — Maw

The development of who I am was made possible by natural selection and the contribution of my parent's genetic code. My development continues within a social structure, but what I'm saying is that isn't what exhausts the definition of me - my self. — Harry Hindu

I should add that what is natally given also doesn't define my self in it's entirety.

What makes me a unique individual/self is a combination of factors.

One, I am a unique combination of a pair of human beings. My brothers have different, and unique, combinations of genetic contributions from the same two human beings.

Two, from the moment that I am conceived I establish my own unique feedback loop with the environment. My unique combination of genes undergoes a unique development from its own position in space-time. No matter what area of space-time I occupy, I own that space. Even if you push me, I then occupy and own another space. That space that I occupy is my body, and that includes my mind.

We are all unique combinations of our parents and the development we undergo from our own perspectives and relationships we establish within our local environment. Societies try to enforce similar perspectives and relationships among its individual members to form a more cohesive and efficient labor force.

It seems to me that we mostly agree?