Why I’m a Voluntaryist – Hope Chapel Vandalized by “Anarchists”

I didn't read through all the posts, and I live a couple hours away, but I'd suggest Kilz.

Kilz is a wonderful product that should cover and seal the stains from the red paint. You can find it at any hardware store or wal-mart. http://www.kilz.com/pages/default.aspx?NavID=26

As a Rothbardian anarchist, and a reformed baptist, I'd love to send some fiat fiduciary media to the church to help them buy a couple gallons of Kilz.

Mailing address for a personal check?

Zeus wrote:

The system you describe seems to require me to care what the rest of the community thinks about *my* property. I find that absurd.

I find it realistic. Think about it this way. If you think you own a house, but everyone else in the community thinks Bob owns the house, there's a very good chance that Bob will end up being the one in possession of the house.

You can talk all you want about your rights and this is fine (there's a good chance that I would sympathize with you), but at the end of the day, only systems of property ownership that are enforceable are going to be enforced. And, of course, a system of ownership is unlikely to be enforced without a local consensus.

I know this is a troubling fact, but think about it like this: Suppose there are two stateless territories. Let's call them A and B. In A, the vast majority of people believe in perpetual ownership of property and have created private defense and arbitration services to enforce the system as market anarchist theory predicts. In B, most people believe in the occupancy-and-use standard and enforce it. John lives in territory A, but for whatever reason, decides to move to B. He sells his home in A and contacts a real estate agent in B to buy a home. The real estate agent warns him that "we do things a little differently here." He even gives him a copy of Occupancy-and-Use For Dummies to help him understand the concept better. John is a little bit uncomfortable with the idea, but decides to buy the house anyway. He lives in the house for five years, but then decides to move into a larger house and rent out the first one. Shortly after he moves out, someone moves into the first house without his permission. He tries to have the man removed using the private court system, but none of them are sympathetic to his claims.

Who is in the wrong in this situation? John knew perfectly well beforehand that absentee-landlordism is not recognized as valid in B, so isn't he in the wrong?

Of course, by the same token, if John moves back to A and tries to squat in a vacant but owned house, he would be in the wrong.

Zeus wrote:

This is what arbitration courts are for. To solve such disputes peaceably between the actual parties involved, not nosy town busybodies and government goons involving themselves in a business transaction they aren’t parties to.

Certainly, and those arbitration courts are likely to have a law code that reflects the beliefs of the local population. As such, territories where the majority of people believe in perpetual ownership are likely to enforce perpetual ownership while territories where the majority of people who believe in occupancy-and-use are going to enforce occupancy-and-use. You may not like this, but it's undeniable.

(And for the record, I never advocated enforcing any property claims with "government goons," nor would I.)

If John signed an agreement acknowledging his capitulation to this rule when he purchased the house in B, then yes (caveat emptor).

If he did not, then no. No contract to abide = the town can go pound salt up its collective butt.

You still haven't addressed my objection (your question-begging). You're just assuming that perpetual property rights are valid and occupancy-and-use rights are not without providing any sort of justification. There's absolutely no reason anyone should accept an argument if its proponents cannot back it up.

Regarding the debate between Zeus and Dr. Q, I find Zeus’ claims about property rights to not hold weight. I value libertarianism because of its real life benefits, not because of its alleged objective rightness. Zeus, if you’re going to start shooting people because you happen to live in a community who values the occupancy-and-use standard, I doubt you’ll last very long and I won’t be sympathetic towards your initiation of violence.

I'm not the one initiating violence. The people who believe they can take possession of my property without a mutual, voluntary exchange of value for value are the ones initiating the violence. I'm just defending what is mine from those who seek to take it by force.

I find the concept of "occupancy-and-use" as it has been described thus far to be abhorrent. Jesse's idea that something is abandoned if it has been reclaimed by nature makes sense. Busybody thieves arbitrarily deciding amongst themselves the circumstances that make them comfortable with stealing my real estate does not.

How is this really any different than eminent domain? Just seems like a different set of thieves using different reasoning to justify taking stuff that doesn't belong to them.

The whole idea just sounds like mob-rule and a light form of communism, a selective agenda used to confiscate real estate without voluntarily exchanging value for value for mutual benefit.

You’re just assuming that perpetual property rights are valid and occupancy-and-use rights are not without providing any sort of justification.

Again, I don't see how anyone who embraces the philosophy of liberty can also advocate this occupancy-and-use concept. It's like sticking a square peg in a round hole. Honest trade needs no justification. Theft by mob-rule? I fully admit that I don't understand how that can ever be justified at all.

3) I was unaware that some people calling themselves libertarians consider property to be only legitimate when it’s being used?

I think you're interpreting this in an entirely unfounded manner. If I have a shovel, and I'm not using it, it doesn't cease to be mine; but if you leave the shovel out in the field and it ends up rusting and is otherwise neglected, don't be surprised if I homestead it.

Is there a name for this abhorrent mutation?

Libertarianism, guy. Prior to the contemporary property theory of homesteading forwarded by Rothbard, just about every libertarian took use and occupancy as a given (Spooner, Tucker, Proudhon, Warren, Oppenheimer, etc.); if anything, homesteading is the "abhorrent mutation" (but I wouldn't even call it that, as I do think that portions do hold merit). That you reject out of hand the notion of use and occupancy is a bit disconcerting, especially given that you don't actually understand what it is.

Is there anyone on this site who defends that position? To claim that property is only legitimate to the extent of its use is to claim that accumulation of wealth is invalid, that savings cannot be saved. I believe this warrants some serious discussion.

I'm not technically part of this site anymore, but I'm still part of the community, and I think use and occupancy holds an awful lot more merit than perpetual property. That said, you're completely strawmanning U&O– nothing within the theory says that the wealth you accumulate ceases to be yours. If you stick some gold in a safe, that gold is still yours.

Dr Q. wrote:

Local consensus does not equal conniving so much as a simple understanding. A group of people who try to use force to maintain possession of abandoned property in a territory where virtually everyone believes in the occupancy-and-use standard seem to better fit the image of “busybody thieves.”

Again, how is that any different than "might makes right"? What others believe about my property is no more relevant to me than what they believe about my eating habits. How is it just and moral to take someone else's property without a voluntary mutual exchange of value for value? I ask these questions because I genuinely do not understand how this O&U concept can possibly be considered just and moral.

It’s funny you should say that because advocates of occupancy-and-use typically criticize perpetual property advocates of the same thing. After all, a landlord does not provide value to his tenants so much as he fails to withhold value.

So a landlord who owns shelter (like an apartment building, a house or a tent) and who allows customers to live therein for an agreed-upon period of time in exchange for a recurring fee is *not* providing value, but rather withholding value?

What am I missing here? To me that's like saying "2+2 = 93,254". It doesn't make any sense. Oh sure, under the O&U concept you could just take his shelter without paying which is great for the squatters but far and away from just, fair or moral for the landlord. That's like the next galaxy over, that's how far away that is.

It seems you have no interest in addressing my objection (once again, question-begging).

If I understood what you were talking about, I'd attempt an answer. Since I do not, I have no idea how to respond.

Jesse Wrote:

I think you’re interpreting this in an entirely unfounded manner. If I have a shovel, and I’m not using it, it doesn’t cease to be mine; but if you leave the shovel out in the field and it ends up rusting and is otherwise neglected, don’t be surprised if I homestead it.

Now THAT sounds reasonable!

Dr Q. wrote:

This is an extreme misrepresentation of o&u. In practice, o&u would be based on a local consensus which would mean that common sense would apply. No one would take your car because you parked it in your driveway and try to claim that they were justified. Furthermore, most o&u systems apply only to land and sometimes other natural resources or capital goods and not to what tend to be called “personal property.”

You can claim that no one would do this or that but if you set up an unjust system ripe for abuse, you can be guaranteed there will be those who abuse it. The "I own my stuff and you own yours" concept seems to be a bit more workable to me because the power to decide the fate of the property is retained, and rightfully so, by the owner.

To clarify, the "owner" is the person who has a valid, moral claim to the property, either from an exchange of value with the previous owner or it being transferred to them voluntarily (like in a will or just because the previous owner doesn't want it anymore but also doesn't want squatters living in it).

And again, if it only applies to land, it sounds like it was designed specifically with the agenda of taking property without a fair, honest, moral exchange of value for value, otherwise it would be applied equally to all property.

Would someone define what would constitute "abandonment"

You’re still completely failing to provide any kind of basis for your concept of property. When you write “What others believe about my property…,” you’re operating under the assumption that the object in question is your property, but one can only determine whether or not something is property within the context of a theory of property.

I've provided my basis numerous times in nearly every one of my posts but I shall expound: The very core of the philosophy of liberty is that "you own yourself". If this is true, you also own the labor your body expends at your behest. You trade your mental and physical labor as a service or use it to create products that you offer to others.

When someone comes along and agrees to trade something of value they own for something of value you own, negotiations begin and a deal that is mutually beneficial is hopefully achieved.

To simply get together with others and decide you can just take anything someone isn't currently using (or which your group defines as "abandoned"), is thievery; "the act of taking something from someone without their consent". Whether they're using it or not is irrelevant. They and they alone get to determine what is done with their property. Not outsiders. That's the entire point of being able to own something.

Even if everyone in the group or community is currently an upstanding member of society, sooner or later there's going to be that one person who decides that the definition of "abandonment" should be "just a bit looser" or maybe they should tax something. Over time, others of his or her ilk will wear down that wall until the community devolves into a group of immoral thugs not unlike the government we have now. Back to square one.

This scenario could not play out in a world where people respect property rights and engage in honest exchanges of goods and services to acquire or dispense property. This is commonly referred to as "the free market".

You seem to have misquoted me; what I said is that the landlord *fails* to withhold value. In other words, landlords get something in return for allowing others to use things that they personally are not.

Of course they do. They own it. That's their prerogative as the owner. And, technically, they *are* "using" it by renting it out and generating money from it, but that's neither here nor there.

The perpetual ownership theory of property is just as ripe for abuse as the occupancy-and-use theory. In fact, it seems likely that the o&u theory arose partly as a reaction against the abuse of perpetual property titles. As AnarchoJesse pointed out, history is rife with examples of powerful groups appropriating land and forcing its legitimate owners (usually peasants) into paying feudal dues and restricting their freedom to travel.

Most of history contains feudal forms of land ownership. "I am the King or Shogun and thus the god(s) have given me the divine right to own as much of the world as my armies can take by force. I shall give some of these lands to my vassals, the barons and dukes and lords, etc. that serve me and some shall be used by the serfs who shall pay me taxes in return for my divine generosity in letting them live on my land."

The entire idea of the Divine Rights of Kings is obviously bankrupt. The entire argument is reduced to "An invisible entity told me it's mine so it's mine". It doesn't stand up to critical thinking.

And there is certainly no exchange of value for value that allowed the King or Shogun to possess the land in the first place. It was either bequeathed by the previous ruler or acquired by force through conquest.

O&U appears to be conquest writ on a lesser scale and for reasons just as arbitrary as the King's.

That is unlikely. As I speculated earlier, the occupancy-and-use theory was probably in part a reaction against massive land thefts committed by European States. After all, how would you feel if the “nobleman” you paid feudal dues to only owned the land you lived on because it was gifted to him by the English monarch sent his armies to expropriate it from your grand parents?

I would join the rebellion to remove said monarch (and the nobleman) from power and help to create a society where land and other property is transferred through mutually beneficial exchanges by participants with actual moral claims on property instead of hoodoo or mob-rule.

There are cases where property is obviously abandoned (the rusting shovel in the field, perhaps), and cases where property is obviously not abandoned (the car in the driveway). Few would argue about ownership in those cases.

What I worry about is the enormous grey area of circumstances that exists in between. The concept of "ownership by use" would be abused if practiced. Upon what day did the abandoned shovel become abandoned?

<cite> In practice, o&u would be based on a local consensus which would mean that common sense would apply.</cite>

Sounds an awful lot like democratic mob rule to me. Who here wants to live in a society which bases rules on "consensus?" If that's what you want, no need for the Free State Project.

Erik hits the nail on the head; the operative questions involve definitions of:

What constitutes abandonment?

Who decides if the definition of abandonment has been met?

If there is a disagreement regarding whether something is abandoned, how is it resolved?

It seems obvious to me that property rights/ownership has to be the controlling concept here. The other arguments I've read here lead down paths that would be characterized mostly subjective judgements (i.e. "I think it's ok to take that house because nobody's been living there for 1 year/3 years/10 years/50 years; just choose your comfort threshold).

Ann

Ann

Not true. All you’ve done is resort to appeals to force, telling me how you’ll shoot people who try to appropriate things that you claim to be your property even though you never provided a basis for your ownership over them (yet, somehow, you have the gall to accuse me of advocating “might makes right”).

I looked back in the thread and you are partially correct. I didn't start mentioning "value for value" until about the middle of the thread (as it stands now).

I mentioned that if invaded by squatters, I would defend the home and land I've acquired via honest trade. You're casting aspersions now, purposely obfuscating my willingness to defend my property from invaders to make me sound like I'm a raving, wild-eyed lunatic foaming at the mouth and waving a gun and threatening to shoot anyone who comes on my property in the face.

I have explained in great detail two posts ago what the basis of my ownership is. I acquired it through honest trade, an exchange of value for value. People tend to wonder why I am often repetitious and verbose. This is why. Even when I repeat my reasoning numerous times, it is often ignored.

I disagree with the concept of “self-ownership.” It doesn’t make any sense. This essay by Alex “Brainpolice” Strekal does a good job of demonstrating why “self-ownership” fails: <a href="http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-i-reject-self-ownership-redux.html

” target=”_blank”>http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-i-reject-self-ownership-redux.html

Self-ownership is the fundamental tenet of the philosophy of liberty. If you do not own yourself, you can own nothing. You can be enslaved. Anyone can take anything from you at anytime.

The first argument of the article you cite poses an "unsolvable dilemma", that you cannot be both the owner and the owned thing.

This is mental laziness. The owner is the combination of chemical and electrical processes taking place inside your brain (what the religious refer to as your "soul") that gives you sentience and willpower. The stuff that makes you you.

That you requires a shell, your body, in order to interact with the physical world. It is that you's willpower that controls it and thus that you is what "owns" it. No one else can own your body while that you exists.

And since you own you (body, mind and "soul"), you own your labor, the fruits of your labor and any honestly acquired property through voluntary mutual exchange of value for value.

The second argument posed, "The Chicken/Egg Issue", is just more muddying of the waters that assumes that the you that owns things and your body *must* be two separate things. That's just ignoring the reality that your sentience is indeed contained within and inseparable from (at least with current technology) your shell. There is no such requirement, certainly not by cosmic standards nor physical reality, that the two must be separable, no matter how much one wishes them to be.

I have no idea what the third argument in the article is going on about but it doesn't sound any more convincing that the other two arguments posed.

I think that you and advocates of occupancy-and-use have different notions of what constitutes value. Most o&u-ers would probably tell you that value is something that must be created via labor and, therefore, attempts to trade something that is not labor (e.g. the “use” of something) for labor is not an honest exchange. I’m not sure I agree with this idea (it’s another issue I’m currently agnostic about), but that’s how I understand it.

Value is whatever the participants of the trade believe it to be. Non-participants to the exchange may not agree, but that is — literally — not their business.

Now, based on the arguments you've cited and posed I have to sincerely ask for clarification: Are you an anarcho-communist? I ask this because, based on the discussion thus far and how far and away the concepts you advocate are from my anarcho-capitalist views, it seems only logical to me that this is the general direction of your political or philosophical leanings.

First, I think your characterization of Brainpolice’s arguments are incorrect. You’re expecting us to take self-ownership as a given, but upon closer inspection we find that the idea can be a bit absurd when held under the lamp of objectivity. How can you, yourself own you, yourself? It implies a separation of the essence of yourself from the physiological existence of yourself.

I explain in three brief paragraphs in my preceding post the logic of my reasoning and how this idea that you i.e. your sentience and your body (what most people assume is you) are inexorably bound together and that the former being able to own the other does not require them to be entirely separate.

Take a corpse, for example. There is no you there anymore. It's just a body. Now the two are separate but only because one has been destroyed (or, for the religious, gone on to the Great Hereafter).

A corpse cannot function without you, even if it still houses a brain and a heart. You can fake it with some machinery and breathing tubes but then it's just a large piece of meat faking life. It has no will (let alone free will), no sentience, no self-awareness. It cannot own because it does not have the power to trade value for value and make a valid moral claim of ownership.

If fact, when you die, people often bequeath all their belongings to others who *can* own. Some even give away their corpse to the science or have it disposed of in a grave or urn.

As they say: "You can't take it with you."

If this reasoning and logic still does not satisfy you, then I've done all I can to make my case and we'll simply have to agree to disagree. If O&U believers want to form a closed community where that is the norm, I find nothing wrong with that so long as there is no force or coercion on those who choose not to participate.

The “chemical and electrical processes” you mention are part of the body. What you are saying boils down to “the body owns itself” which is an absurd and useless claim.

Again, you seem to have a need for those processes (i.e. sapience) to be completely separate from the body in order for there to be ownership but there is no cosmic equation confirming such a theory and, in the physical world, that's just not how it works.

The brain contains your sapience. The body contains your brain. These things are, currently, inescapable facts. It is the natural way of things, a universal constant, for the mind to control the body.

Since it is physically impossible for someone else to control your body so long as your sapience resides within, only you can be the owner.

Even if you agreed to sell yourself to another person, you're only selling your labor or your time or allowing your body to be used by the buyer on a temporary basis. At any time you still have the power (the free will) to disobey. If you can disobey, you cannot be ownable by others. You are a being possessed of conscious thought and free will and thus your body is only ownable by the conscious will contained within.

I also must call you out on conflating “ownership” with “control.” Even if the “self” controls the body, we don’t necessarily have to conclude that the self also owns it.

"Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property". Only the owner has the right to determine what is or is not done with that property.

This is why, in all the sci-fi movies about robots, their "owners" freak when the robots become sentient and refuse to obey their orders: They have acquired sentience and free will and therefore, they own themselves.

You seem rather ignorant of libertarianism’s history. Occupancy-and-use was advocated by some of the most famous libertarians: Proudhon, Warren, Tucker, Spooner, the men who inspired Murray Rothbard and other early anarcho-capitalists.

Fame does not constitute accuracy. I find some of their theories to be logically sound, some I do not. I go with what logic dictates to be reasonably plausible, correct or accurate.

It seems to me the entire struggle between tyranny and liberty boils down to ownership and control. It's all about some people believing they have the right or the privilege to control others and/or take from others without compensation.

This O&U theory, as explained thus far, lacks any respect for property rights and seems to support the latter contention. This renders it incompatible with the philosophy of liberty.

Jesus Christ, Zeus, you simply can’t comprehend O&U, can you? We believe property rights exist, we believe property exists, we just call into question the rguments of “perpetual ownership”. You keep boiling it down to some red herring “lacks respect for property rights”, when this isn’t the case– we’re trying to make a clear case as to who owns property, how so, and by what means.

Look, Jesse, we've both been up and down the court on this one. You've both made your cases, I made mine, and then we all made them again. You are absolutely right. I don't comprehend O&U as it has been explained in this thread or how it is at all compatible with liberty as I know it. It does not compute. In fact, it seems to me to be the opposite of liberty. It seems completely alien and incompatible. Now maybe that's my fault for being dense and just not seeing some invisible perspective that suddenly brings it all into focus like one of those "old lady/young lady" illusions they run in the newspapers from time to time, or maybe it's the fault of the tellers who are perhaps too close to the subject that they can no longer see how alien such a concept is and are inadequately explaining it. I don't know and it doesn't matter. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me, we shake hands and say "Maybe next time" and then we get a beer and try again some other time to comprehend what the other is saying.

You do not need to convince me. I do not need to convince you. The universe will get by just fine for a little while longer without our stubborn asses reaching Nirvana.

Okay AnarchoJesse… what day did the shovel lose its utility? And on what day did it return to a natural state?

I might suggest that if someone was interested in picking it up, the shovel hasn't lost its utility. I might also suggest that if someone recognized it as a shovel, it hasn't returned to a natural state.

Since it is physically impossible for someone else to control your body so long as your sapience resides within, only you can be the owner.

You're equivocating. You're using the word "control" to use two totally different things. "Selves" control bodies by willing them whereas people control physical objects by physically manipulating them. It's entirely possible to physically manipulate another person even if you can't will them to do something.

Consider this: my computer is currently running a number of processes that I do not have direct control over. Does this mean my computer is actually a "self-owner" and ownership of it by a human is impossible?

Fame does not constitute accuracy. I find some of their theories to be logically sound, some I do not. I go with what logic dictates to be reasonably plausible, correct or accurate.

This is a straw man. I never claimed that Proudhon, Tucker, etc. were right because they were famous (or even that they were right). You claimed that occupancy-and-use is "far and away" from your anarcho-capitalist position and suggested that I must be an anarcho-communist. I was merely correcting you by pointing out that anarcho-capitalism evolved from libertarian ideologies that advocated occupancy-and-use.

You ignore the fact that it requires willpower on your part to physically manipulate anything. The act of grabbing a cup, waving your hand, running or shoving someone all require volition, conscious direction, on your part in order to occur. Neurons firing, nerves reacting.

This does not change the fact that willing something and physically manipulating something are two totally different animals.

The processes your computer is running are no different than the subconscious processes running in your brain right now like breathing or sweating or pumping blood. Ergo, the computer is not a self-owner because it does not have the equivalent of your higher brain functions, i.e. self-awareness, free will and volition.

You're changing the goal posts. First, objects are self-owners if they can't be "controlled" by others. Now, they need "self-awareness, free will and volition" too?

For curiosity's sake, how would you define free will and what is your proof of its existence?

I pointed out that their fame is irrelevant. I should have also pointed out that their collective numbers were also irrelevant. Both of these you should already know anyway, so the only reason that remains for bringing them up is that you believe their reasoning for O&U is the correct perspective.

When I dropped the names of Proudhon, etc., I never claimed that they were right or that the fact that they supported O&U proved that O&U is the corrcect theory of property. I've said before that I'm not convinced any one system of property is correct, so there's no reason for you to even have inferred this. It seems like you're intentionally misrepresenting me.

People can't be owned, because they are minds with wills, or equivalently, souls. Their bodies can't be owned by anyone else, because they constantly homestead them.

If someone wants to be a materialist, and imagine that there's no difference between a person and a bucket, and we're all just collections of inanimate particles slamming into each other, then yes, I don't think there is a rational argument for self ownership consistent with that view.

As I explained earlier, the self is an aspect of the body and it makes no sense to say “the body owns itself.”

If I create a narrow list describing myself to a "T" and proclaim anyone matching such a description is "Best Lover in the World", of course I'm going to get the only result that will fit.

Because you choose not to discern that the mind (self) and body (or, alternatively "soul and body") are two separate yet symbiotically connected things, of course you're going to keep coming to the same flawed conclusion. Check your premises. Garbage Data In, Garbage Data Out.

A corpse cannot own itself because of this difference between the two. It lacks the prerequisites for ownership (like being able to make a claim at all let alone a moral or valid one).

If ownership is a “valid moral claim,” then you have not provided any basis for self-ownership. The fact that a “self” is the only one capable of controlling (according to you) “its” body says nothing about the validity of the “self’s” moral claim.

True enough. The self is the only thing that can make a moral claim about anything. Whether it is valid or not is another story. That the body is intrinsically and symbiotically linked to the self is a powerful mitigating factor. If, however, you have an argument wherein another person's moral claim over your body is more valid than the moral claim of the self inhabiting that body, I would love to hear it. Assuming your argument is logical and convincing, how exactly will you take true ownership of that body without committing murder?

1) You’re contradicting yourself. You just said that ownership is a “valid moral claim.” Now it’s “a euphemism for control.” Which is it?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. When you follow ownership i.e. "a valid moral claim" to its conclusion i.e. "supreme authority over the owned thing", the result is "control" i.e. “the power to direct or determine” the fate of the owned thing.

2) If “ownership is a euphemism for control,” then that means that I become the owner of something when I take control of it even if the previous owner does not consent. It seems that you’re not so against O&U after all.

While simple possession of an object or the physical manipulation of it does constitute "the power to direct or determine” it's fate, it does not denote that you now have "supreme authority over the owned thing" because you still lack a valid moral claim against it.

Someone who takes possession of things they have no valid moral claim against is a thief.

Someone who requests permission from the "supreme authority over the owned thing" to temporarily possess and/or manipulate it physically is simply borrowing it and must abide by that person's rules governing that property.

Someone who attempts to voluntarily exchange something of value to the "supreme authority over the owned thing" and is successful becomes the new owner.

This was my word, but as far as I’m concerned, humans are objects (we seem to be using the word to mean two different things), so I see no problem with using the term.

I can only clarify statements and words I've actually made and refute arguments based on those statements. If you're going to add or modify my statements, you're refuting things I didn't present for discussion so I thought I'd point that out for clarity.

We’re more or less in agreement (although I would not dine at either of those places). I was mostly interested in whether or not you gave a libertarian or compatibilist definition of free will. Your defition seems to jive fairly well with my compatibilist position.

I would agree with your assessment. The sentient ability to make free choices is one reason I find the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics to be the theory that is most likely the correct one.

And finally, when I said “it seems like you’re intentionally misrepresenting me,” I was only referring to what you said about my mention of past libertarians who support occupancy-and-use.

Thanks for the clarification. As stated previously, I only inferred the three most logical possibilities for you to mention them because it was unclear as to why you did so.

Zeus wrote:

A corpse cannot own itself because of this difference between the two. It lacks the prerequisites for ownership (like being able to make a claim at all let alone a moral or valid one).

The fact that a corpse does not possess what we might call a "will" or a "self" does not change the fact that "wills"/"selves" are part of the body. I suppose I could change my previous interpretation of self-ownership to "part of the body owns the body," but this still seems absurd and it still implies that the part of the body doing the owning owns itself, so my objection still stands.

If, however, you have an argument wherein another person’s moral claim over your body is more valid than the moral claim of the self inhabiting that body, I would love to hear it.

You're trying to shift the burden of proof. You're the one making the positive claim (that bodies are owned by the "selves" that "inhabit" them), not me. As such, it is *your* duty to provide evidence supporting your position, not mine.

Assuming your argument is logical and convincing, how exactly will you take true ownership of that body without committing murder?

I've never claimed that someone could own the body of another living person, so I'm curious as to why you're asking me this. But for the sake of argument, let me present this: does a person need to be able to exert control over every single particle of a chair in order to own the chair? I'm sure you would say no. But this seems to be the argument you use to justify the fact that people cannot own other people: that they cannot fully control them.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. When you follow ownership i.e. “a valid moral claim” to its conclusion i.e. “supreme authority over the owned thing”, the result is “control” i.e. “the power to direct or determine” the fate of the owned thing.

I'm still trying to make heads or tails of this sentence. Could you try to phrase it a little differently?

While simple possession of an object or the physical manipulation of it does constitute “the power to direct or determine” it’s fate, it does not denote that you now have “supreme authority over the owned thing” because you still lack a valid moral claim against it.

This is my point. You have two definitions of property and you switch back between the two when it is convenient to do so. When we're talking about self-ownership, you use the "control" definition to prove that it's impossible for someone to own someone else and that "selves" own the bodies they "inhabit"; but when you talk about other objects, you revert to the "valid moral claim" because you dislike the consequences of relying on the "control" definition.

I don't know if you're addressing all of us or just the O&U guys.

The system I've put forth is one that I believe originates directly from the very heart of the philosophy of liberty, and is the most fair and reasonable method for resolving disputes regarding property.

In addition, removing the state monopoly on arbitration and its power to pick the pockets of both disputants (vs voluntary third-party arbitration wherein the wronged party is made whole through restitution) from the equation would likely result in a society where people are more likely to respect each other's rights.

The fact that a corpse does not possess what we might call a “will” or a “self” does not change the fact that “wills”/”selves” are part of the body.

There is no question that the self is generated by and stored within the brain and that the brain is intrinsically and symbiotically linked to the body. The brain sends unconscious commands to the body and your self sends conscious commands to the body.

Your contention is that because the two are not completely separate entities, the self cannot make a valid moral claim of ownership against the body.

I contend that it is exactly because of this intrinsic connection to each other that the self is, without getting into a discussion on religion, the *only* thing in the universe that *can* make a valid moral claim against the body.

"Aha! But I have a self too!", you say. "What if I dispute your self's claim?".

"You're welcome to do so.", I respond. "Who's claim do you think an honest, logical arbitration court is going to find more valid when it comes to the body that is intrinsically-linked to my self and which keeps me alive? Mine or yours?".

It is my belief that an honest, logical arbitrator is going to find my claim to be the strongest one hands down. Furthermore, I also contend that there does not nor can there ever be a claim by another person that is more valid or moral than the one intrinsically-linked to the body in question. Once set as a precedent, self-ownership becomes a solid foundation for determining the rights of sentient beings. It all starts there.

I suppose I could change my previous interpretation of self-ownership to “part of the body owns the body,” but this still seems absurd and it still implies that the part of the body doing the owning owns itself, so my objection still stands.

Of course it's absurd. It's absurd because you believe that the self is no different than your elbow or the heel of your foot even though neither of those (nor any other part of your body) can make claims of any kind.

You’re trying to shift the burden of proof. You’re the one making the positive claim (that bodies are owned by the “selves” that “inhabit” them), not me. As such, it is *your* duty to provide evidence supporting your position, not mine.

See above.

I’ve never claimed that someone could own the body of another living person, so I’m curious as to why you’re asking me this. But for the sake of argument, let me present this: does a person need to be able to exert control over every single particle of a chair in order to own the chair? I’m sure you would say no. But this seems to be the argument you use to justify the fact that people cannot own other people: that they cannot fully control them.

It's the same as asking "Does your self manipulate every follicle of hair on your body or every blood cell coursing through your veins?". The answer is, as you surmised, a resounding no.

Where I think you keep getting derailed here is by confusing control (“the power to direct or determine”) with ownership ("the supreme moral authority over the owned thing"). You think they are one and the same whereas I contend that the former is a simply an exclusive right gained by the latter.

Being able to physically manipulate something does not denote ownership. You must also have a valid moral claim which empowers you with the supreme authority over that thing. As a result, you may manipulate it as you desire and allow or prevent others from doing so.

Now let's assume you came up with a miracle argument that convinced every arbiter in the land that you held the most valid claim over another conscious person's body. How are you going to exert your authority when it can refuse? Remember, ownership is the supreme authority over the owned thing. With it, you have the exclusive right to direct or determine what can or cannot be done with that thing.

I say not only is it ridiculous in the first place to think that anyone could ever have a claim more valid than the self within the body but it is also physically impossible to exert your supreme authority over it if it can disobey. It is a paradox. Bananas do not disobey. Houses do not disobey. They can't because they have no sentience. In order for you to exert supreme authority over another person's body, their self can no longer be part of it. Since they are intrinsically-linked and bound to one another, you're going to have to remove their self from their body and the only way to do that is to commit murder.

I’m still trying to make heads or tails of this sentence. Could you try to phrase it a little differently?

How about this: If you make a valid moral claim against something, you gain the supreme authority over it and the exclusive ability to direct or determine it's fate.

This is my point. You have two definitions of property and you switch back between the two when it is convenient to do so. When we’re talking about self-ownership, you use the “control” definition to prove that it’s impossible for someone to own someone else and that “selves” own the bodies they “inhabit”; but when you talk about other objects, you revert to the “valid moral claim” because you dislike the consequences of relying on the “control” definition.

I don't think I'm doing that at all, I think you're just confusing the definitions I laid down with your own or trying to reverse the rules and getting a conflicting result.

Just because you can control something, doesn't mean you own it. Ownership does, however, denote an exclusive right of control over it. Of course, having a right and having it not be violated are two different things.