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.

You guys all have a ton of knowledge and I totally respect that and I try to glean as much from it as I can.

I just get concerned that you’re being wordy for wordiness’ sake, when perhaps conciseness would drive the point home more effectively for a larger audience.

Asking you guys what to do when my neighbor takes my broken tractor (hint: don’t call the cops) might piss me off more than being out a tractor!

Seriously though, great discussion, and I admit to being oversplained.

Thanks

Andy

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.

O&U means bupkus to a guy who thinks you’re stealing from him…

I totally agree. And “I own this house, you’re just a tenant!” means nothing to someone who believes in the occupancy-and-use standard for land ownership.

I think we’re actually very much in agreement. In a stateless society, people are going to figure out the best solutions for handling property claims organically. There isn’t a whole lot of need to discuss elaborate natural rights theories of ownership.

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 tried to put some general guidelines down for people that I thought would be helpful for real people and real situations, and promptly got bulldozed by more conceptualizing and evangelizing.

I’m not necessarily being critical here, I’m just saying, jeez o pete fellas, is all that gonna help when your neighbor wants to get in a shouting match over the disposition of his broken push mower?

O&U means bupkus to a guy who thinks you’re stealing from him…

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.

And I’ve been saying all along that only “selves” can own something.

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

I have repeatedly defined “own” as “a valid moral claim”…

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.

Ownership is a euphemism for control.

Two things:

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?

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.

I do not recall ever saying “objects”.

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.

“The ability or discretion to make cognitive choices without coercion”. People do it every day. When you feel hungry and choose between KFC over Taco Bell, you’ve just exercised your free will.

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.

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.

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.

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

Which is exactly my point so I don’t understand why you’re suddenly agreeing with it.

You said:

“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.

And I’ve been saying all along that only “selves” can own something. I have repeatedly defined “own” as “a valid moral claim” of “holding supreme authority” to “decide what is or is not done” with the thing which was “acquired by a voluntary exchange of value for value”, “created by one’s mental or physical labor” or “as the result of “natural, universal phenomenon” (such as having one’s self symbiotically-confined within a body).

Ownership is a euphemism for control. The definition of control is “the power to direct or determine”. You’re the one limiting “control” to “physical manipulation”, not I.

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?

I do not recall ever saying “objects”. I’ve repeatedly said “self”, “sapience”, “soul”, “electro-chemical processes known as sentience” and “consciousness”. You can add “cognition”, “essence”, “spark” and “personality” into the mix. They are all different words for the same thing I am referring to which is “a self-aware consciousness possessing free will and volition”.

An object has no free will, volition, self-awareness, or conciousness. Like the corpse from my earlier post, any non-sapient object is just a thing. It cannot own i.e. it cannot make a valid moral claim to be the supreme authority over another object. If shower curtains starting telling you they own the toilet, something is very, very wrong.

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

“The ability or discretion to make cognitive choices without coercion”. People do it every day. When you feel hungry and choose between KFC over Taco Bell, you’ve just exercised your free will.

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.

Again, why you were even bringing them up was unclear. It was the equivalent of responding to “What is the Golden Ratio?” with “Turkey basters from Guam.” so I inferred the three possibilities that seemed most likely.

It seems like you’re intentionally misrepresenting me.

I’ve tried very hard to understand your arguments throughout the discussion hoping to find some new angle on it that makes the O&U concept even remotely palatable. I have not. I don’t know why you and Jesse believe that it is a just and moral system for handling property ownership.

For the life of me, I cannot see what you see. The idea that people can just arbitrarily get together and tell someone else “That property’s ours now because we a) decided you abandoned it and b) we get to decide what the definition of abandonment is.” comes across to me as morally-repugnant. I don’t see how it’s any different from the tyranny of mob-rule.

Maybe there’s something you’ve left out, some other way of describing it or maybe I’m simply mentally inadequate to see it from your perspective. Whatever it is, I have tried and I cannot do it.