Criticizing Bad Libertarian Arguments, Part 1: The Self-Ownership Axiom

[blapgatify]

The self ownership principle does not claim that it is true because one of it's premises says it's true. It's true because it takes an exercise of self ownership in order to argue against it. That would be like me yelling in your ear to say that sound doesn't exist or typing out this argument to say that language has no meaning.

[theyoungmrt]

I wholly agree with what you say. It is not a self-evident truth, but neither are the "self-evident truths" of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, I would argue that there are no self-evident truths in existence, at all, that we can perceive or understand. But we need something to go by, and I think the ideals of liberty and self-ownership are pretty damn good rules of thumb, and they have done wonders for modern society. Also, what's up with the cartoons? The subtitles are distracting.

[JakkaLakkaDingDing]

A good argument would be that in order to maintain a free society, with maximum individual liberty. Self ownership and property are vital to that society. Not that they are self evident, but should be respected if freedom is to exist. In short:

anti-self ownership = anti-freedom

Most people tend to like freedom, so they will probably agree, which just leaves anti-freedom groups such as Fascists, Communists, Integralists and such.

[ryan4144]

if you sold yourself into slavery you would not be a slave. being a slave in involuntary.

[SecularNumanist]

Correct, Self ownership is bullshit.

[eboyd32]

i agree with you, until the point that, after having correctly stated that we ARE ourselves, we don't OWN ourselves, you then go on to say we ought to have self-ownership without any justification whatsoever. so, for what reason do you feel we ought to have self-ownership?

[GuardofLiberty]

@eboyd32 Actually I didn't say we OUGHT to have self-ownership, just that I think it's a desirable preference, for reasons to be addressed later if I give a shit to. The topic of this video was to criticize the so-called axiom.

[eboyd32]

@GuardofLiberty ok, well, could you briefly describe those reasons to me? because the way i see it, "self-ownership" is completely illegitimate and, since the days of John Locke, the very concept has justified a form of slavery as long as it is agreed to voluntarily by the laborer. Locke implied in his "Second Treatise" that self-ownership could be voluntarily alienated and that another could own that person's self and profit from his or her labor. this notion is despicable.

[JMFiorato1986]

WTF does this cartoon have to do with the subject?

[flynn2008]

The self ownership axiom does not predict nor dictate whether things will turn out to be either true or false. It's just a starting point to basket of suppositions who are presumed to be important to the argument. Google "intersubjective consensus" and "spontaneous order."

[Caveman135]

how the hell does anyone think that making an argument against the self-ownership axiom is a performative contradiction. I hear that all the time! I can't understand that view at all... It just sounds retarded to me... or maybe I'm missing something important.

[Sivels]

@Caveman135 WHy is it retarded? If you're not controlling your own actions, then by arguing against the self-ownership axion you're saying that someone/something else is controlling your actions.

[Caveman135]

@Sivels I find this to be equivocation. ownership =/= control. The word "control" just describes ability. The concept of rightful ownership implys an imperative concerning who ought have this ability. Just describing the fact that humans have postive control over themselves does not justify the claim that we ought "have control of ourselves and the product of our labor". Besides that, the notion of self-ownership implys dualism.

[GuardofLiberty]

@Caveman135 Don't forget that it also only shows that the person making the argument is only controlling their actions at the present state in time, and completely ignores the fact that the person making the argument can easily be raped or murdered the next day.

Even most libertarians dismiss Hoppe's "performative contradiction."

[Caveman135]

@GuardofLiberty Modern weapons are developed mostly for the purpose of effectively disputing another person's claim of self-ownership. Its a strange argument, If the fact that one controls his body justifies the fact that one ought control his body, then the fact that a state controls a large area of land should justify the fact that the state ought control that land. More augmentation is needed for sure...

[IndividualAutonomy]

However, what do you think of this. I think of ownership (being able to deny access and use when you like) as "fluid" ( a term I hate). If a stronger force wants and does try to enslave you, you are owned until somehow you are able to overcome him/her/them yourself or by a "more powerful force" that sides with your idea of freedom or a lesser degree of slavery. Like say I had a house but then a criminal came in and chained me up where I couldn't use or deny access to my house.

[IndividualAutonomy]

So the criminal now owns my house until neighbors, friends, family, or more likely a state police agency (or some PDA in radical libertarianism) forces the criminal out. Now the state or whatever took the criminal out will have the most might and be able to exercise the elements of ownership. When (and hopefully if) they unchain me and leave the area once it is clear ownership (being able to deny access and use when you like) has been returned to me because a more powerful force aided me.

[GuardofLiberty]

@IndividualAutonomy Actually I saw you using this argument on another video and it's what made me consciously think about the theory. Of course as a moral nihilist I already knew that no such thing as self-ownership actually existed, but that's what made it concrete.

Ultimately, we can only own ourselves or other things with the tacit consent of others around us, so it's by no means an axiom. However, as I made clear the PRINCIPLE of self-ownership is something we should value highly.

[IndividualAutonomy]

@GuardofLiberty

Ah thanks. Yeah I would say that individual liberty within certain contexts has very positive benefits for happiness and survival for myself and others maybe you could say are the "in group". It is those parts of it I guess that I would generally support. If individual liberty with the context of certain property norms has what I would view as negative consequences in certain areas I myself would not support it.

[IndividualAutonomy]

@GL

I also think the blanket definition of freedom by average libertarianism is kind of dumb as well. The idea that freedom is being able to have choices and do what you want as long as you don't violate the property of others. It sounds like another political ideology trying to claim freedom within its narrow ideologue. I think freedom can be more usefully defined as being able to satisfy your preferences. The degree one is able to satisfy one's preferences, is to the degree one is free.

[GuardofLiberty]

@IndividualAutonomy Well externalities and other things concerned with every day living are going to come into play with that. This is where the degree I mentioned comes into play. But let's take the example of saying that the fact that you generally own and control your backyard, hence the fire department can't come through it in an emergency situation if you don't want them to. Not valuing such a proposition is logically against the axiom. Does this create a general loss of liberty? No.

[IndividualAutonomy]

@GuardofLiberty

Yeah I agree with you on the firefighter example from what I understand and I think most would outside of the insane strict Rothbardian natural rightists (though I think even he may have supported easement). But I would take an example like immigration which my videos you have probably seen. I am fine violating the individual liberty of business owners and citizens from hiring/connecting with other people because of its effects to certain values I have and even libertarianism

[GuardofLiberty]

@IndividualAutonomy Which is a reason why I still think that a stateless society is ideally, the best, or barring that, smaller, more localized states, since more local governance allows the satisfaction of individual preferences while safeguarding those of others that disagree (but let's not get into an argument regarding this).

As for the general idea of freedom itself, what you said could probably fit into the argument you presented, as satisfying your preferences is linked with your choices

[lengthyounarther]

you can also take the "public/collective property is logically impossible" argument which is derived from the point your making to invalidate moral claims to your person and property.

[GuardofLiberty]

@lengthyounarther Seeing as I'm a moral nihilist, I believe no such claim exists either. Preferences must be argued why they should be valued, and I take any claim on my body or property with a big grain of salt.

[82abhilash]

Since you do not own yourself, this argument cannot be your argument. So whose argument is it? It has to be no one's. No one owns themselves, so it is no one's argument. Arguments just float about and express itself through various media to manipulate humans, which the arguments hope to control....

[82abhilash]

@82abhilash ...Yes, I am being sarcastic. I was just deriving the implications from the stupid presumption that no one owns themselves. You will enter the world of absurdity, which can be amplified by proper use of recreational drugs.

Where you doing drugs when you came up with this 'brilliant' idea?

[blackacidlizzard]

@82abhilash

Shall I take a guess what drugs you are doing? You sound an awful lot like people I knew when imbibing a certain err... "philosophy"....

[82abhilash]

@blackacidlizzard I was just mocking the confidence with which some people where spouting nonsense.

[blackacidlizzard]

@82abhilash

As you are the one conflating ownership claims with facts about the origin and source of action, I believe you are the source of the nonsense here.

[82abhilash]

@blackacidlizzard Nonsense is the derived implication from properly understanding his claim. You agree with him. Which means you like him symbolize nonsense too. You believe I am the source of nonsense. Yet you do not own yourself. Which means you cannot thus argue on your own behalf and are not entitled to your own beliefs. You have just cut the feet with which you stand. The exercise in futility is laughable. Like a mad man arguing that he cannot argue. It is good entertainment.

[blackacidlizzard]

@82abhilash

If I shoplift a hammer and bash your head in with it, do you claim that demonstrates my ownership of the hammer?

Or would you claim that even though I control it, the rightful ownership claim still belongs to the hardware store I snuck it out of?

[82abhilash]

@blackacidlizzard No moron. I claim that it demonstrates your ownership of your body. The body that you used to perform several property rights violations. The hammer belongs to the hardware owner who legitimately used his own body to attain it. In case you are wondering, yes, your body is the only scarce resource that you own by virtue of direct and complete control over it. The kind of control that you cannot turn over to anyone even if you wanted to. It is an absoute state found in nature.

[blackacidlizzard]

@82abhilash

If I swing my arm, that "proves" I own it, but if I swing a hammer I may or may not own it.

So you are using two distinct ideas of "ownership" and the type of ownership which you claim applies to the self is indistinguishable from "control."

It seems there is a simpler way of viewing things which will avoid confusion.

[82abhilash]

@blackacidlizzard Nope. Ownership of the body stems from complete and absolute control of the body which is how adults are found in their natural state. All other forms of ownership are derivative ownership. There is no confusion unless it is deliberately introduced. Which will be done of course.

[GuardofLiberty]

@82abhilash Control =/= own, sorry. Also you beg the question of what exactly this supposed natural state is. And as already stated, we don't have absolute control over our bodies in practice. You don't answer anything and only go back to the same argument that I've criticized.

You've combined this with insults to me and other visitors to my channel. So I'm now going to exercise my effective ownership of this channel and block you for the time being. Hopefully the issue can one day be resolved.

[ymnanm27]

@GuardofLiberty Good boy. By blocking my main channel you expressed your natural state of self-ownership in your body which you used to perform the necessary actions to block me, thereby undermining your entire argument against self-ownership to begin with and making you a proper and legitimate target for criticism and IMO even insults. You do not own the channel by the way. You just have the right to use it provided you meet certain terms and conditions. Bye bye.

[IndividualAutonomy]

@ymnanm2

Actually he does own it (being able to deny access to people and use the channel for is created abilities) until youtube/google shuts down his account or someone hacks it. Then the elements of ownership are just in the hands of youtube and not him. There is no such thing as "nautral self ownership". Humans are part of nature and nature is not static, nor is ownership. When you cannot deny access and use something you do not own it by its own definition unless you add pixy dust.

[GuardofLiberty]

@ymnanm27 And yet again you go back to the same exact argument that's already been criticized. Again. Classic example of circular reasoning.

And you seriously look like a butthurt child with your comments.

[IndividualAutonomy]

@blackacidlizzard

Yes it is kind of sad to see people defending the insane idea of "self ownership" but at least that delusion has better consequences (hopefully) than other mystic political beliefs so whatever. I think the libertarian dogma myself better than most.

[82abhilash]

@blackacidlizzard If you seriously believe you do not own yourself, we need to first establish who your owner is. Then you need to obtain his/her permission stating that you can use your body, which he/she owns for the purpose of arguing. After that you can argue on their behalf, faling to make a convincing argument will be failure on their part, not yours because they own you and you can only act on their will...

[82abhilash]

@82abhilash ....But first you need to establish that they own you. But even for that you need their permission. But you cannot ask them for their permission without first receiving permission from them to ask for their permission. Because you do not own yourself. You will just stand and die unless they command you to eat and you won't use the bathroom until they command you to. You are making a clown out of yourself.

[Agitpropist]

I think you confuse mathematical axioms for moral/ethical axioms. An organism is bound by it's environment and biology. Self ownership simply implies that one is responsible for their actions, this branches off into property amongst other things. Does a slave own themselves? Yes. Are the slave's choices more constrained than a free man? Yes. A slave can choose to either obey or not, remain in captivity or escape. Acknowledging that the slave owns himself is to understand that slavery is immoral.

[IndividualAutonomy]

An overall great video! The people who I have seen make the best arguments against libertarians are former libertarians or current libertarians, Leftists are some of the most lazy people I have ever encountered in terms of ideology. Numerous of them spring from "superior moral positions" and not consequences in terms of specific wants. Great DragonballZ clips!

[GuardofLiberty]

@IndividualAutonomy I've seen that as well. As we both know "moral" arguments are worthless.

It's good for libertarians to criticize some of the weaker arguments within the camp. That way as I said in the intro video, we strengthen our position by rooting out the bad arguments and replacing them with better ones.

[GuardofLiberty]

@GuardofLiberty Oh, and I can't wait for the Cell Saga DBZ Kai episodes to come out! :P

[blackacidlizzard]

@IndividualAutonomy

Hear, hear

[eagleeye1975]

You are correct that self ownership is not self-evident, or axiomatic... but it can be logically deduced that individuals own themselves, as they are the only ones able to actually control themselves... all other forms of "control" of an individual are merely methods of extortion and coercion. Ultimately, we each CHOOSE whether we are controlled or not, or if we are owned or not.

Look to Milton Friedman... we are all free to choose.

[blackacidlizzard]

@eagleeye1975

is = ought?

Dude, you just PWND Hume, I eagerly await your tour of the lecture circuit. This is so big you;ll probably even make it onto The Tonight Show.

[eagleeye1975]

@blackacidlizzard *sigh*... you again?

1) How, exactly is this the supposed "is/ought" fallacy?

2) Care to defend why "is = ought" is fallacious? I can point you to a philosophy professor here on youtube who would disagree with you, and explain exactly why it isn't.

3) STFU you mush mouthed freak, and learn how to speak correctly before lecturing anyone.

[blackacidlizzard]

@eagleeye1975

1) Control is a fact. Ownership is a claim

2) I can point you to a philosophy PHD who says he has proven the existence of God

3) Have you figured out the difference between monolithism and polycentrism yet? Or at least figured out that they are mutually exclusive?

3a) You are right. Steven Hawking is clearly unqualified to correct anyone about physics. You ever heard that guy "talk"? What a freak!

[eagleeye1975]

@blackacidlizzard

1) Ownership has a definition, wherein control is a vital factor.

2) You are the one being fallacious by dismissing my evidence by using someone else's flawed thinking to attempt to "debunk" the thinking of another. Try again.

3) Irrelevant, and merely attempting to throw big high-score scrabble words at me to appear smart.

4) It can't be that hard to cause your mouth to form a proper R sound. It's not a W.

[blackacidlizzard]

@eagleeye1975

1) True. That does not remove the problem.

2) No, I'm watching it, I was just pointing out that holding a degree doesn't matter as far as truth goes.

3) No.

4) I find that hard, and you find it hard to see the difference between a monopoly and a non-monopoly even after hours of discussion. I guess we all have our handicaps. I'm glad the one I have isn't mental.

[eagleeye1975]

@blackacidlizzard watch?v=NrLvT_ERpaU

[blackacidlizzard]

@eagleeye1975

He doesn't make the claim that is -> ought. He talks about the belief in a property of goodness throughout much of history, then gets as far as claiming that Hume's position was actually a psychologistic or intuitionist stance as opposed to a stance that such answers are subjective or simply not valid. He neither claims this position is correct nor offers any argument in support of it - which keeps him from sounding as stupid as he does in the second video when looking at Moore

[eagleeye1975]

@blackacidlizzard Of course, anyone that disagrees with you is stupid... sounds stupid, looks stupid... you are really in to character assassination so as to never have to admit you're wrong, aren't you.

I'm done with you.

[blackacidlizzard]

@eagleeye1975

"anyone that disagrees with you is stupid"

No, just people who can't tell the difference between someone claiming that Hume was an objective ethicist and someone claiming that objective ethics are valid.

If I put up a video describing Marx's labor theory of value, does that mean I have demonstrated that it is correct?

You really are a piece of shit. Go back to the assembly line and stop telling yourself you have the capacity to think.

[blackacidlizzard]

"from which all conventional.."

Which is just one more confirmation that whatever is conventional is probably shit.

:)

[GuardofLiberty]

@blackacidlizzard Most likely. ;) I plan on calling to task some other conventional arguments as well. It's overdue.

Good to see ya. :)

[Sivels]

What's the comic at 4:09?

[GuardofLiberty]

@Sivels Bastard!! by Kazushi Hagiwara. Great series.

I cut some images together to make a cool composite one.

[Apptendo]

@GuardofLiberty How much T. & A. dones that Manga show.

[GuardofLiberty]

@Apptendo A lot.

[Apptendo]

@GuardofLiberty Give me the link, I WANT TO FAP

[GuardofLiberty]

@Apptendo Lol, Bastard!! is a great series, but that's not the reason it's great. :)

[Apptendo]

@GuardofLiberty That's only thing I care about in ANIME is the really sexy anime girls who are hot as fuck!!!

[Houshalter]

I disagree completely. Ownership defines who has the right to make decisions about the use of a resource. Granted, in reality there are no "rights" and it simply means who is recognized as being in control of it, but that would also lead to the same conclusion, as you control your actions.

If you base morality on the concept of "do onto others as you would have done onto you", (which is the rational thing to do in game theory I believe) that itself implies self-ownership and respecting others'.

[GuardofLiberty]

@Houshalter Indeed, but ownership over yourself is not absolute, you don't always get to decide how to make use of your "self" resource. It's not a self-evident truth and that's the point. It's just a preference, though one that we should value highly.

[Houshalter]

@GuardofLiberty maybe there are grey areas, but you certainly own your skills and actions, and there is no other practical way to deal with ownership over people's physical bodies. I do believe it is absolute.

[GuardofLiberty]

@Houshalter No you don't, they are only part of you. Perhaps you have the sole use of them, but that does not validate the "axiom," nor does it mean absolute property acquisition.

The fact that you believe that there's no other practical way to deal with ownership over physical bodies is your burden to prove (though this is not the place to make the attempt). As stated, someone else can easily tell you what to do with your body. Rules can and have been set, and they seem to have been successful

[GuardofLiberty]

@GuardofLiberty cont'd:

Ultimately, this shows that self-ownership isn't an absolute. It is just a degree and preference. Though I think respect for self-ownership is indeed the most practical and preferable way to handle these questions.

[Houshalter]

@GuardofLiberty what exactly are we arguing about? How would I go about proving that self-ownership is an "absolute"? What qualities does something have to have to be an "absolute"? Does it have to be rational, does it have to be the optimal way of doing things in every conceivable case, does it have to be a universally held preference?

Or does it have to be given by a God on a rock tablet, in which case nothing could ever be an absolute, so it is a moot point anyways.

[blackacidlizzard]

@Houshalter

I believe the optimal strategy found by game theorists is "tit-for-tat"

[Houshalter]

@blackacidlizzard yes, you predetermine yourself to cooperate with others that would do the same. I think you can derive libertarian principles from that.

[blackacidlizzard]

@Houshalter

But there are always the uncooperative ones. And there the golden rule and reciprocation part ways.

[Houshalter]

@blackacidlizzard well I meant that if you aren't cooperative, they can be uncooperative with you and vice versa. That's still doing onto others as long as you apply the same standard to yourself.

[blackacidlizzard]

@Hous

At that point you can derive any principles. When you refuse to cooperate by distributing the product of your labor, Welfareist can reciprocate with a lack of co-operation by taking it against your struggles. When you refuse to cooperate by not traveling upon land claimed by others, Propertarian reciprocates by confining you. When you refuse to cooperate and do not put on a uniform and hoist a rifle to be used on some people over yonder, Militarist ceases cooperating with you by a bullet

[Apptendo]

I believe in Self-Ownership because it is an Awesome preference and creates a Fapping amount of Prosperity. BTW, 4:09 FUCK YEAH HENTAI AND LIBERTARIANISM!!!!

[GuardofLiberty]

@Apptendo Dark Schneider gets his ass, lol.

Though it isn't exactly Hentai. =/