Ownership, most fundamentally, starts with the Self and is a consequence of Natural Laws, not Positive/man-made Laws.
I cannot attain exclusive control over your mind and body, I can only influence it through external forces such as, persuasion or coercion. It is yours and only yours, by nature, until death.
@KyleSkullz So, what you're saying is that the concept of ownership arose from spontaneous order rather than political order? I'm not too sure about that.
@tonyfalca It seems to me like what you've mentioned above would have been something taken for granted -- without any need for communication -- until political order or what have you was introduced.
ALL concepts are a result of the reasoning mind, and therefore are man-made, however, in order to separate good concepts (i.e. mathematics) from bad concepts (i.e. numerology) there must be an objective standard of truth to test for consistency with the real world, which can only be found in nature, not the subjective opinions of man.
With regards to the concept of ownership, the foundational principle is the self. Your mind and body are exclusively yours, by nature, until death.
@KyleSkullz I missed this comment of yours, whoops. I'm not sure what I'm getting at, I guess it's that law distorts the concept of ownership, or what does ownership really mean? To own something under law, you need a permit, a title or whatever. Just because the Native Americans had exclusive human control of what's now NA, and basically owned such land, then were conquered and virtually stripped of their 'ownership' -- who really owns that land? I'd say neither, nature does.
I cannot attain exclusive control of your mind and body, I can only influence it through external forces like persuasion and coercion. It is yours, and only yours, by nature, until death. Do you reject this?
@KyleSkullz No, but it doesn't need to be spoken of, written about, or even labeled to be conceptualized; it's beyond conception, it just is... My body is subject to physical laws, would you say those physical laws own my body?
i don't subscribe to "ownership" at all, but that aside, labor is something people do, not a physical thing in and of itself. when you do a jumping jack, do you own that jumping jack?
@strawprophet So if you produce labor that is translated into a medium of exchange and use that medium to say, purchase a bicycle, that you don't consider yourself the owner of the bicycle? Anyone can come along and use it and that is OK with you? Makes no sense to me.
@ObsessedCyclist anyone can always come along and take your stuff whether or not you claim ownership. ownership mostly means that you're willing to use force to maintain ownership. but yeah, i'd totally share my bike.
You should go see the video of Rand licking Israel's ass and calling Arabs "savages". Not only that, she collected welfare in her last years. Total hypocrite.
Well bloody said, my position precisely.. im very much in favour of limiting the size and scope of government for reasons of efficiency, but libertarianism based on the notion of "natural rights" is extremely simplistic to say the least. A state that merely enforces property rights and legal contracts is still a welfare state of sorts. FA Hayek had a far more sensible approach than Rand. There is much greater depth to his thinking IMO.
@PiratesWonderful Whoever has the gun that they point at your head to extract your labor from you. In the form of "taxes". To pay for the gun that is at your head. SOMEONE does this, it isn't SOMETHING.
I know. I was trying to get the other gentleman to articulate this abdication of self-ownership. Using violence of threats to force compliance because you voted for this to occur makes you as complicit as those taking such acts.
No one owes you anything but what a contract has stipulated. Social contract doesn't count as it is an aberration of contract law used by apologists for force to absolve that pesky concept of self-ownership. No different than religion.
"Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it."
As to where pacifism stands, I'd say that unless you're a property-denying collectivist (in which case, seek therapy please... your sense of self is a bit lacking), pacifism is the truly hypocritical position. How can you say you favour property rights when you're not willing to defend your property or, in moral terms, allow for others to defend their property?
@Alastrian83 If you believe private property rights are more of a maxim than the right to sustain oneself from natural resources I think it is you that needs therapy. If I grow something, or make something then of course it is my personal property if I trade it then that is also fine... Claiming the land is mine to use alone? delusions of grandure!
@Alastrian83 Such is the short-sightedness of the 'take what you can' objectivist mindset. Moving from place to place like a swarm of rats screaming we are all individuals!
Did an Objectivist beat you up in school? Did an Objectivist fire you from a job? I'm sensing a lot of hostility here. I might think that collectivists are mentally ill, seeing as how there's somewhat of an atrophy of the self in any ideology that puts the 'collective' first, but I don't call them nasty things like 'a swarm of rats', though Collectivists are far more likely to be in a 'swarm' than Individualists.
@Alastrian83 Aww i'm sworry, how cruel it is of me not to consider someone elses fweelings. Rats are simply following their nature... dumb instinctive animalistic behaviour I do not consider that to be an insult. A person who willingly submits themself to the same mindset as the rat would have little excuse save mental illness. One could argue that it is more of an insult to rats than objectivists.
I never said anything about my feelings. I was merely making an observation of your hostility towards my wholesale rejection of collectivism. You can't go and compare certain people to 'dumb animals' and then say you don't consider that an insult. Human beings are not dumb animals.
@Alastrian83 My point exactly... Human beings are not dumb animals, so they shouldn't try to rationally justify behaving like animals. My hostility was a reflection of your own, displayed toward the notion of collectivism, as some form of mental illness.
My position on collectivism is based on what I know from neuroscience, and from the shitty 6000+ year track record of war, prejudice, poverty and intellectual stagnation brought about by one form of collectivism or another, whether it was religion, nationalism, socialism or fascism. The one thing they all have in common is irrational anxiety of those outside the collective and fear of being associated with the 'Other' that is so calcified as to be pathological.
@Alastrian83 Except if you see the human race as the collective then there is no xenophobia. The only anxiety left is a mistrust of those outside the self. War has been waged primarily on who has the rights to land... are they Christian, Islamic, Roman, Celtic, Native American, English Lands... If no one has absolute ownership of land then there is no reason to fight. The right to own and control the means of survival of others is what creates the grounds for conflict.
What you've said here is another example of what's so pathological about collectivism. The whole worldview is based on this utopian fairytale of a harmonious existence when everything belongs to everyone. Communism was already tried. It degenerated into totalitarianism very quickly, and has left a legacy of hundreds of millions dead... most from starvation. It takes an enormous detachment from reality to ignore such a damning statistic.
Do you even have a response, or are you just slinging mud to distract from the fact that you have no response? You're the dogmatic one, seeing as how you're the one ignoring thousands of years of history of every type of collectivism ever tried failing miserably at providing a better life for anyone except the 'more equal than others' central planners who ALWAYS let the power get to their heads and become greedy assholes.
@Alastrian83 Not slinging mud at all; it is self-evident from your previous statement. If you are unable to identify how; well frankly it really isn't worth discussing it further with you. I could point it out for you, but then you would just switch to some other inane dogmatic argument, that either had little, or no relevance to the subject or my argument. It is a dull and pointless way to conduct a debate, and I have no wish to engage in it further.
@Alastrian83 Pearls..? How bourgeois of you. I guess an elevated sense of the self comes with the territory! A little more amusing, despite one's obvious ostentatiousness.
Probably futile but I'm going to try to explain very clearly why it is that defensive force or reactive force does NOT violate the non-aggression principle.
Consider the example already mentioned of the rapist coming after your daughter. The rapist is the one who is the aggressor in this example. Kicking his ass to the curb to protect your daughter is not an initiation of force because HE is the one who initiated force.
@pcgamesolution The non-aggression principle is solid. But it's a generational thing to put the thing into practice world-wide would require many generations of bringing up kids around the non-aggression principle for a free and peaceful society.
Libertarians are double-speaking hypocrites. Talking bout against violence. Yet, if someone violates someone's rights, what do u think they will respond with? Violence.
In other words they say it's wrong to throw the first punch. The moment the first punch is thrown, whoever threw it is in the wrong, and whoever got hit has every right to defend themselves and hit back.
You're confusing non-aggression with pacifism. Saying that you're opposed to the INITIATION of force doesn't automatically mean you're opposed to using force to defend yourself or your property.
@ElCangri137 I believe you are mistaking Non-aggression with Pacifism. No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed ONLY against the man who commits such violence; that is, only DEFENSIVELY against the aggressive violence of another.
Without the non-aggression principle, a society will fall apart, there are no exceptions.
KevZen2000 1 week ago
Ownership is a legal concept, and nothing more!
tonyfalca 3 weeks ago
@tonyfalca
Ownership, most fundamentally, starts with the Self and is a consequence of Natural Laws, not Positive/man-made Laws.
I cannot attain exclusive control over your mind and body, I can only influence it through external forces such as, persuasion or coercion. It is yours and only yours, by nature, until death.
KyleSkullz 2 weeks ago
@KyleSkullz So, what you're saying is that the concept of ownership arose from spontaneous order rather than political order? I'm not too sure about that.
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca It seems to me like what you've mentioned above would have been something taken for granted -- without any need for communication -- until political order or what have you was introduced.
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca
ALL concepts are a result of the reasoning mind, and therefore are man-made, however, in order to separate good concepts (i.e. mathematics) from bad concepts (i.e. numerology) there must be an objective standard of truth to test for consistency with the real world, which can only be found in nature, not the subjective opinions of man.
With regards to the concept of ownership, the foundational principle is the self. Your mind and body are exclusively yours, by nature, until death.
KyleSkullz 2 weeks ago
@KyleSkullz I missed this comment of yours, whoops. I'm not sure what I'm getting at, I guess it's that law distorts the concept of ownership, or what does ownership really mean? To own something under law, you need a permit, a title or whatever. Just because the Native Americans had exclusive human control of what's now NA, and basically owned such land, then were conquered and virtually stripped of their 'ownership' -- who really owns that land? I'd say neither, nature does.
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca Does that make sense..?
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca
So, again...
I cannot attain exclusive control of your mind and body, I can only influence it through external forces like persuasion and coercion. It is yours, and only yours, by nature, until death. Do you reject this?
KyleSkullz 2 weeks ago
@KyleSkullz No, but it doesn't need to be spoken of, written about, or even labeled to be conceptualized; it's beyond conception, it just is... My body is subject to physical laws, would you say those physical laws own my body?
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its always been the same grudge. Hate the blue bloods and the nice Germans but make friendship with Freemasons and Niggers.
NeuWinland 1 month ago
Comment removed
NeuWinland 1 month ago
i don't subscribe to "ownership" at all, but that aside, labor is something people do, not a physical thing in and of itself. when you do a jumping jack, do you own that jumping jack?
strawprophet 1 month ago
@strawprophet So if you produce labor that is translated into a medium of exchange and use that medium to say, purchase a bicycle, that you don't consider yourself the owner of the bicycle? Anyone can come along and use it and that is OK with you? Makes no sense to me.
ObsessedCyclist 4 weeks ago
@ObsessedCyclist anyone can always come along and take your stuff whether or not you claim ownership. ownership mostly means that you're willing to use force to maintain ownership. but yeah, i'd totally share my bike.
strawprophet 4 weeks ago
@ObsessedCyclist We as a people need to move beyond the notion of ownership.
tonyfalca 3 weeks ago
@strawprophet I don't subscribe to this notion of ownership either.
tonyfalca 3 weeks ago
You should go see the video of Rand licking Israel's ass and calling Arabs "savages". Not only that, she collected welfare in her last years. Total hypocrite.
hagbard72 1 month ago
i do think people should be able to enjoy material things, but a society that is based on property will always need to enforce that concept.
strawprophet 1 month ago
@strawprophet
Well bloody said, my position precisely.. im very much in favour of limiting the size and scope of government for reasons of efficiency, but libertarianism based on the notion of "natural rights" is extremely simplistic to say the least. A state that merely enforces property rights and legal contracts is still a welfare state of sorts. FA Hayek had a far more sensible approach than Rand. There is much greater depth to his thinking IMO.
sadpuppy85 1 month ago
property is force.
strawprophet 1 month ago
@strawprophet care to elaborate?
damonthemoney93 1 month ago
@strawprophet You are diving into some hostile environment here. But I have to agree with the premisse.
The34gl3 1 month ago
@strawprophet Very true.
23lFrench 1 month ago
@strawprophet
you don't own your body or the product of your labor? Then who does?
PiratesWonderful 1 month ago
@PiratesWonderful Whoever has the gun that they point at your head to extract your labor from you. In the form of "taxes". To pay for the gun that is at your head. SOMEONE does this, it isn't SOMETHING.
ObsessedCyclist 4 weeks ago
@ObsessedCyclist
I know. I was trying to get the other gentleman to articulate this abdication of self-ownership. Using violence of threats to force compliance because you voted for this to occur makes you as complicit as those taking such acts.
No one owes you anything but what a contract has stipulated. Social contract doesn't count as it is an aberration of contract law used by apologists for force to absolve that pesky concept of self-ownership. No different than religion.
PiratesWonderful 4 weeks ago
"Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it."
- excerpt from “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand.
iannetta11 1 month ago 6
@iannetta11 Bloody that dog again. Leave him out of this.
B00MK 1 month ago
@iannetta11
Beautiful quote, thanks you!
KyleSkullz 2 weeks ago
Interesting back and forth, fellas. It's refreshing to see healthy minds on Youtube.
GabrielXXIst 1 month ago 2
ceitch is gay
WHlTEDEVlL 1 month ago
rand is a tool
Trickndel 1 month ago
Ayn Rand is LOVE !
steadiworkz 1 month ago
the title is a total lie ... this clip is just about phil donahue being a ignorant sensationalist ass ...
mystereye 1 month ago
As to where pacifism stands, I'd say that unless you're a property-denying collectivist (in which case, seek therapy please... your sense of self is a bit lacking), pacifism is the truly hypocritical position. How can you say you favour property rights when you're not willing to defend your property or, in moral terms, allow for others to defend their property?
Alastrian83 1 month ago
@Alastrian83 If you believe private property rights are more of a maxim than the right to sustain oneself from natural resources I think it is you that needs therapy. If I grow something, or make something then of course it is my personal property if I trade it then that is also fine... Claiming the land is mine to use alone? delusions of grandure!
MetaReaLizard 1 month ago
@MetaReaLizard
Its more delusional and grandiose to think that this time the 'Collective' is above causing another case of the Tragedy of the Commons.
Alastrian83 1 month ago
@Alastrian83 Such is the short-sightedness of the 'take what you can' objectivist mindset. Moving from place to place like a swarm of rats screaming we are all individuals!
MetaReaLizard 1 month ago
Did an Objectivist beat you up in school? Did an Objectivist fire you from a job? I'm sensing a lot of hostility here. I might think that collectivists are mentally ill, seeing as how there's somewhat of an atrophy of the self in any ideology that puts the 'collective' first, but I don't call them nasty things like 'a swarm of rats', though Collectivists are far more likely to be in a 'swarm' than Individualists.
Alastrian83 1 month ago
@Alastrian83 Aww i'm sworry, how cruel it is of me not to consider someone elses fweelings. Rats are simply following their nature... dumb instinctive animalistic behaviour I do not consider that to be an insult. A person who willingly submits themself to the same mindset as the rat would have little excuse save mental illness. One could argue that it is more of an insult to rats than objectivists.
MetaReaLizard 1 month ago
@MetaReaLizard
I never said anything about my feelings. I was merely making an observation of your hostility towards my wholesale rejection of collectivism. You can't go and compare certain people to 'dumb animals' and then say you don't consider that an insult. Human beings are not dumb animals.
Alastrian83 1 month ago
@Alastrian83 My point exactly... Human beings are not dumb animals, so they shouldn't try to rationally justify behaving like animals. My hostility was a reflection of your own, displayed toward the notion of collectivism, as some form of mental illness.
MetaReaLizard 1 month ago
@MetaReaLizard
My position on collectivism is based on what I know from neuroscience, and from the shitty 6000+ year track record of war, prejudice, poverty and intellectual stagnation brought about by one form of collectivism or another, whether it was religion, nationalism, socialism or fascism. The one thing they all have in common is irrational anxiety of those outside the collective and fear of being associated with the 'Other' that is so calcified as to be pathological.
Alastrian83 1 month ago
@Alastrian83 Except if you see the human race as the collective then there is no xenophobia. The only anxiety left is a mistrust of those outside the self. War has been waged primarily on who has the rights to land... are they Christian, Islamic, Roman, Celtic, Native American, English Lands... If no one has absolute ownership of land then there is no reason to fight. The right to own and control the means of survival of others is what creates the grounds for conflict.
MetaReaLizard 1 month ago
@MetaReaLizard
What you've said here is another example of what's so pathological about collectivism. The whole worldview is based on this utopian fairytale of a harmonious existence when everything belongs to everyone. Communism was already tried. It degenerated into totalitarianism very quickly, and has left a legacy of hundreds of millions dead... most from starvation. It takes an enormous detachment from reality to ignore such a damning statistic.
Alastrian83 1 month ago
@Alastrian83 That is so dogmatic it isn't really worth dignifying with a response.
MetaReaLizard 1 month ago
@MetaReaLizard
Do you even have a response, or are you just slinging mud to distract from the fact that you have no response? You're the dogmatic one, seeing as how you're the one ignoring thousands of years of history of every type of collectivism ever tried failing miserably at providing a better life for anyone except the 'more equal than others' central planners who ALWAYS let the power get to their heads and become greedy assholes.
Alastrian83 1 month ago
@Alastrian83 Not slinging mud at all; it is self-evident from your previous statement. If you are unable to identify how; well frankly it really isn't worth discussing it further with you. I could point it out for you, but then you would just switch to some other inane dogmatic argument, that either had little, or no relevance to the subject or my argument. It is a dull and pointless way to conduct a debate, and I have no wish to engage in it further.
MetaReaLizard 1 month ago
@MetaReaLizard
I was just thinking there's no point casting pearls before swine. You're clearly projecting your own dogmatic devotion to utopian fantasy.
Alastrian83 1 month ago
@Alastrian83 Pearls..? How bourgeois of you. I guess an elevated sense of the self comes with the territory! A little more amusing, despite one's obvious ostentatiousness.
MetaReaLizard 1 month ago
@MetaReaLizard
Spoken like a true Marxist acolyte :P
Alastrian83 1 month ago
Probably futile but I'm going to try to explain very clearly why it is that defensive force or reactive force does NOT violate the non-aggression principle.
Consider the example already mentioned of the rapist coming after your daughter. The rapist is the one who is the aggressor in this example. Kicking his ass to the curb to protect your daughter is not an initiation of force because HE is the one who initiated force.
Alastrian83 1 month ago
BULLSHIT ! how could you save your daughter from a rapist if not by beating the shit out of him ? by asking him nicely ???
pcgamesolution 1 month ago
@pcgamesolution
Its already been explained in these comments that non-aggression is not the same as pacifism.
Alastrian83 1 month ago
@pcgamesolution The non-aggression principle is solid. But it's a generational thing to put the thing into practice world-wide would require many generations of bringing up kids around the non-aggression principle for a free and peaceful society.
HigherPlanes 1 month ago
Comment removed
QuantumLeap365 1 month ago
Libertarians are double-speaking hypocrites. Talking bout against violence. Yet, if someone violates someone's rights, what do u think they will respond with? Violence.
ElCangri137 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ElCangri137 Mere assertions unless you can provide specific examples.
QuantumLeap365 1 month ago
@ElCangri137 They are against the initiating of violence, not defending themselves from it by whatever means are possible!
TheDemocracyDelusion 1 month ago
In other words they say it's wrong to throw the first punch. The moment the first punch is thrown, whoever threw it is in the wrong, and whoever got hit has every right to defend themselves and hit back.
TheDemocracyDelusion 1 month ago
@ElCangri137
You're confusing non-aggression with pacifism. Saying that you're opposed to the INITIATION of force doesn't automatically mean you're opposed to using force to defend yourself or your property.
Alastrian83 1 month ago
@ElCangri137 I believe you are mistaking Non-aggression with Pacifism. No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed ONLY against the man who commits such violence; that is, only DEFENSIVELY against the aggressive violence of another.
NordenzurZukunft 1 month ago