5 ms·

Pretty weird, as far as rants go. Of course he doesn't begin to define what he means by "self-owning", exactly - nor does the article he links to define the te

Pretty weird, as far as rants go. Of course he doesn't begin to define what he means by "self-owning", exactly - nor does the article he links to define the term (or, recursively, the article that it links to). Nor should they bother trying -- because it's basically oxymoron.

ouid 10y ago
Why is self-ownership an oxymoron? It seems fairly self-descriptive, as a term. One of the primary axioms of ownership is that it is conserved. Two entities cannot both wholly own the same entity. It is then very natural to say that an entity for which no one else claims ownership owns itself. This way the sum of all ownership sums to 1.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  This way the sum of all ownership sums to 1. QED, I guess. Meanwhile, down on Planet Earth, we have the perfectly obvious and natural question: when one of those vehicles (inevitably) plunges into a school bus full o' kids, and is found to have done so as a result of criminal negligence -- who's going to jail? Once you've identified those parties -- you know, the human beings who will be held accountable for the aforementioned negligence -- you've identified the "de-facto" owners of these vehicles, by any meaningful definition. Or if you (truly believe) the answer is "no one" -- as in, "Aw shucks! Nobody owns these cars, you see! Just some blobs of white noise on the blockchain! You can't even trace 'em! BTW sorry 'bout all those poor kids, but you know, stuff happens" -- then at least we've identified the "self-ownership" fad for what it is: just another libertarian smokescreen to maximize the potential for financial gain whilst minimizing (or in this case, voiding entirely) the personal responsibility (and accountability) that otherwise -- in a sane world -- would go hand-in-hand with such activity.
  - ouid 10y ago
    You called it an oxymoron, which was wrong. Lots of things own themselves. If you have a problem with the man's article, articulate it better, or be prepared to be called wrong.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Lots of things own themselves. Can you name a single instance of a complex, industrially produced item (let alone one interacts with our day-to-day world in a significant way; and is quite inherently possessed of the ability to kill human beings) -- that "owns itself"?
      - cr0sh 10y ago
        Why are complex, non-industrially produced items which interact with our day-to-day world in a significant way, and are quite inherently possessed of the ability to kill human beings, which do own themselves (well, in most cases - but unfortunately not all) - somehow different? I mean - we've come up with solutions for those items - so why couldn't we do the same with industrially produced items which have the same characteristics you've posited?
      - ouid 10y ago
        you asserted that it was impossible, not that it hadn't been achieved. If you are merely asserting that it hasn't been achieved, then that is in agreement with the article you claim to disagree with.

ouid 10y ago

Why is self-ownership an oxymoron? It seems fairly self-descriptive, as a term. One of the primary axioms of ownership is that it is conserved. Two entities cannot both wholly own the same entity. It is then very natural to say that an entity for which no one else claims ownership owns itself. This way the sum of all ownership sums to 1.

kafkaesq 10y ago
This way the sum of all ownership sums to 1. QED, I guess. Meanwhile, down on Planet Earth, we have the perfectly obvious and natural question: when one of those vehicles (inevitably) plunges into a school bus full o' kids, and is found to have done so as a result of criminal negligence -- who's going to jail? Once you've identified those parties -- you know, the human beings who will be held accountable for the aforementioned negligence -- you've identified the "de-facto" owners of these vehicles, by any meaningful definition. Or if you (truly believe) the answer is "no one" -- as in, "Aw shucks! Nobody owns these cars, you see! Just some blobs of white noise on the blockchain! You can't even trace 'em! BTW sorry 'bout all those poor kids, but you know, stuff happens" -- then at least we've identified the "self-ownership" fad for what it is: just another libertarian smokescreen to maximize the potential for financial gain whilst minimizing (or in this case, voiding entirely) the personal responsibility (and accountability) that otherwise -- in a sane world -- would go hand-in-hand with such activity.
- ouid 10y ago
  You called it an oxymoron, which was wrong. Lots of things own themselves. If you have a problem with the man's article, articulate it better, or be prepared to be called wrong.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Lots of things own themselves. Can you name a single instance of a complex, industrially produced item (let alone one interacts with our day-to-day world in a significant way; and is quite inherently possessed of the ability to kill human beings) -- that "owns itself"?
    - cr0sh 10y ago
      Why are complex, non-industrially produced items which interact with our day-to-day world in a significant way, and are quite inherently possessed of the ability to kill human beings, which do own themselves (well, in most cases - but unfortunately not all) - somehow different? I mean - we've come up with solutions for those items - so why couldn't we do the same with industrially produced items which have the same characteristics you've posited?
    - ouid 10y ago
      you asserted that it was impossible, not that it hadn't been achieved. If you are merely asserting that it hasn't been achieved, then that is in agreement with the article you claim to disagree with.