3 ms·
I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person has historically and philosophically been quite co
by claudeganon 7y ago
I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person has historically and philosophically been quite controversial. Why did peasants revolt over feudal ownership of land? Why did indigenous people revolt against settler colonialism? Why did the American Civil War happen?
- friedman23 7y ago> I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person has historically and philosophically been quite controversial I disagree. It is not historically controversial for the owner of property to decide what is done with it.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago>with it. With what, the slaves? /s
- friedman23 7y agoI don't know if you are trying to be disingenuous or are mocking people that would think this way. But when someone comes into my house I have some control over what they are allowed to do within my house and I can ask them to leave with the support of the law if they don't obey my wishes. When I enter a voluntary employment agreement and give an employee access to my equipment the same thing applies.
- civilian 7y agoYou're conflating ownership of people with ownership of a tool & voluntary employment. That's a pretty bad-faith argument to make.
- ggambetta 7y ago> I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person You're conveniently ignoring the part in which I'm also paying the other person to do something, after the other person freely agreed to do said thing in exchange for being paid. Would you mind replying to what I'm actually saying?