4 ms·

Do you have "ownership" of your own consciousness? Do you "own" your own body? Is that dogma? Have some reading about argumentative ethics, it derives natura

Do you have "ownership" of your own consciousness? Do you "own" your own body? Is that dogma? Have some reading about argumentative ethics, it derives natural law based on private property through the means of logic: https://mises.org/wire/primer-hoppes-argumentation-ethics https://mises.org/wire/primer-hoppes-argumentation-ethics

Iv 7y ago
Ownership is an abstract concept enforced by society. It recognize the right to "use and abuse" of a thing. Some societies will forbid you to do things to your body. Some will outlaw some opinions. It makes sense to say that in such cases, you do not own your mind or your body. I am of the opinion that it is good that individuals have total ownership over their mind and bodies, but it is just that: an opinion. I can't demonstrate it. If I could somehow infer it being a "natural law" it would not be a satisfying justification, it would just be a naturalistic fallacy. Most of human society's goals are to fight against "natural order" because we, collectively, aim at unnatural things like justice and fairness.
- sovietcattle 7y ago
  I'd encourage you to read about the logic derivation of natural law based on private property through argumentative ethics, as described in the article I mentioned.
  - Iv 7y ago
    I have. I think they are bollocks. Have you read and understood them and are ready to defend steps and axioms of this thesis or are you just enamored with his conclusions? Specifically, I think this is nonsensical: "Second, it must be noted that argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of action requiring the employment of scarce means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property." It is a well accepted rule in logic and debate that propositions have merit on their own, therefore the way they are stated is irrelevant, whether they consume scarce means or not. The jump from scarce means to private property is laughable. Actually I have a hard time charitably following his reasoning. It is obvious the conclusion he wants to reach, but it is hard to understand where he sees an unfolding of logic arguments. Even if his claims were true, which are, if I understand correctly, that the mere fact of engaging in a moralistic discussion presupposes the speakers assume a kind of private property instinctively, it does not follow that this presupposition is correct. That's a naturalistic fallacy. It can be used to justify domination, sharing, violence, death of the weak. Using it to defend something as obviously artificial as private property is news to me, and I think pretty hard to defend, but even if it did, it presupposes we should care about "natural law", something most philosophers learned to dismiss since the 19th century.
    - nl 7y ago
      I think this is nonsensical I think you are being very polite in your assessment.
      - Iv 7y ago
        I think you are very perceptive :-)
        shantly 7y ago
        From what I can tell, having followed several mises.org links over the years, castles-built-on-sand reasoning is kinda their whole thing. They rely on the reader missing some obvious objection, or some unjustified leap or connection between two things, early in their “logical” argument to make it all work. It’s dumb writing in smart writing’s clothing.
        sovietcattle 7y ago
        Would you mind referring to some articles as examples of the fallacies you're describing? Or is it the case that you simply don't like the content and therefore you dismiss it using whatever excuses you find convenient?
        nl 7y ago
        Well the one you linked to is a good example. If property rights are derived by the ability to argue then babies can't own property. But they can... If the argument is that someone else does the argument on behalf of the baby then anything can use that argument. We see other numerous counter examples - court cases on behalf of animal rights, collectively owned property etc. It's a simple circular argument disguised in lots of complicated writing.
        sovietcattle 7y ago
        That's only if you didn't bother reading it carefully. You missed the point about the ability of performing arguments. Babies and children might not be able to argument at the moment, but they are capable of argumentation. Therefore, for as long as they don't achieve maturity, tutors can act in the interest of the child. Animals, on the other hand, can't argument at all, therefore are not capable of holding negative property rights. Bear in mind that positive rights can't be reasoned without failing at Hume's razor, for the simple reason one can't have rights over other people's property. Collective property can't be reasoned either. In any case, I invite you to try to reason about said "rights" without resorting to positive law. Which other articles didn't you like and that you claim are "nonsensical"?

Iv 7y ago

Ownership is an abstract concept enforced by society. It recognize the right to "use and abuse" of a thing. Some societies will forbid you to do things to your body. Some will outlaw some opinions. It makes sense to say that in such cases, you do not own your mind or your body. I am of the opinion that it is good that individuals have total ownership over their mind and bodies, but it is just that: an opinion. I can't demonstrate it. If I could somehow infer it being a "natural law" it would not be a satisfying justification, it would just be a naturalistic fallacy. Most of human society's goals are to fight against "natural order" because we, collectively, aim at unnatural things like justice and fairness.

sovietcattle 7y ago
I'd encourage you to read about the logic derivation of natural law based on private property through argumentative ethics, as described in the article I mentioned.
- Iv 7y ago
  I have. I think they are bollocks. Have you read and understood them and are ready to defend steps and axioms of this thesis or are you just enamored with his conclusions? Specifically, I think this is nonsensical: "Second, it must be noted that argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of action requiring the employment of scarce means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property." It is a well accepted rule in logic and debate that propositions have merit on their own, therefore the way they are stated is irrelevant, whether they consume scarce means or not. The jump from scarce means to private property is laughable. Actually I have a hard time charitably following his reasoning. It is obvious the conclusion he wants to reach, but it is hard to understand where he sees an unfolding of logic arguments. Even if his claims were true, which are, if I understand correctly, that the mere fact of engaging in a moralistic discussion presupposes the speakers assume a kind of private property instinctively, it does not follow that this presupposition is correct. That's a naturalistic fallacy. It can be used to justify domination, sharing, violence, death of the weak. Using it to defend something as obviously artificial as private property is news to me, and I think pretty hard to defend, but even if it did, it presupposes we should care about "natural law", something most philosophers learned to dismiss since the 19th century.
  - nl 7y ago
    I think this is nonsensical I think you are being very polite in your assessment.
    - Iv 7y ago
      I think you are very perceptive :-)
      - shantly 7y ago
        From what I can tell, having followed several mises.org links over the years, castles-built-on-sand reasoning is kinda their whole thing. They rely on the reader missing some obvious objection, or some unjustified leap or connection between two things, early in their “logical” argument to make it all work. It’s dumb writing in smart writing’s clothing.
        sovietcattle 7y ago
        Would you mind referring to some articles as examples of the fallacies you're describing? Or is it the case that you simply don't like the content and therefore you dismiss it using whatever excuses you find convenient?
        nl 7y ago
        Well the one you linked to is a good example. If property rights are derived by the ability to argue then babies can't own property. But they can... If the argument is that someone else does the argument on behalf of the baby then anything can use that argument. We see other numerous counter examples - court cases on behalf of animal rights, collectively owned property etc. It's a simple circular argument disguised in lots of complicated writing.
        sovietcattle 7y ago
        That's only if you didn't bother reading it carefully. You missed the point about the ability of performing arguments. Babies and children might not be able to argument at the moment, but they are capable of argumentation. Therefore, for as long as they don't achieve maturity, tutors can act in the interest of the child. Animals, on the other hand, can't argument at all, therefore are not capable of holding negative property rights. Bear in mind that positive rights can't be reasoned without failing at Hume's razor, for the simple reason one can't have rights over other people's property. Collective property can't be reasoned either. In any case, I invite you to try to reason about said "rights" without resorting to positive law. Which other articles didn't you like and that you claim are "nonsensical"?