Ownership
defined Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land or real estate, or intellectual property.
Extending that dictionary definition I would add, most importantly, Self which would include personal beliefs, strategies for living life and ones walk through life. The sovereign ability to determine ones life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (whatever that may be to the individual), and the ownership of property.
Ownership, in my eyes, is such that a person is able to do whatever he/she wishes with whatever it is they 'own' even to the extent of keeping it from others, consuming it until it doesn't exist, lending it to another, or outright destroying it beyond use, This premise does not differentiate between a thing (inanimate object - a plot of land, a rock, a shoe, food, etc.) and an idea (a written text, a picture, a personal creed). Ownership DOES NOT REQUIRE validation by others or even rationality to others and should not subject to the judgement of others, particularly when it come to the Self.
In this contemplative definition the individual, each individual, is the focal point of that persons existence with the absolute authority to shape his/her existence and, as a consequence, reap the benefits and pitfalls of those decisions (be they social or environmental).
Am I missing anything?I am leading to a point but would prefer it come about sequentially.
Extending that dictionary definition I would add, most importantly, Self which would include personal beliefs, strategies for living life and ones walk through life. The sovereign ability to determine ones life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (whatever that may be to the individual), and the ownership of property.
Ownership, in my eyes, is such that a person is able to do whatever he/she wishes with whatever it is they 'own' even to the extent of keeping it from others, consuming it until it doesn't exist, lending it to another, or outright destroying it beyond use, This premise does not differentiate between a thing (inanimate object - a plot of land, a rock, a shoe, food, etc.) and an idea (a written text, a picture, a personal creed). Ownership DOES NOT REQUIRE validation by others or even rationality to others and should not subject to the judgement of others, particularly when it come to the Self.
In this contemplative definition the individual, each individual, is the focal point of that persons existence with the absolute authority to shape his/her existence and, as a consequence, reap the benefits and pitfalls of those decisions (be they social or environmental).
Am I missing anything?I am leading to a point but would prefer it come about sequentially.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Slave 'owners' used brute force to control the slaves. They had no ownership right to the slaves. Owning another human being is a contradiction in terms. Ownership logically requires a human being with rights, which applies to all human beings.
If no one else existed there would still be a necessity for moral standards as a basis for your choices; there would be no factual basis for the moral concept of rights, including ownership, because there would be no choices involving other people. In particular there would be no need for and no basis for a concept of ownership. The concept of rights, including the concepts of property rights and "ownership" would not arise.
Concepts of rights, like all concepts, are objective, not intrinsic. They depend on and are a way of mentally organizing facts of reality of which one is aware, not something discovered as intrinsic to reality regardless of the needs of human consciousness.
You don't have a property right in your body, owned by a disembodied consciousness. it is you, with consciousness as one attribute of your self. Your right to your own life is a characteristic of humanity as the rational animal and cannot be surrendered. You can destroy yourself; you can never surrender your nature as a human being with rights.
Prostitution is selling a temporary use of one's self, just as any labor is. It is not surrender of one's rights.
Yes, this was a flashpoint topic for Dale and me as well.
If you think about a consciousness as separate from the body and the body a possession, it certainly has some profound implications about consciousness itself...
Dale Halling and I had discourse on this years ago. I assert that Freedom is an Absolute and that Liberty is a condition of interaction with others.
Otherwise....How G-Rand a statement!
...belief is the absence of reason and logic...conviction is based on facts of reality....
nice article...
Influence, sure, by the sheer fact of circumstances that the owner set for the slave but the owner did not OWN the slave's mind in the sense that it was able to program it how to think.
Otherwise gladiators would not have been able to revolt neither slaves.
As for slavery, true but the owner certainly defined the slaves existence and had huge sway over his/her mind and thinking.
You can't separate the physical from the sensory.
A human being can't exist without consciousness (they can but they are not humans).
If the physical property is sold, e.g. as slaves were bought and sold, that does not mean their consciousness was sold, too. The slave owner did not possess the slave's mind.
I'm just thinking this through for the first time.
The courts could make someone sell assets to cover a contractual obligation, but they couldn't make him sell his body. I can understand the logic behind debtors' prison, although I don't agree with it, for people who could earn money to pay their debts by working but just don't want to. In that case, the people have pledged their bodies as indentured servants. But that requires their minds too.
Maybe the issue is in this life, with the technology we have today, the mind and body are bound together. In the Star Trek episode Return to Tomorrow, they encountered aliens who could move into and out of bodies at will. The aliens were going to make robot bodies for themselves. They borrowed Kirk's two other characters' bodies with permission and were tempted to steal them. They realized this was immoral and relinquished the bodies. At one point the nurse agreed to let Spock's mind share her body. If minds and bodies could disassociate as in that episode, it would make perfect sense to think of bodies and property of the mind.
Eg. you may think you own land, provided others respect that claim.
Still a stretch of land and your person does have a degree of commonality - who can and can't access it, what happens to it or not to it, the condition it remains and whether its allowed to go to waste via deliberate misuse or neglect, and whether its existence will continue forward healthily or be made to ruin (forfeiture of existence for the living being the most extreme).
"Ownership DOES NOT REQUIRE validation by others or even rationality to others and should not subject to the judgement of others, particularly when it come to the Self."
You are leading to a very dangerous area: e.g. the stripping of the individual of the ownership and control over his/her life, which is what the left is aiming to do.
The difference between having the deed to your house and owning you life is: there is no deed to owning your life. While the left can't take your physical property away, they have and are setting the "society-accepted" rules on the basis of which they can force you to give it up and allow them to own it.
We are on a straight path to that eventuality.