- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I think as long as some think af 'themselves' as separate from the lives of their bodies, they're never going to understand or accept the reality of self ownership.
Both [conservatives and liberals] hold the same premise—the mind-body dichotomy—but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy.
The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
Only libertarians (in today's political environment) support freedom of both the mind and the body (thought and production).
The xerox you would not own the flesh body, which would be still owned by the bio-brain, but xerox you would still own its 'silicon self'.
Thus I think that the mind and the body are potentially separable, and any discussion of self-ownership should take this into account.
Jan
This may pose and interesting question in the future, but for now you are an integrated whole. You may be able to do without some parts of your body. But you cannot exist without your body or your mind.
The question in this context, then becomes are the senses provided by all bodies identical between bodies or are the perceptions developed by the brain of the various sensory organs unique to the individual. I've got a feeling that it's not all so mechanistic, but instead is individualized within a broad range of perceptive ability and environmental adaption.
What affect would that have if as suggested above by Jan that we move our brains to a different body and how much else is filtered in some manner by the biology of the body providing sensory input to the brain? I can agree that the mind of I, is solidly connected and a part of the brain in which I arise, but I think it must also be connected (tied to) the purely biological mechanism that provides out sensory inputs.
Maybe not, and this is possibly just a think exercise, but it floats in my mind. Thanks for putting up with these thoughts.
Is "self" your mind, body, ego, brain, thoughts, 'soul' or WHAT?!
May I suggest some concepts like "being responsible for the maintenance and repair of your own body"? and "Being responsible for your own actions and their results"?
Where's my "self"? Does it live in or near my "soul"? How do you know and how can you rationally or experimentally prove your answer?
By the way, after some est Training, I DID figure out the answers to "if a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?" AND "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Answer #1: "First, accurately define 'SOUND' "
Answer #2: "As many as can fit, silly!"
Now back to your regularly-scheduled discussion.
:)
NOT.
:)
but you made my point for me.
Thanks.
Just like 'how many angels...'
But some folks just LOVE that rabbit hole!
:)
There is a world of difference between the right to life and self-ownership. Yes, self-ownership does raise the specter of slavery, but dropping that term and talking only about the right to life ignores the issue of slavery completely. Maybe it even tacitly allows for it.
As Objectivists, Reason should be our rose. The more controversial the idea, the more we should be discussing it so that we may come to a greater understanding of the issue. If there's a controversy, is reason being applied? No one argues that 1 plus 1 equals 2.
Several other groups did accept the article once Dale wrote it. But reactions are VERY strong. I find that curious. It seems something reasonable Os could disagree on.
One way to check the validity of a concept, or its application, is to ask, as Ayn Rand did, what are its “genetic roots” in the hierarchy of concepts, where, for example, a concept like “theft” makes no sense without the prior concept of “property.” The concept of “theft” is genetically depend upon the existence and validity of the concept “property.
I argue below that the concept of ownership is dependent upon, and derives from, the concept of a “right”—broadly the right to life. The right to life, on the Objectivist/Lockean view, is the right to take all those actions required for the survival over a life span of a being that survives by reason. Because we have such a right to freedom of action, what we create or produce or acquire by means of those actions belongs to us, we own them. This is the logical derivation of the concept of ownership from the concept of the right to life.
Inherent in the concept of the right to life--the right to self-sustained and self-generating action--is the right to do as we will with our person—including for example, having an abortion, selling an organ, or committing suicide. Those are not an issue of ownership, but an issue of our right to action.
Having derived the right to ownership from the right to life, as derived from it and dependent upon it, we cannot go back and apply the concept of “ownership” to our self, our person. If our right to life, to take all actions required for survival, does not encompass the right to take all actions in regard to our person, then the right to life is not valid. If so, it cannot generate and support the right to ownership.
Thus, to arrive at ownership and then go back to bolster the concept of the right to life by adding “self-ownership” is circular and violates the hierarchy of concepts.
My brother, Roger, has a brief reply but along exactly the same lines. He writes: "I would say that we need the concept "ownership" to assert our right to control something even when we are not currently exercising control over it. And since we are always currently exercising control over our own actions (even if we are thrown in a sack and carried off, it is we who control our body), it is not the concept of "ownership" that states our claim to exercise control over our actions. It is the right to liberty."
Respectfully, A right to life is not a right to one's own life. A right to life leads to the utilitarian concept of the greatest good for the greatest number, which makes us just like every other animal. We will keep the most people alive by taking your property. As Rand states:
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
The Virtue of Selfishness “Man’s Rights,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 94
The right to action is the right to one's own life - self ownership.
Human's are rational animals. As a rational animal I have to think for myself. I have a right to MY life because that is my nature. I have to think and act for myself, which means I own myself.
Every animal acts for its right to life as a species. Humans act for their individual right to their own life because of their unique nature
Self ownership is the right to act on your own behalf without the claims to your life or energy. Once you add all the right to act on one’s behalf as an individual, you have defined self ownership. It’s a simple definition. What I cannot understand is why you fight not only the clear definition but the historical basis.
By the way the fact that people are rational animals does not lead to a right to life, it leads to a right to your OWN life.
I need to track down Piekoff's podcast, because I find it hard to believe that he made the arguments that Mr Halling claims he made. Surely, he can't be serious. So what if ownership is a relationship between you and an external object? Everything, including Mr Peikoff, is an external object to me, you and everyone else. I am an external object to Mr Peikoff. So is he saying that it's impossible for me to own myself, but he or someone else can own me?
Ownership is not about possession. If I own a car but lend it to a friend, that car is no longer in my possession. Yet I still own it. Ownership is about the ultimate control of an object. Who decides to what use the object is put?
If you follow the idea of self-ownership to it's logical conclusions then you may start to raise awkward questions about the role of government in your life. Maybe a smaller government is better? Etc. But talking about the right to life, well now that just opens up the door for more government intervention. Don't wear a seatbelt in the car -- well, the government's there to force you to wear that seatbelt to protect your right to life. Starving kids in an oil-rich region? Send in the troupes and foreign aid. It's to protect their right to life.
I understand the "potential life" vs. "actual life" argument. Where I think that it fails is with a baby 10 mins prior to birth vs. that same baby 10 mins after birth. If you can provide a rational and logical basis for why one has rights and the other doesn't, then maybe you'll convince me. I'm open to the argument, just haven't seen one that is convincing.
I say no.
Of course because I believe there is no higher being than myself, then I must be God by my definition.
So what then can be the justification for not allowing or at least not enforcing a contract for slavery? Is it an unalienable right or property of self-ownership itself? I think it must be. Can anyone else think of an explanation why a contact for slavery should be invalid?
that someone else may own it. . at one time, I owned
my own virginity, and no one else could have. . I know;
my body is material and virginity is an attribute.
but this kind of ownership is different.....
people are not eligible to be property.
at one time, I advocated a theory of dependency:::
in order to deserve, in moral terms, to make the choices
which I make for myself, I must not be dependent
on others, else *they* may choose for me. . I know
that it is ridiculous, but how else can one come to
the conclusion that a woman may abort her fetus?
difficult argument. . it did help me learn to
fight hard to become as independent as possible.
but I own me. . and if you try to own me,
I will make it a very bad time for you. . -- j