MarcStevens.net Forum
NonE's call about self-ownership - Printable Version

+- MarcStevens.net Forum (http://marcstevens.net/board)
+-- Forum: There Is No STATE (/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Property (/forum-37.html)
+--- Thread: NonE's call about self-ownership (/thread-2836.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Dionysus - 10-31-2011 03:00 PM

Okay, NonE. Since you have no interest in owning yourself, I will fill that void and claim ownership over you— after all, you’re nothing but a biological automaton, right? I talked it over with “society” and they agreed (once I explained things to them). As my first act as your new owner, I command you to demonstrate your loyalty to me by occupying a hole in the ground until I say “stop.” Big Grin


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 10-31-2011 04:03 PM

(10-31-2011 03:00 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  Okay, NonE. Since you have no interest in owning yourself, I will fill that void and claim ownership over you— after all, you’re nothing but a biological automaton, right? I talked it over with “society” and they agreed (once I explained things to them). As my first act of your new owner, I command you to demonstrate your loyalty to me by occupying a hole in the ground until I say “stop.” Big Grin


How do you figure that I don't have any interest in owning myself? It may very well be that I have a great interest in being a seven foot tall virgin with a penis made of gold. That interest isn't likely to make that come about.


As Jack Webb Marc Stevens says on his TV show, "The facts ma'am, just the facts."







Quote:Wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'
Plannin' and dreaming each night of his charms
That won't get you into his arms

So if you're lookin' to find love you can share
All you gotta do is
Hold him and kiss him and love him
And show him that you care

Show him that you care just for him
And do the things he likes to do
Wear your hair just for him, 'cause
You won't get him
Thinkin' and a-prayin'
Wishin' and a-hopin'

Just wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'
Plannin' and dreamin' his kiss is the start
That won't get you into his heart

So if you're thinkin' heartbreak
True love is
All you gotta do is
Hold him and kiss him and squeeze him and love him
Yeah, just do it and after you do, you will be his

(You gotta)
Show him that you care just for him
Do the things he likes to do
Wear your hair just for him, 'cause
You won't get him
Thinkin' and a-prayin'
Wishin' and a-hopin'

Just wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'
Plannin' and dreamin' his kiss is the start
That won't get you into his heart

So if you're thinkin' heartbreak
True love is
All you gotta do is
Hold him and kiss him and squeeze him and love him
Yeah, just do it and after you do, you will be his
You will be his
You will be his

- NonE


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Dionysus - 10-31-2011 04:58 PM

^^ That's very interesting, Mr. Entity. Lie right down here on the couch. How long have you had this desire to be a seven foot tall penis with a virgin made of gold?? Cool

Maybe owning yourself is something that's a state of mind, but it's a state of mind that's the sine qua non for being human. Then again, I'm probably talking out my backside again, and nobody should pay attention to anything I say.


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - zonsb - 10-31-2011 05:07 PM

(10-31-2011 03:00 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  Okay, NonE. Since you have no interest in owning yourself, I will fill that void and claim ownership over you— after all, you’re nothing but a biological automaton, right? I talked it over with “society” and they agreed (once I explained things to them). As my first act as your new owner, I command you to demonstrate your loyalty to me by occupying a hole in the ground until I say “stop.” Big Grin

You're not likely to get agreement from a person that is steadfast on refusing to agree. I'm fairly certain the vast majority of people (better than 95%) will benefit from the idea they own themselves and that it will assist them in bringing about a voluntary society. It seems almost certain that it will assist them more than trying to convince them they don't own themselves and that non-ownership of themselves will better assist them in bringing about a voluntary society. By reason, people can come to agreement on what ownership is so as to use it in their agreements. Those that can't or don't want to, wont use it in their agreements.

I'll stick with the 95%, thank you very much, NonEntity. [Image: biggrin.gif]

--


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 10-31-2011 05:25 PM

(10-31-2011 05:07 PM)zonsb Wrote:  
(10-31-2011 03:00 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  Okay, NonE. Since you have no interest in owning yourself, I will fill that void and claim ownership over you— after all, you’re nothing but a biological automaton, right? I talked it over with “society” and they agreed (once I explained things to them). As my first act as your new owner, I command you to demonstrate your loyalty to me by occupying a hole in the ground until I say “stop.” Big Grin

You're not likely to get agreement from a person that is steadfast on refusing to agree. I'm fairly certain the vast majority of people (better than 95%) will benefit from the idea they own themselves and that it will assist them in bringing about a voluntary society. It seems almost certain that it will assist them more than trying to convince them they don't own themselves and that non-ownership of themselves will better assist them in bringing about a voluntary society. By reason, people can come to agreement on what ownership is so as to use it in their agreements. Those that can't or don't want to, wont use it in their agreements.

I'll stick with the 95%, thank you very much, NonEntity. [Image: biggrin.gif]

--

Well, this is the issue as I see it: The idea of rights and ownership and such interrelated stuff can be very beneficial. But I do believe that they are only beneficial when people understand that these ideas are beneficial if CHOSEN. It's kinda like the idea of morality. If you don't have a choice in something, then morality is not an issue. Morality is only an issue if YOU CAN CHOOSE what to do, and you choose to take the moral course.

Does that make any sense?

It's like how state provided welfare is not charity. By definition, charity is something one CHOOSES to provide another.

And what I see, and I've been hanging around the libertarian community for a LONG time, is that the idea of "rights" ends up with people acting like bullies rather than acting with respect towards others.

In complete contradiction with Wendy McElroy (for whom I have a GREAT deal of respect), rights come from contract, not visa versa. It is only when you hold the OTHER PARTY with regard and respect that "rights" make sense. Otherwise it is simply a unilateral claim that others ARE REQUIRED to treat you in a certain fashion. A fashion largely one of your own mental making.

We are social animals. We need each other, as well as enjoy each other. Each person's needs vary with the individual and with the time. That being the case it is necessary to have some empathy towards others rather than only looking at your own personal "rights."

I don't know if that helps you to grasp where I'm coming from on this issue.

The idea of "rights" and "ownership" is binary, and we don't live a binary existence. That form of thinking has some benefits but it is not an accurate reflection of life and living.

- NonE


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - zonsb - 10-31-2011 05:49 PM

(10-31-2011 05:25 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(10-31-2011 05:07 PM)zonsb Wrote:  
(10-31-2011 03:00 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  Okay, NonE. Since you have no interest in owning yourself, I will fill that void and claim ownership over you— after all, you’re nothing but a biological automaton, right? I talked it over with “society” and they agreed (once I explained things to them). As my first act as your new owner, I command you to demonstrate your loyalty to me by occupying a hole in the ground until I say “stop.” Big Grin

You're not likely to get agreement from a person that is steadfast on refusing to agree. I'm fairly certain the vast majority of people (better than 95%) will benefit from the idea they own themselves and that it will assist them in bringing about a voluntary society. It seems almost certain that it will assist them more than trying to convince them they don't own themselves and that non-ownership of themselves will better assist them in bringing about a voluntary society. By reason, people can come to agreement on what ownership is so as to use it in their agreements. Those that can't or don't want to, wont use it in their agreements.

I'll stick with the 95%, thank you very much, NonEntity. [Image: biggrin.gif]

--

Well, this is the issue as I see it: The idea of rights and ownership and such interrelated stuff can be very beneficial. But I do believe that they are only beneficial when people understand that these ideas are beneficial if CHOSEN.

I agree. Rights and ownership are product of reason and come into existence by agreement -- chosen by voluntary support.

--


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 10-31-2011 06:05 PM

(10-31-2011 05:49 PM)zonsb Wrote:  I agree. Rights and ownership are product of reason and come into existence by agreement -- chosen by voluntary support.

--
Interesting that you say this, as my impression of you is one of the Ayn Randian, Objectivist sorts who tend (in my experience) to PROCLAIM things, rather that to seek agreement. That is the big issue I've had with that First Principles thing you pointed to so much for a while... it was all filled with claims and demands about HOW THINGS ARE and such which TOTALLY alienates me.

That is the essence of my disagreement with the general libertarian, well and the republican and the democrat and the zionist and the communist and the socialist and ... you get the idea - when someone stands up and proclaims that this is the way I have to think and behave, well I have a problem with that. Now if they lay out their thinking and ask me if I'd like to join them in something or other, I'm much more amenable.

It's kind like, how do you force someone to be free? If you're wanting to force me, well... NO. It's quite simple.

- NonE

{edit} What do you mean, I have a problem with authority? You're GOD DAMNED RIGHT I DO!

{additional edit} WOW! See that? My reaction, my emotion, in that last edit is exactly what propels people to proclaim that the OWN THEMSELVES. I am exhibiting that behavior. But my logical analysis refutes my instinctive emotional response and allows me to grasp that "ownership" is more complex than simple territorial instinct. Or at least I think it is. Wouldn't it be funny if I talk myself out of my own theory? It wouldn't be the first time.


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Dionysus - 10-31-2011 06:40 PM

I suspect self-ownership, like morality in general, is something where it's useful to operate as if it exists.


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 10-31-2011 06:44 PM

(10-31-2011 06:40 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  I suspect self-ownership, like morality in general, is something where it's useful to operate as if it exists.

EGGZACKLY, dude. Just like rights. But unless you consciously understand that all other people have the SAME rights as you, then it breaks down and becomes a claim against others.

{edit} There's this big thing in the libertarian community about the difference between "positive" rights and "negative" rights. Well it's all a load of crap*, cuz "negative" rights are "positive" rights. All "rights" are a claim against the choices that others make.

- NonE

* my subtle respectful way of stating something so as to gain the most respect and appreciation from those who might not completely agree with my thinking. Confused


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Dionysus - 10-31-2011 06:52 PM

^^ That being said, I still can't shake the feeling that I do indeed own myself. Is that an illusion or a parlor trick? Who knows? If so, it's a damn good one.


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 10-31-2011 06:56 PM

(10-31-2011 06:52 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  ^^ That being said, I still can't shake the feeling that I do indeed own myself. Is that an illusion or a parlor trick? Who knows? If so, it's a damn good one.

Did you read my article?

If so, don't you see that "ownership" is not about possession? It's about others having respect for your desire to control certain things. There is no question that you "possess" "yourself" (although it really is oxymoronic). The issue is do you "Own" yourself, and I can claim that I own any damned thing, that does not make it mine. It is only "mine" if others grant me the respect of my claim.

- NonE


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - zonsb - 10-31-2011 07:12 PM

(10-31-2011 06:05 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(10-31-2011 05:49 PM)zonsb Wrote:  I agree. Rights and ownership are product of reason and come into existence by agreement -- chosen by voluntary support.

--

Interesting that you say this, as my impression of you is one of the Ayn Randian, Objectivist sorts who tend (in my experience) to PROCLAIM things, rather that to seek agreement.

With the exception of one additional phrase in what I wrote above (the section of my words you quoted), I've written the same in several posts regarding rights and ownership -- I've done that recently for both rights and ownership and back on the old board too (on the old board it was about rights, not ownership). The additional phrase was superfluous and I only included it because I'm aware of you assuming wrongly. For agreement to be an agreement it must be by voluntary support. An agreement, like a contract, must be entered into voluntarily.

I think I remember your earlier "impression", and I have the thread archived. It was your clouded perception wherein you assumed wrong. Similar to when you "challenged" me not so long ago on the money, power and glory thread in your response to another member. You assumed wrong and had nothing to support your claim.

(10-31-2011 06:05 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  That is the big issue I've had with that First Principles thing you pointed to so much for a while... it was all filled with claims and demands about HOW THINGS ARE and such

You'll need to provide evidence to support that. I don't recall ever writing about first principles here or on the old board. Seems in your mind you have me confused with someone else that wrote about first principle.

--


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 10-31-2011 07:22 PM

(10-31-2011 07:12 PM)zonsb Wrote:  I think I remember your earlier "impression", and I have the thread archived. It was your clouded perception wherein you assumed wrong. Similar to when you "challenged" me not so long ago on the money, power and glory thread in your response to another member. You assumed wrong and had nothing to support your claim.

See, this is an example of where I have trouble. In my sense of things, communication is something which requires more than one party. You are basically laying blame on me for not understanding what you believe you have clearly communicated. But communication requires that an idea be conveyed FROM one person TO another, and if I didn't understand, it is a failure of communication. It is not necessarily my fault, and if you really did desire to communicate, rather than to put me down, you would see that I failed to grasp what you attempted to communicate and try to put it in a fashion which makes sense to me. Failing that you could simple say, "I see you don't grasp my intended meaning," and leave it at that, rather than blaming me for the failure.


zonsb Wrote:
(10-31-2011 06:05 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  That is the big issue I've had with that First Principles thing you pointed to so much for a while... it was all filled with claims and demands about HOW THINGS ARE and such

You'll need to provide evidence to support that. I don't recall ever writing about first principles here or on the old board. Seems in your mind you have me confused with someone else that wrote about first principle.

Here again, are you trying to understand my point, or are you trying to make me wrong? I don't remember exactly what you called the thing you were promoting. I remembered it as I said above. Okay I was wrong, but there is some set of rules that you have been pushing for months at the bottom of most of your posts.

If you care to try and communicate, I'd be happy to, but it will take a little consideration on your part as well.

I'm perfectly happy to admit when I am wrong, but you have to treat me with respect... AND you have to help me to grasp where it is that I am wrong, if I am.

- NonE


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - notavoter - 10-31-2011 07:46 PM

If the question was put to any average nimrod in the region of Earth known as America “Do you own yourself?” I think a good many would shrug the responsibility off onto some unicorn in the sky. Others would respond with “Of course I do!” as they trot off to their government job and pay their taxes.

I do claim I own myself but that claim is violated every moment I breathe because of all the violence that resides in so many hearts.

There are approximately 300,000,000 governments in this region of the planet running around trying to decrease that number in some violent way.


RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 10-31-2011 07:52 PM

(10-31-2011 07:46 PM)notavoter Wrote:  I do claim I own myself but that claim is violated every moment I breathe because of all the violence that resides in so many hearts.

So what I seem to hear you saying is that your claim has as much validity as mine to be a seven foot virgin with a gold penis. Is that about right?

- NonE Cool