NonE's call about self-ownership
Current time: 04-29-2017, 06:18 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Dionysus
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 254
Views: 140729

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NonE's call about self-ownership
10-31-2011, 08:07 PM
Post: #46
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Yes NonE, that is absolutely correct. If it was not this forum would not exist. So I make the claim constantly and somewhere that claim is violated.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-31-2011, 08:37 PM (This post was last modified: 10-31-2011 08:43 PM by zonsb.)
Post: #47
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-31-2011 07:22 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(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. You are basically laying blame on me for not understanding what you believe you have clearly communicated.

Like on the money, power and glory thread where you did nothing to support your claim that I ridiculed you and claimed I didn't try to explain my position in hope of you understanding. I asked you to support your claims and you did nothing. You did nothing to clarify/support your claim/position. So I posted our dialog and it didn't support your claim. What you claimed I did was your projection. That dialog showed that you ridiculed me and I did try in several posts to clarify and explain my position to you.

Quote: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.

Like in the above mentioned dialog of ours that I re-posted into the money, power and glory thread. Obviously in that re-posted dialog I failed to communicate. But it sure wasn't because I didn't try, because I did try to communicate arguments that supported my position. Nor did I ridicule you for not understanding. You ridiculed me for not understanding your position.

Quote: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.

In the much earlier thread, at that time I did tell you that you had assumed wrong and I further clarified. Fine. But you bring it up today as though I never clarified. I have no intent of putting you down. I haven't sugar coated my response. That is all.

(10-31-2011 07:22 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
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.

Basically you're claiming I've been pushing the flying spaghetti monster. Something in your mind, apparently you don't know what it is enough to identify it with evidence -- some nebulous thing in your mind that bothers you. Provide evidence of what I wrote that troubles you and state your case for why it bothers you.

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

Do you want me to imagine/fabricate your argument for you of what bothers/troubles you about something I've written; then attribute it to you as though you created the argument rather than me having fabricated it; and have me make a counter argument to my fabricated argument? When you put forth evidence of something I wrote that bothers/troubles you and state your case for why it bothers you I will give you consideration/value in return. Until then, I don't know how I can help you. Because I'm not going to create an argument for you and then make a counter argument against it.

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-31-2011, 09:38 PM
Post: #48
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-31-2011 08:37 PM)zonsb Wrote:  Do you want me to imagine/fabricate your argument for you of what bothers/troubles you about something I've written; then attribute it to you as though you created the argument rather than me having fabricated it; and have me make a counter argument to my fabricated argument? When you put forth evidence of something I wrote that bothers/troubles you and state your case for why it bothers you I will give you consideration/value in return. Until then, I don't know how I can help you. Because I'm not going to create an argument for you and then make a counter argument against it.
I have a hard time imagining that you don't know what the thing was that you were promoting at the bottom of each post for months, but it may be so. The something or something "Party"...? Does that ring a bell. At any rate, I am not trying to argue. I simply brought it up to give to you as an example of what I see as a contradiction between your "totally voluntary" stance of a few posts back with this other thing which basically made claims and demands of what must be believed. So that's all. If it doesn't ring a bell, fine. It's not worth the trouble and I have more to do with my life than to catalog all of the conversations I may have been involved in over the years.

- NonE

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 12:50 AM
Post: #49
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-31-2011 09:38 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(10-31-2011 08:37 PM)zonsb Wrote:  Do you want me to imagine/fabricate your argument for you of what bothers/troubles you about something I've written; then attribute it to you as though you created the argument rather than me having fabricated it; and have me make a counter argument to my fabricated argument? When you put forth evidence of something I wrote that bothers/troubles you and state your case for why it bothers you I will give you consideration/value in return. Until then, I don't know how I can help you. Because I'm not going to create an argument for you and then make a counter argument against it.

I have a hard time imagining that you don't know what the thing was that you were promoting at the bottom of each post for months, but it may be so. The something or something "Party"...? Does that ring a bell.

Yes. Thank you. The Twelve Visions Party is 100% percent voluntary. I do recall that several times you appeared to have a blind spot that if a completely voluntary, customer-driven protection service calls itself a government, that a government in name only contradicts a voluntary society despite that it never uses initiatory force, threat of force or fraud. It's really not that hard to grasp, for most people. I see no sense in discussing it when you've shown no interest in learning what it is factually, rather than hold onto your belief of what it is

It's actually kind of funny; you searching to identify and articulate an argument predicated on a belief. There is a search function and you could have searched "Party" by author "zonsb".

Quote:I simply brought it up to give to you as an example of what I see as a contradiction between your "totally voluntary" stance of a few posts back with this other thing which basically made claims and demands of what must be believed.

The Twelve Visions Party makes no claims and demands what must be believed. But hey, it's your belief and I suppose you have a "right" to it.

Quote:it was all filled with claims and demands about HOW THINGS ARE and such which TOTALLY alienates me.

Interesting that you think it alienates you rather than your belief alienates you? If I were to say the purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily, and that's not true of your life, why do you allow it to TOTALLY alienate you?

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 07:19 AM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2011 07:51 AM by NonEntity.)
Post: #50
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(11-01-2011 12:50 AM)zonsb Wrote:  
Quote:it was all filled with claims and demands about HOW THINGS ARE and such which TOTALLY alienates me.

Interesting that you think it alienates you rather than your belief alienates you? If I were to say the purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily, and that's not true of your life, why do you allow it to TOTALLY alienate you?

--

Yes, the Twelve Visions Party. Sorry I didn't remember the name.

Now to your point. I see what you are saying, and I guess you may have a good point, i.e. that just because someone makes a claim that doesn't really mean a thing unless I ACCEPT their claim. So it's really my issue. Good point. I'll give that some ponderin'.

To give you my perspective on it, the statement, for instance, that the purpose of life is to prosper and blah blah blah, turns me off because it is a claim, rather than a supposition. For instance, what I consider polite is that when we are discussing an idea we can agree on certain things for the purpose of the discussion. So I would say, if we agree that the purpose of life is to blah blah blah, then ... and here goes my argument. But the way this thing is stated is to simply CLAIM that such and such is so, and then go on from there. My mind (but apparently not yours) sees that as a claim followed by demands. Because X then Y. This is an assertion. I think that most laws are written similarly. They take a position and then claim the right to act in a given manner because of that position. "We own the roads, therefore you will apply for a driver's license before you can exit your property." "Since you live here you have agreed that we own you." And so on.

That's the way my mind sees your Twelve Party stuff.

- NonE

{edit} P.S. I just was reading Eye2's post about E-Prime and this quote applies to my comments made above:
Quote:It allows us to play God using the omniscient "Deity mode" of speech, as when we say, "That is the truth .' It allows even the most ignorant to transform their opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things . Its overuse allows one to communicate sloppily without unduly taxing the brain by trying to come up with more appropriate verbs.

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 08:33 AM
Post: #51
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
Idea[muse`i'cal interlude]
[bracketed words, mine --eye2i]
Kellogg/Bourland Wrote:
We can dramatically illustrate the pervasive [Authoritarian] use of "to be" by the pidgin use of [the word] "equals" instead. Let's consider one example in detail. Originally, we can assume that a sincere, thoughtful person wrote this bit of semantic gobbledygook. The reader may wish to convert each instance of "is" to "equals" to underscore the misery: "Because language is the symbolization of thought, and symbols are the basic unit of culture, speech is a cultural phenomenon fundamental to what civilization is."

Now suppose we try to recast this assertion into E-Prime, and attempt to capture what the writer might have tried to express, but could not with all of those "is's" of identity gumming up the works. We believe that the author, whose name we've withheld to protect the guilty, might have meant something like this: "Because language depends upon the symbolization of thought, and because symbols define the basic unit of a culture, speech as a cultural phenomenon plays a fundamental role in civilization as we know it." (E. K.)

Or this: "Semantic reactions provide the basis for the linguistic and, more generally, symbolic behaviors that constitute the basic unit of cultures. Hence we must recognize speech (in the broadest sense) as a cultural phenomenon fundamental to each specific civilization.'' (D. B.)

From our point of view, the original "is-of identity" mode version sounds rather trite and pompous, whereas the E-Prime versions at least have the virtue of providing the basis for further scientific/philosophical investigations.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
[/muse`i'cal interlude]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 02:08 PM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2011 02:12 PM by Dionysus.)
Post: #52
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
So, the more I cogitate on this self-ownership dealie, the more I become convinced that there are some things that simply defy lending themselves to the ”ownership” concept. What exactly is meant by “I” and “me” in the declaration: “I own me”? If it’s the physical body, then yes, an argument can be made that I don’t necessarily own “myself.” In fact, the “state” basically comes right out and claims it “owns you” lock, stock and barrel. It robs you of your labor via taxes and inflation. It makes you get permission to engage in peaceful economic activity. It abducts you (or worse) if you behave (even peacefully) in a way it doesn’t approve of. At length, it considers you to be nothing more than a milk cow (and even a beef cow if it has to). It’s hard to argue that the state doesn’t have at least some degree of ownership over you— that is, the physical body you. But what if there is more to “you” than your physical body? Yes, I’m talking about things like spirit, soul, consciousness, etc.-- the noncorporeal, nonphysical, ineffable, eternal “you.” Could it be that ownership only applies to the material world? I know-- this raises the whole dreaded “intellectual property” issue. I personally don’t believe IP is a valid form of property, but the issue hasn’t really been settled (and may never be), and I don’t want to waste time debating it here. I’m just throwing it out there that if we really are more than our physical bodies, it’s nonsensical to even talk about the “more than” part of us being “owned.” How would such ownership be manifested or demonstrated to anyone’s satisfaction? I’m reminded of a Three Stooges episode where Curly exclaimed, “I’m not me!!!” (to which Moe replied in typical smart-ass fashion, “’I’m not me’… nice grammar.” Smile So, that’s it then. Going forward, that will be my “final solution” to the “self-ownership” conundrum. Yes, I may not “own myself,” but that’s okay, ‘cause I’m not me!!! Thanks, Curly-- you’re a flippin’ genius! Big Grin

P.S.— I’m sure the materialists out there will say this is a bunch of hooey. To that, I respond: Go ahead.. make my day. Tounge
P.P.S.— I wish Marc would chime in on this (after all, he kind of started it). I’m sure he’d have some interesting things to add.

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 02:43 PM
Post: #53
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(11-01-2011 02:08 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  So, the more I cogitate on this self-ownership dealie, the more I become convinced that there are some things that simply defy...

So I've succeeded in ruining your mind for any actual mental functioning? COOL! Big Grin

- NonE (whose work here is done. Adios and Good Night.)

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 02:57 PM
Post: #54
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
^^ Yeah, nice job. I’ll sue!!! Big Grin But seriously, if it turns out that there is no nonphysical “you,” then I would have to agree that you don’t (necessarily) own yourself (although you very well could if all the conditions of ownership are met, whatever they happen to be). But I’ve been arguing using the assumption (actually, more than an assumption) that there is a nonphysical “you.” So you haven’t won yet. Tounge

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 03:55 PM
Post: #55
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(11-01-2011 02:57 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  ^^ Yeah, nice job. I’ll sue!!! Big Grin But seriously, if it turns out that there is no nonphysical “you,” then I would have to agree that you don’t (necessarily) own yourself (although you very well could if all the conditions of ownership are met, whatever they happen to be). But I’ve been arguing using the assumption (actually, more than an assumption) that there is a nonphysical “you.” So you haven’t won yet. Tounge

Dude. All life is a process. "You can never step twice in the same river." Go and check out the great material I pulled of of a book... HERE

- NonE

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 04:29 PM
Post: #56
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(11-01-2011 07:19 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  My mind (but apparently not yours) sees that as a claim followed by demands. Because X then Y. This is an assertion. I think that most laws are written similarly. They take a position and then claim the right to act in a given manner because of that position.

The sentence that the purpose of human life is to live happily and prosper is in the preamble. It's not one of the three articles. Absent initiatory force, threat of force and fraud by a government-in-name-only company, which is a prerequisite of a valid contract, what you just described also describes a voluntary contract agreement. Two or more people take a position and then claim the right to act in a given manner because of that position. If it so turns you off you need not be a customer.

Quote:"We own the roads, therefore you will apply for a driver's license before you can exit your property." "Since you live here you have agreed that we own you." And so on.

You apply tenets of an involuntary government to a voluntary government-in-name-only company.

Quote:That's the way my mind sees your Twelve Party stuff.

So be it. I have no problem with that. It's your problem, not mine. The TVP doesn't exist to sing to the anarchist/voluntarist choir. If and when you want relief from your lack of knowledge (ignorance) of the TVP the party platform is on their website.

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 04:39 PM
Post: #57
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(11-01-2011 04:29 PM)zonsb Wrote:  So be it. I have no problem with that. It's your problem, not mine. The TVP doesn't exist to sing to the anarchist/voluntarist choir. If and when you want relief from your lack of knowledge (ignorance) of the TVP the party platform is on their website.
That's cool. I was just trying to help you to see how my eyes viewed that material, for whatever that may be worth.

- NonE

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 04:51 PM
Post: #58
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
This is why I missed this forum. I could always count on NonE for a good dose of reality.


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

I'd say that's a great place to start.

The trick is to not only get people to see that they own themselves, but that other people own themselves as well. Proclaiming self-ownership is waste of time. It sure is hard to be a self owner when your neighbor has no problem being a slave owner.

This is why your self-ownership rests on the choices other humans make. This is why RESPECTING self-ownership is the KEY.

Now, who gets to define respect? We have to all agree on something here, NonE or it runs the risk of becoming relative and false.

NonE is right, it's all about the choice.
Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 04:57 PM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2011 04:57 PM by zonsb.)
Post: #59
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(11-01-2011 04:39 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(11-01-2011 04:29 PM)zonsb Wrote:  So be it. I have no problem with that. It's your problem, not mine. The TVP doesn't exist to sing to the anarchist/voluntarist choir. If and when you want relief from your lack of knowledge (ignorance) of the TVP the party platform is on their website.
That's cool. I was just trying to help you to see how my eyes viewed that material, for whatever that may be worth.

I saw your view point on the first, second and now third or forth thread you've shared it on. I doubt I wrote anything I haven't basically said in my previous posts to those threads.

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2011, 05:52 PM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2011 07:35 PM by Dionysus.)
Post: #60
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(11-01-2011 03:55 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Dude. All life is a process. "You can never step twice in the same river." Go and check out the great material I pulled of of a book... HERE

- NonE

A "process???" Sorry, but that seems like one of those "handwaving" things. Or dropping back and punting, to use a metaphor. I thought you were better than that.

ETA: Lemme ask you point blank: Do you believe the state owns you? There's no debating that the state claims to own you (even if it doesn't explicitly say so, its actions speak louder than words). If you don't at least claim to own yourself to counteract the state's claim, it will fill the vacuum for you. And if you do believe the state owns you, why not just do what it tells you and be happy about it?

ETA 2: There used to be a cartoon show on called "Rocko's Modern Life," which depicted a corporation called Conglom-O whose slogan was: "We own you!" But now it should be: "The State - We own you!"

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)