This seems a bit extreme

[Adrock-JD]

Really? For kissing? Damn. I would've been burned at the stake a long, long time ago.
Let me take a moment to give thanks to the universe for all the freedoms I take for granted.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's when someone believes that they personally are the greater judge of this because of their "superior culture" or whatever else that we get into problems.

Exactly. And that's why the Moroccan police are wrong: they have no superior culture to tell a couple of teenagers how they have to behave.

If that's not so, then you have to hold that burning gays at the stake is perfectly moral in places where that is the cultural custom.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Exactly. And that's why the Moroccan police are wrong: they have no superior culture to tell a couple of teenagers how they have to behave.

If that's not so, then you have to hold that burning gays at the stake is perfectly moral in places where that is the cultural custom.

Surely Kul, you are not implying that the only time a cop in the U.S. arrests or confronts someone about anything it's because the cop is personally morally superior to the individual in question. I'd be quite insulted from some of my experiences, lmao.

 

[Kulindahr]

Surely Kul, you are not implying that the only time a cop in the U.S. arrests or confronts someone about anything it's because the cop is personally morally superior to the individual in question. I'd be quite insulted from some of my experiences, lmao.

I said nothing about the cops.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I said nothing about the cops.

I know what you said and I also you know the correct way to change laws. So these proclamations you're making implying everyone is entitled to anarchy under arbitrary rules you set from your cultural perspective is silly and pointless.

 

[LeicsDom]

Of course there's nothing morally reprehensible about eating beef: as self-owned individuals, we are free to choose to eat whatever we wish. Self-ownership gives us the Golden Rule, and that is the only rational moral ground.

But that is the issue here. Draconian rules are being imposed on people. They have no free will or option to self-own

 

[Kulindahr]

But that is the issue here. Draconian rules are being imposed on people. They have no free will or option to self-own

If they don't have self-ownership, then anything that's done to them is perfectly moral.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Of course there's nothing morally reprehensible about eating beef: as self-owned individuals, we are free to choose to eat whatever we wish. Self-ownership gives us the Golden Rule, and that is the only rational moral ground.

You ought to start a "self-ownership is the basis of rational morality" thread so that we can figure out what you mean.

 

[Kulindahr]

You ought to start a "self-ownership is the basis of rational morality" thread so that we can figure out what you mean.

I'm not sure, but I think I did that once.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I'm not sure, but I think I did that once.

'Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.'

 

[belamyi]

If they don't have self-ownership, then anything that's done to them is perfectly moral.

I think that what the other guy actually meant was that they have been dispossessed of their self-ownership: does it all still sound as moral?

 

[Kulindahr]

I think that what the other guy actually meant was that they have been dispossessed of their self-ownership: does it all still sound as moral?

You can't be dispossessed of your self-ownership without a total lobotomy.

 

[belamyi]

You can't be dispossessed of your self-ownership without a total lobotomy.

You are so naive and crude: one doesn't need to have read Chomsky to know that that is not true

 

[Kulindahr]

You are so naive and crude: one doesn't need to have read Chomsky to know that that is not true

So long as your mind is your own, your self-ownership is intact.

 

[belamyi]

So long as your mind is your own, your self-ownership is intact.

To say that you can't be dispossessed of your self-ownership without a total lobotomy, is like saying that your body can't lose fitness until it is maimed.

 

[Kulindahr]

To say that you can't be dispossessed of your self-ownership without a total lobotomy, is like saying that your body can't lose fitness until it is maimed.

The comparison fails. Unless someone else has taken charge of your mind, you own yourself.

This is why the saying, "You can't conquer a free man, you can only kill him" is true.

 

[belamyi]

The comparison fails. Unless someone else has taken charge of your mind, you own yourself.

This is why the saying, "You can't conquer a free man, you can only kill him" is true.

What fails is that pretense that any abstract claim to ownership makes any real sense, ignoring the actual exercise of faculty: you are arguing with the exact same sort of fallacy that use those who are for a private management of hospitals, while preserving the public ownership of them... the actually screw it, but since it all still had a label of ownership aimed at others, they can pretend that their consciences are clear, first by not having dispossessed anyone and then by just having done "their job".

Our Western world is run by that today: you create an abstract package with a label of ownership, assign a value to it, and some derive all the profit while others are charged with the responsibility of clearing up the mess. In your case it is all the more dangerous because it is all abstract, without even the balances and the money as a material part to guide your confused brains.

 

[Kulindahr]

What fails is that pretense that any abstract claim to ownership makes any real sense, ignoring the actual exercise of faculty:

There's nothing abstract about it. It's the solid fact upon which every gain in the exercise of liberty has ever rested. The American Revolution and all the other battles for freedom that followed it, right up through the Arab Spring, rested on self-ownership. If those people hadn't owned themselves, they would have never lifted an eyelid, let alone ventured out to do battle with tyrants.

you are arguing with the exact same sort of fallacy that use those who are for a private management of hospitals, while preserving the public ownership of them... the actually screw it, but since it all still had a label of ownership aimed at others, they can pretend that their consciences are clear, first by not having dispossessed anyone and then by just having done "their job".

How do you link ownership of self with customs of private property? I know the Randians pretend to do that, partly by butchering Locke, but the connection is specious at best.

Our Western world is run by that today: you create an abstract package with a label of ownership, assign a value to it, and some derive all the profit while others are charged with the responsibility of clearing up the mess. In your case it is all the more dangerous because it is all abstract, without even the balances and the money as a material part to guide your confused brains.

Our Western world is based on the fact that most people aren't aware that they own themselves. Those in power don't want people to know they own themselves, or they might wake up and shake off their slavery. The Western world is propertarian, and to propertarians all things are property, including other people.

 

[belamyi]

There's nothing abstract about it. It's the solid fact upon which every gain in the exercise of liberty has ever rested. The American Revolution and all the other battles for freedom that followed it, right up through the Arab Spring, rested on self-ownership. If those people hadn't owned themselves, they would have never lifted an eyelid, let alone ventured out to do battle with tyrants.

You keep mistaking a tale build on the partial understanding of actual, "solid fact"s with the facts themselves. The danger of it all is that most people who talk about freedom and their heros do not actually ever think about it so much as about those they want to oppose: that is why Spartans, the nazis of Ancient Greece, who fought to enslave people to work for them and were even bribed by those they so bravely opposed a couple of years before, can pass for fighters for Western freedom in Antiquity, and also why any average terrorist can claim to be fighting for freedom too.

What you take as "not abstract" is not an actual fact, but the feeling of your own conviction in your temper and blood pressure.

How do you link ownership of self with customs of private property? I know the Randians pretend to do that, partly by butchering Locke, but the connection is specious at best.

By law. Simply. You know it is done as a fact, but you willingly forget it the moment it spoils your picture of the perfect tale of freedom and self-ownership. You are in the same wagon of those who say that people choose and agree to enslave themselves to be exploited in an unfair contractual agreement in exchange of a salary and, to strive to maintain intact your perfect fairy-world of perfect righteouness, statements of the sort I just forwarded are labelled as "communist propaganda" or the likes.

Our Western world is based on the fact that most people aren't aware that they own themselves. Those in power don't want people to know they own themselves, or they might wake up and shake off their slavery. The Western world is propertarian, and to propertarians all things are property, including other people.

Our Western world is based on the fact that most people believe that they already own themselves as something given that doesn't need to be maintain and developed every single second of their lives.

Maybe you are referring to the fact that our whole world is based on the fact that most people are not aware that they have the power to stand for themselves without letting themselves be drawn by the current of habit, law made by others, or the few happy moments that drive them away from the pain of striving to actually own themselves.

 

[Kulindahr]

You keep mistaking a tale build on the partial understanding of actual, "solid fact"s with the facts themselves. The danger of it all is that most people who talk about freedom and their heros do not actually ever think about it so much as about those they want to oppose: that is why Spartans, the nazis of Ancient Greece, who fought to enslave people to work for them and were even bribed by those they so bravely opposed a couple of years before, can pass for fighters for Western freedom in Antiquity, and also why any average terrorist can claim to be fighting for freedom too.

What you take as "not abstract" is not an actual fact, but the feeling of your own conviction in your temper and blood pressure.

If you're correct, then there could never be any revolutions, never be any labor strikes, never be even so much as a mild political protest.

By law. Simply. You know it is done as a fact, but you willingly forget it the moment it spoils your picture of the perfect tale of freedom and self-ownership. You are in the same wagon of those who say that people choose and agree to enslave themselves to be exploited in an unfair contractual agreement in exchange of a salary and, to strive to maintain intact your perfect fairy-world of perfect righteouness, statements of the sort I just forwarded are labelled as "communist propaganda" or the likes.

Law is an artificial construct, almost always something rigged by the people with power to keep the rest in line. There is no connection at all between self-ownership and "ownership" of physical property.

You complain about "unfair contractual agreement", but your argument, that there is no self-ownership, is what makes those possible. The lie that people only own the freedom the law gives them is what makes unfair contracts possible.

Our Western world is based on the fact that most people believe that they already own themselves as something given that doesn't need to be maintain and developed every single second of their lives.

Maybe you are referring to the fact that our whole world is based on the fact that most people are not aware that they have the power to stand for themselves without letting themselves be drawn by the current of habit, law made by others, or the few happy moments that drive them away from the pain of striving to actually own themselves.

People think they believe they own themselves, but they don't really. People who really understand that they own themselves are the ones who stand up to tyranny. If Americans actually understood that they own themselves, neither the current authoritarian president nor his fascist predecessor could ever have come to power.