[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…you do not own your life. You sacrifice and make concessions towards this alleged ownership each day. The extent of which may differ from person to person, that’s true enough, but you can’t build a tribe based on this philosophy. A hermit wouldn’t mind, but most humans are social creatures…
Tribes are voluntary associations. If they are voluntary then those in them must also own their own lives otherwise no association could have come about at all. How can communal relationships be coercive?
In fact we know that many individuals leave the tribe voluntarily so how can they not own their own life in making this choice?
If you do not own your own life who owns you?[/quote]
…either i’m not understanding what you mean, or you live in an area where you can drive for hours and not see anyone. But over here you don’t own your life, you try and make do in a place where there’s no escaping eachother…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you do not own your life. You sacrifice and make concessions towards this alleged ownership each day. The extent of which may differ from person to person, that’s true enough, but you can’t build a tribe based on this philosophy. A hermit wouldn’t mind, but most humans are social creatures…[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…philosophically speaking the notion of ‘ownership of life’ is ridiculous. If anything, life owns you…
Life cannot be an owner. Life is a process not a thing.
Only rational beings are capable of ownership.[/quote]
…do we preceed life? Are we separate from life? What are we without life? We exist solely because of life, and then you turn around and say, “I own this”? No, there is no such thing as an owner of life. You can’t be owned by anyone, philosopically speaking…
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…you do not own your life. You sacrifice and make concessions towards this alleged ownership each day. The extent of which may differ from person to person, that’s true enough, but you can’t build a tribe based on this philosophy. A hermit wouldn’t mind, but most humans are social creatures…
Tribes are voluntary associations. If they are voluntary then those in them must also own their own lives otherwise no association could have come about at all. How can communal relationships be coercive?
In fact we know that many individuals leave the tribe voluntarily so how can they not own their own life in making this choice?
If you do not own your own life who owns you?
Well,as you put it,when you are young,your parents own you.So you are obviously born a slave then,by your reckoning.The mechanisms of obtaining emancipation,if one even ever could in some cases,remain hidden.Since we are born with no rights,and all that.[/quote]
It is simple logic. You cannot have rights until you can defend them for yourself. That is also a requirement for self ownership.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Zulu saying:"umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu"which means “a person is a person through other people”
Are we talking about the backwards tribe that were treated as slaves?
Like I said, only rational beings are capable of ownership.[/quote]
Weak.You wouldn’t know rational if it pissed in your eye.The only rights you enjoy are those that other,actual rational people,have agreed to let you partake of.You were more convincing as a committed communist,even if you were equally delusional then.Stick to trotting out your ‘word of the month’,I believe your current one of choice is ‘collectivist’?But you are good for a laugh.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Weak.You wouldn’t know rational if it pissed in your eye.
Speaking of a weak argument.[/quote]
Yes, speaking of a weak argument indeed. There is no such thing as a “natural right,” and the suggestion is patently ridiculous. Go find a hungry grizzly bear and expatiate on your “right to your own person.” Tell it how you are entitled to its lunch, seeing as “only rational beings can own property.” See what happens.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Weak.You wouldn’t know rational if it pissed in your eye.
Speaking of a weak argument.
Yes, speaking of a weak argument indeed. There is no such thing as a “natural right,” and the suggestion is patently ridiculous. Go find a hungry grizzly bear and expatiate on your “right to your own person.” Tell it how you are entitled to its lunch, seeing as “only rational beings can own property.” See what happens.
[/quote]
What do grizzly bears have to do with the natural rights of human beings?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Weak.You wouldn’t know rational if it pissed in your eye.
Speaking of a weak argument.
Yes, speaking of a weak argument indeed. There is no such thing as a “natural right,” and the suggestion is patently ridiculous. Go find a hungry grizzly bear and expatiate on your “right to your own person.” Tell it how you are entitled to its lunch, seeing as “only rational beings can own property.” See what happens.
[/quote]
I can take a bear’s hide and decorate my living room with it. A bear is only concerned with eating. He has no natural rights. I do and I can prove it to anyone who tries to violently assert otherwise.
I am a rational being and have accepted my fate as a free person.
You still need the acceptance of the collective for your own livelihood and you can never be free. Sad.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I can take a bear’s hide and decorate my living room with it. A bear is only concerned with eating. He has no natural rights. I do and I can prove it to anyone who tries to violently assert otherwise.[/quote]
So? A bear would eat you. And a bear would violently protect his notion of property (territory) and life.
Doesn’t matter what you accept if ultimately you can’t enforce it. You might have the illusion of owning your life because others allow you the use of it. Or, at least, enough of it to keep you satisfied. But, maybe someone else claims your life and disposes of it tomorrow. Happens all the time. In reality, others just let you use a life, until they don’t. It’s still predator and prey, hive, pack, pride, type stuff.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…what is this “life” exactly that you claim to own?
My body and all of its functions.
…then what exactly is the topic? Do you currently not own “life”?[/quote]
You guys are not getting the point. You have the ability to make a conscious descision. You cannot control every aspect of the universe, which is what you are saying would need to be the case in order for me to “own” my own life. But in reality, I just need to be able to think and act for myself, which of course is automatic. Even if you do what someone else tells you to do you do it willingly, there is always another choice you could make. If I joined the military for instance, even though I am serving a role where I dfo what I am told, there is nothing but my own will to stop me from taking a loaded gun and shoving it down my superiors mouth and pulling the trigger if he deserves it. He doesn’t make that choice for me, I make it. The penalties of the actions don’t make the choice, I make it. I decide what my existance is going to be like with every decision I make. So do you and so does everyone else. Even a people who are not free, truly are free, they just believe they are not. Ability or lack therof does not mean a person is not free. It means they lack ability, not freedom.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…what is this “life” exactly that you claim to own?
My body and all of its functions.
…then what exactly is the topic? Do you currently not own “life”?
You guys are not getting the point. You have the ability to make a conscious descision. You cannot control every aspect of the universe, which is what you are saying would need to be the case in order for me to “own” my own life. But in reality, I just need to be able to think and act for myself, which of course is automatic. Even if you do what someone else tells you to do you do it willingly, there is always another choice you could make. If I joined the military for instance, even though I am serving a role where I dfo what I am told, there is nothing but my own will to stop me from taking a loaded gun and shoving it down my superiors mouth and pulling the trigger if he deserves it. He doesn’t make that choice for me, I make it. The penalties of the actions don’t make the choice, I make it. I decide what my existance is going to be like with every decision I make. So do you and so does everyone else. Even a people who are not free, truly are free, they just believe they are not. Ability or lack therof does not mean a person is not free. It means they lack ability, not freedom.
V[/quote]
…that’s obvious and selfevident to me, i’m just not understanding why the OP needs to define this. Do you?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:
ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…what is this “life” exactly that you claim to own?
My body and all of its functions.
…then what exactly is the topic? Do you currently not own “life”?
You guys are not getting the point. You have the ability to make a conscious descision. You cannot control every aspect of the universe, which is what you are saying would need to be the case in order for me to “own” my own life. But in reality, I just need to be able to think and act for myself, which of course is automatic. Even if you do what someone else tells you to do you do it willingly, there is always another choice you could make. If I joined the military for instance, even though I am serving a role where I dfo what I am told, there is nothing but my own will to stop me from taking a loaded gun and shoving it down my superiors mouth and pulling the trigger if he deserves it. He doesn’t make that choice for me, I make it. The penalties of the actions don’t make the choice, I make it. I decide what my existance is going to be like with every decision I make. So do you and so does everyone else. Even a people who are not free, truly are free, they just believe they are not. Ability or lack therof does not mean a person is not free. It means they lack ability, not freedom.
V
…that’s obvious and selfevident to me, i’m just not understanding why the OP needs to define this. Do you?
[/quote]
I didn’t need to define it. I just need people to accept it.
There are many ideologies we could do away with if we could just get those that promote collectivism and its many variants to accept the notion of individualism.
They cannot accept individualism until they accept the notion that they are the sole owner of their own life.
To some this seems very “self-evident” yet they still act contrary to this supposedly “self-evident” idea.
So it is either self evident and people just cannot grasp the ultimate consequences of it or it isn’t that self evident.
