| | | | | | | Re: Self Ownership Theory - 239 sec the specific brain attached to the body which i control does think, but not independantly. the specific arm attached to the body which i control does move, but not independantly. the mind and pounds of flesh which i control act on my behalf. the arm attached to the body which i control would not move without my permission. we must then ask ourselves, what is my? my can not be matter. organic matter is the tool by which my manifests itself. my is the internal state that stakes complete unmitigated inherent proprietory rights to the pounds of flesh attached to me. there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this authoritarian proprietary relationship is appropriated to my by any external third party. it is inherent. you see, it is impossible to even argumentatively challenge the theory of self ownership without implicity presuming the theory to be correct.
if someone punches you in the face. what is responsible? the fist, the arm, the brain, or the sovereign independant individual who utilized all three organic mechanisms acting on behalf of the internal state of himself? the responsibility for the actions of his body rests with his internal state.
to say that the individual does not own himself is to state that the individual is not responsible for the actions of his body. if his fist is not his, if his brain is not his, and if his body are not his, then he is not responsible for the act of punching you in the face because nothing of his planned or perpetrated the act. since he is able to control these organic mechanisms however, he is responsible for the act because he made a conscious decision to commit it. with inherent control comes responsibility, and you can simply not be responsible for that which is not yours. you own the pounds of flesh because you inherently control it, and are therefore responsible for its actions.
all morality rests upon the foundation that every individual owns himself, and the reality of his self ownership justifies its existence in the individual manifestation of will. self ownership is as evident a naturally occuring phenomenon as the observation that grass is alive because it grows.
even if the self ownership theory is a complete and utter distortion of reality. socialism is not the logical conclusion to the absence of ownership because socialism is a theory which presumes third party ownership. what is the evidence or the rational argument that a third party owns you? if there is no self ownership, there is no ownership, and if a third party does not own you, it therefore can not rightfully impose upon you its will. Tags: self ownership individualism morality metaphysics  | | | | Self Ownership - 156 sec im not one of those jerkoffs who steals information from internet sites and does not cite his sources. i wrote this on my own because i had some free time on my hands and as usual, not a whole lot to do.
You own yourself. Your arm is your arm. Your leg is your leg. Your mind is your mind. This reality is relatively undisputed, and is further made evident by the manifestation of will.
The manifestation of will is accomplished without the assistance of another person. When you wish to move your hand, you do not seek permission, nor are you obliged to. When you wish to move your arm, you do not require the assistance of another. You do so by your own choice.
How is this possible? You are your own sovereign internal state. Your arms, legs, and hands exist to do your bidding. They are yours. You are your own inherent property. And from thus all rights are born.
The physical reality of self ownership is not without metaphysical consequences.
Capitalism is the philosophical economic embodiment of this reality. As a condition of self ownership, rightful stakes to other pieces of property necessarily extend to the individual who works. One can not own himself unless he also owns the fruits of that inherent piece of property, his body. As sole proprietor of your body, what your body produces is yours as an extension of that inherent property. The fruits of your labor are as much yours as your body is yours, and could not exist as yours if yourself was not your own.
Libertarianism is the philosophical social embodiment of this reality. You own yourself, therefore any aggressive physical assault on your body as well as any explicit coercive restrictions denying you proprietary rights to your body are not justified. The useage of violence is only justified as a retaliatory means of self defense. And coercive restrictions are only justified when implicitly in defense of another individual's rights. Tags: Self Ownership Capitalism Libertarianism Philosophy Individualism Ron Paul | | | | | | Declaration of self-ownership - 146 sec Nobody has any right to forcefully rule over my body and my possessions. Not you, not your representative and not the supermajority of any arbitrary group.
No part of the market should be violently monopolized by anyone, in any area. Not education, not healthcare, not roads and especially not arbitration, security and banking.
You should always question the morality of your actions. If you don't question the morality of your actions, then you are part of the problem.
Anyone making excuses for institutionalized violence is part of the problem.
A state is a violently acquired and held monopoly on violence, in a certain area. This is immoral. Democracy gives the state a cloak of legitimacy. But this is entirely false. The state and it's ruling class would never adopt voting if it would not serve it's own political goals. Democracy is a scam and is no better than any other state organization. A good way of showing your disapproval of the SYSTEM is to not vote. Voting between Stalin and Hitler is not freedom.
Stop believing in groups. Groups have NO moral content. There are only individuals and there are only actions of individuals. Judge people on their actions and NOTHING else.
For example: leaders of countries have usually never killed anyone. They often sign papers and declare wars, but they don't actually kill people. The soldiers in the armies however are willing to carry out murders in return for money. Do not support people who are willing to kill other people outside of pure self-defense. The war in Iraq is EVIL and the problem lies with the soldiers. Tags:anarcho capitalism market anarchy libertarianism freedom liberty voluntary society introduction tremblay hellbound | | |
|
