Page 2 of 4 <1234>
Topic Options
#15041 - 11/28/08 03:59 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3890
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: "Diavolo"

I don't know. If I rent a car, I do own it for a certain period of time.

I suppose that depends how you define 'own'. When you rent a car there is a long list of things you are not allowed to do with it, such as take it certain places or modify it in any way, as per the contract. If you violate the contract they are completely within their rights to take the property back and/or take legal action against you.

The same goes for employment. If your boss asks you to do something you are not willing to do, you are within your rights to tell him to go to hell and quit/terminate contract.

I personally see an important distinction between use and ownership.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15056 - 11/28/08 06:31 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I always feel a malaise in splitting me in a body and a mind. I'm my mind AND my body . When I'll be dead, my body will still be there but not me. A mind without a body is just an chimera.

That being said, I agree with Dan. I owwn my labor and chose to sell it to my employer. I'm not his slave as I'm free to leave.

Regarding taxes, it's an other story... (especially in Belgium where half of my salary goes to state)

I have an intellectual work, so I own & sell my ideas.
If I would an actor or in the sex biz, I would have more the impression to sell my body.

But thinking twice, I still have this same malaise.

So I would say I sell rent my talents.

Top
#15080 - 11/29/08 03:40 AM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Fabiano]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
Regarding taxes, it's an other story... (especially in Belgium where half of my salary goes to state

I live in Belgium too and I must correct you on that part...
It is 3/4 of our salary. Most things we buy still have government taxes.


Edited by Dimitri (11/29/08 03:40 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#15084 - 11/29/08 04:36 AM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I consider use limited ownership. It's the same when you buy a house; when do you own it? If you popped out all the cash or the moment you sign the deed but the bank is providing you all the cash?

The same with work. Of course you can reason that the company doesn't own you but you are not as free as most assume. Fact is; you need to work. You need food, clothing, pay the bills...etc. So at least something owns you, and if the company doesn't own you according contract, all the drives that force you to sign a contract own you. You can say To Hell to your boss whenever you prefer but when you need the cash, how inclined are you to really speak your mind or quit whenever the mood strikes.

Of course, some are in a luxury position but others that have six screaming puppies at home are owned by them and thus owned by their company.

Theoretically it sure might all be different but in reality things are never that simple.

D.

Top
#15097 - 11/29/08 10:08 AM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Dimitri]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Yes, correct.

I would have said my net is half of my gross salary.

Then if you add the VAT, etc, it probably arround 75%.

But I don't whine. After all I could work in Luxemburg, start investing time in fiscal engineering, etc... For the time being, it's not in my priorities, but probably I'll have to come to that one day or another...

Top
#15106 - 11/29/08 02:30 PM Rights vs Consequences [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3890
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

I consider use limited ownership.

Semantics!
What about rent?
You could consider rent 'limited ownership' but the real owner is still paying the property taxes. If I lend you my IPOD I should think the courts would agree that I still own it, if it came to a dispute.

 Quote:

Fact is; you need to work. You need food, clothing, pay the bills...etc. So at least something owns you

I guess you could say we are all 'owned' by cause and effect, but I don't know if that is really a coherent statement in this context. I am talking about property rights not philosophy. A situation doesn't really have any rights :P
 Quote:

Of course, some are in a luxury position but others that have six screaming puppies at home are owned by them and thus owned by their company.

'Owned by a situation' is a strange way to look at this. I would describe it more as 'reaping what he sowed'. (in more ways than one!)
 Quote:

Theoretically it sure might all be different but in reality things are never that simple.

We are talking about two different things. I agree with the essence of what you are saying, but it doesn't really contradict anything I've said in any way.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15269 - 12/01/08 02:47 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Ok, one nice question for ownership then.
If the fruits of my labor are mine, am I allowed to sell my kids?

D.

Top
#15289 - 12/01/08 07:45 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3890
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Not under our current legal system. Maybe after the revolution.

You'd have to explain how people could qualify as property, but I'm open to the idea

\:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15292 - 12/01/08 07:56 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Dan_Dread]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Depending on where you live it could be easy to sell your kids or it could be difficult. Some places like Thailand have a rather large market for human trafficking. Such a practice might not necessarily be legal, but you can do it. Whether or not you are allowed to is of little consequence. The reprecussions might be a deterent, but, if you are going to do something you are going to do it regardless.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#15325 - 12/02/08 01:11 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
If I have a pig at home and it gets loaded, there is no debate whether those piggies that poop out are my property or not.

Me humping my partner and producing offspring isn't too different. I produce and feed them, keep them alive. They are not too different from pigs. If I can sell my pigs, why not kids?
After all, it is what I invested in. Fruits of my labor, my property.

D.

Top
#15346 - 12/02/08 05:58 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3890
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Because in practice it would blow up. You'd have a society of old men with lots of slaves, and no way to stop them from taking over.

People tend to dislike slavery.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15349 - 12/02/08 06:08 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Dan_Dread]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
I dunno, Dan. Seems to me that people flock to slavery of one kind or another, chaining themselves to a philosophy, a religion, a personality, a drug, a concept, ad nauseum.

From the people I've know for over my past half century, slavery seems to be rejected only when someone else tells them that they're in control.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#15353 - 12/02/08 06:23 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Jake999]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3890
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Ok, people fancy the ILLUSION of control that is taken through outright slavery. But,I admit slavery has been tenable in the past and given the right sort of societal conditions could be again, I guess.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#19957 - 02/08/09 01:26 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Dan_Dread]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
I hope you don't mind the threadomancy Dan_Dread , but I thought I'd ask about how you feel about Hoppe's proposal that monarchy would be preferable to democracy. I like Hoppe, but I think Rothbard is a better proponent of the principle of self-ownership.

On the question of slavery, there still seems to be some divide in the liberal camp over whether one can sell oneself into slavery legitimately; I guess it's a utilitarian/consequentialist vs. deontological thing, since the thinkers most opposed claim that to have the freedom to lose one's freedom is contradictory.

Top
#19961 - 02/08/09 01:40 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Diavolo]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
"During the early years of babyhood, when the child is helpless and has few if any powers of self-ownership, he indeed becomes a kind of property of his creators, his parents...We must say that the act of creation gives the parent, and not outside adults, jurisdiction over the baby. And yet, this ownership cannot be absolute, cannot involve the right of the parent to mutilate, maim, or murder the child, for this would be criminal aggression against the body of the child, who, being an independent human entity, cannot come under the absolute jurisdiction of anyone. The role of the parent, then, is to be, not an absolute owner, but a trustee-owner or guardian, with the right to regulate the child but not to aggress against his person (as by forcibly preventing him from running away)"

This is a quote from Rothbard. He mentions 'running away' at the end because for him, leaving the household signifies the point at which parents are no longer obligated to provide for their child (sort of the point at which the child inherits regular self-ownership properties or some such).

And yes, you could sell your kids if you wanted to. "In short, there would be a free market in babies and other children"; this is tempered by a statement that follows shortly after, "In actual fact, of course, we have a baby market now, except that it is regulated by government-which imposes a maximum baby price of zero. A parent is not allowed to sell his kid; he can only give it away for nothing". Rothbard goes on to bitch about state-run adoption agencies, etc.

To be honest, I think this kind of answer is the only one that gels with the rest of the principle of self-ownership. A lot of activities that could legitimately occur in a libertarian society I would find disgusting, and selling one's children would be one of these things...but I think Rothbard sets up the principle so that a market in babies is not a market in slaves, no matter how absurd it sounds.

Top
Page 2 of 4 <1234>


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.026 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.