Page 3 of 4 <1234>
Topic Options
#19962 - 02/08/09 01:51 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: ballbreaker]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

but I thought I'd ask about how you feel about Hoppe's proposal that monarchy would be preferable to democracy

I am , at root, opposed to any top down parasitic government. With that said I think a man is generally smarter than a mob.

However in the end, they are essentially the same. You either agree with the 'king' on any given issue, or you don't, just as you are part of the 51% or you are not.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#77391 - 06/23/13 06:59 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Dan_Dread]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6676
Loc: Virginia
Great post.

In relation to government the idea of ownership is an illusion. My body could be taken as a possession when contrasted with the contract forged as a citizen. If say, I break a law and commit a felony, well here comes the owners to take my body into their incarceration. Even if I'm entitled to due-process, my body is held during that process (even if I'm granted bail in lieu of circumstance). If I don't show up for the trial, it just reaps a harsher punishment for the infraction (Cause/Effect).

 Quote:
If you own yourself, you own your labour. If you own your labour, you own the fruits thereof. Any claim on any of these things is a defacto claim of ownership upon your person.


I don't even own my child produced by my body. If the State proves me unfit, well they can take him too. Unless of course I comply to their demands to regain my 'property'.

Property Rights are really just privilege allotted by the State. Say I buy a house, in the U.S. its called home-ownership, but in reality I'll never own the land the house sits on. Never mind the length of time it takes to pay off a Home Mortgage. In both cases its on lease from the Bank/state. Adding insult to injury, there's property tax. Year after year, until I'm dead. If it's not paid, its grounds for seizing property which will put my body elsewhere. I could choose another state (thereby taking responsibility for my choices) but you are just trading one set of Laws for another. I've lived in (6) U.S. States and the distinguishable differences are rather slight.

For every person that claims they are truly free, I can see a dozen or so markers of their slavery (as well as my own).

If say, I want to mutilate my body (its mine right?), all it takes is a claim to mental illness and here comes the government to put me under 'evaluation', even if its against my will.

 Quote:
If you own your actions, you by proxy also own the consequences and responsibility for said actions.


In some cases, actions I did not take may be attributed to me (often the case in Criminal Allegations). In those that I willfully made, I tend to take responsibility and due consequence for having made them; however, there's been some instances where I evaded both. I tend to be non-compliant, take advantage of opportunities and create my own choices whenever possible. Many people are ruled by a set of Ethics and Morality, it keeps them in line and compliant to the system.

Ideally, being aware of your own slavery provides a vantage point for attaining more freedoms when possible. When it seems impossible, the probability increases with willful action.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#77393 - 06/23/13 07:26 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: SIN3]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Wow, blast from the past.

More than anything this serves as a reminder to me just how much people can change. I actually find myself agreeing with Diavolo rather than the 2008 version of myself when I re-read this exchange.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#77394 - 06/23/13 07:34 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Dan_Dread]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6676
Loc: Virginia
Interesting. The way I see it, people don't really change... Events change. You're not your ideas are you Mr. Dread?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#77395 - 06/23/13 09:27 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: SIN3]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
To revive the topic, here's a question regarding self-ownership and slavery.

In 2001, Armin Meiwes met Bernd Brandes. With Brandes's full consent, as confirmed by video documentation, Meiwes cut off and cooked Brandes's penis, and fed part of it to Brandes. He then killed and ate the rest of him.

Given that Brandes consented, did Meiwes infringe on Brandes's autonomy by taking his life, or serve his autonomy by fulfilling his wishes? In some doctrines, it is the former.

"It is not freedom to be allowed to alienate freedom."
-John Stuart Mill

This is the notion that one is only truly autonomous, and owns himself, if he is constantly free to change his mind at any point. If one subscribes to that notion, it is paradoxical and impossible to be "free" to make a binding or irreversible decision. But that simply determines how one is bound temporally. The present self, instead of being bound by the past self, is bound by the future self.

If the present self can be bound by the future self, we are limited to making decisions that leave our options open, which limits our options considerably. In the name of preserving autonomy, we have narrowed its scope.

You can’t take drugs! What if you got addicted and couldn’t help yourself? You can’t kill yourself! What if you would have wanted to live at some future point? You can’t sell yourself into slavery! What if you regretted your decision later and wanted out? You can't sign a contract! What if you later decide the terms were bad?

If the present self can be bound by the past self, we can be held accountable. We will be responsible for the deals we break, for the consequences of our decisions, and for the retribution of our misdeeds. If we choose carefully, we can get exactly what we want. If we choose thoughtlessly, we must live with our decision nonetheless.

To me, it appears that the notion of "freedom" espoused by the former doctrine is nothing more than an attempt to conflate welfare with liberty. The latter, on the other hand, is the cold, hard truth of reality. Our past decisions do affect future outcomes and limit future possibilities, regardless of whether people think it "should."

What say you? Should we be chained to freedom, or have the freedom to be chained?
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#77396 - 06/23/13 09:47 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6676
Loc: Virginia
The Armin Meiwes case is definitely interesting. I think the title for the film was fitting 'Grimm Love', the pathology of each would make them an ideal match for each other. One that seeks to be consumed, and the other the Consumer. Murder, even by consent is always going to be viewed through Nero's Lens in a civilized society. In my opinion, it wasn't so much about the murder/cannibalism but Armin's need for more which would lead to his imprisonment. His decision making would affect the taking of his own person out of an ideal environment and being placed into one that he wouldn't have much control over. And he did the A-typical "I found God..." bit that most inmates do. Pretty sad ending if you ask me.

I think both men were definitely bound by their past selves, those contracts were forged long ago. In the end, its Brandes that was free, even if his being was imprisoned by his past. Meiwes freed him of it. Meiwes on the otherhand will have to live with his decisions. 8 years isn't really a bad rap all things considered.

Perhaps secretly and privately Meiwes rather enjoyed his liberties. Who can say?

 Quote:
The latter, on the other hand, is the cold, hard truth of reality. Our past decisions do affect future outcomes and limit future possibilities, regardless of whether people think it "should."

What say you? Should we be chained to freedom, or have the freedom to be chained?


Sure they do but the degree in which they are affected is really reliant on what we do in spite of them.

I don't think its either this or that, we can always find a way around it, over it, or through it.

A chain of events are set in motion with every decision we make, but there's always possibilities. Even if, they are perceived as limited because of those decisions.



Edited by SIN3 (06/23/13 10:02 PM)
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103391 - 10/13/15 01:03 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Dan_Dread]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6676
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
but realistically it is perfectly possible our ideas own us.


This resurfaced again recently. When one holds that their 'word' is the merit of their character. If one breaks their word, then so too does their characterization break (tie-ins to Honor). How do they redeem it? By issuing apology? By holding to their word in the future? To not break oaths? All in an effort to increase its value.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
I think self-ownership is the cornerstone of meritocracy, the very mechanism through which one is granted the right to flourish or whither. If you own your actions, you by proxy also own the consequences and responsibility for said actions.


Libertarianism comes to mind:

 Quote:
Libertarianism is sometimes identified with the principle that each agent has a right to maximum equal empirical negative liberty, where empirical negative liberty is the absence of forcible interference from other agents when one attempts to do things (see, for example, Narveson 1988, 2000; Steiner 1994; and Narveson and Sterba 2010). This is sometimes called “Spencerian Libertarianism” (after Herbert Spencer). It is usually claimed that this view is equivalent to the above “self-ownership” version of libertarianism. Kagan (1994), however, has cogently argued that the former (depending on the interpretation) either leads to radical pacifism (the use of force is never permissible) or is compatible with a wide range of views in addition to the above “self-ownership” libertarianism. We shall not, however, attempt to assess this issue here. Instead, we shall simply focus on the above “self-ownership” version of libertarianism.


Which may account for slave-morality, a lack of will to revel against oppression and a willingness to submit your labors to be devalued.

What Dimi was pointing to:

 Quote:
Can we still say we own ourselves when we work for someone else who is getting paid for our doings, results we achieved? And we only get a small fee to survive in this economical society.


*Owned* maybe more akin to recognizing those that have gone on to run their own businesses reap success using a labor force.

The laborer may have no interest in the complexities above his pay grade. Let's face it, it can be quite the headache and you're in to a lot of liabilities as the owner. An employee can break contract with smaller risk and take his skill-set elsewhere. The merits of his work and work history can be used as a bargaining tool to increase the value of his 'property'.

I think what he was getting at, is the idea of a Meritocracy and ownership of 'property' are simply ideals, many of which own you, not the other way around. Much like the idea that a person's word, is anything but that. Words. If you want another person to regard it as more than that, you need to convince them - appealing to vanity.



"If you hire me sir, I can increase production by 10 fold by the end of the quarter!"
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103397 - 10/13/15 08:18 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1762
Loc: Poland
It's not only the government that owns you. I don't agree that the ego controls the body. The body has plenty of means to influence the mind. I'll omit such obvious stuff as hunger/thirst drive etc. I once read an article about how certain bacteria living in our gut control our eating habits by sending signals to the nervous system. Some bacteria prefer fat, others sugar. So when you fancy a piece of cake, it doesn't have to be your ego, with all probability it isn't. Not to mention viruses and parasites which often get a temporary or, sometimes, permanent control over our bodies.

Then, there comes unconscious which has a great influence upon our conscious mind, it often controls it. Most of our actions come from the unconscious.

 Quote:
The laborer may have no interest in the complexities above his pay grade. Let's face it, it can be quite the headache and you're in to a lot of liabilities as the owner.


Indeed. And being an owner of your own company doesn't mean you stop being a slave to the government as you still have to pay your taxes, even more taxes than if you were a mere employee. This is why it's quite difficult to open up and maintain business in my country were taxes for business owners are quite big and the procedures one has to go through to register one's company are quite complex. Not everyone has enough of the money and skills to put up with all of this. Some end up successful, sure, but many go bankrupt. It's easier said than done.

Besides, I wonder at all of these complaints about the state and governments as if it was something new and there was a blessed time in the history of mankind when there was a happy anarchy. Even the prehistoric humans who lived in small tribes had a sort of primitive government - alpha males/tribe leaders. Monkeys have their alphas and betas too. Aren't we too idealistic by any chance?

By the way, I quite understand Dan when he wrote that it's fun to observe how people change. Today, I went to Snet, read my old blog entries from 2010 and rolled my eyes. How could I write something that stupid?However, back then I thought I was shitting the pearls of wisdom.


Edited by Czereda (10/13/15 08:48 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#103399 - 10/14/15 01:49 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Czereda]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3117
 Quote:
The body has plenty of means to influence the mind. I'll omit such obvious stuff as hunger/thirst drive etc. I once read an article about how certain bacteria living in our gut control our eating habits by sending signals to the nervous system.




You are right when it concerns the bacteria in your gut.
The ego however is what it is. It'll influence choice of food.

Not to mention bacterial growth can always be influenced by changing the conditions in which they thrive, i.e. the "bad" ones can be replaced with the "good" ones by managing a new diet which favours the one over the other.

 Quote:
How could I write something that stupid?However, back then I thought I was shitting the pearls of wisdom.

I didn't see much change.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#103400 - 10/14/15 10:48 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Czereda]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6676
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Czereda
I don't agree that the ego controls the body.


Similar concepts were discussed in a previous topic #101124.

While there's seemingly mechanisms at work that appear beyond one's control, I think you're missing this aspect:

 Quote:
"Bacteria within the gut are manipulative," said Carlo Maley, PhD, director of the UCSF Center for Evolution and Cancer and corresponding author on the paper." "There is a diversity of interests represented in the microbiome, some aligned with our own dietary goals, and others not."

Fortunately, it's a two-way street. We can influence the compatibility of these microscopic, single-celled houseguests by deliberating altering what we ingest, Maley said, with measurable changes in the microbiome within 24 hours of diet change.

"Our diets have a huge impact on microbial populations in the gut," Maley said. "It's a whole ecosystem, and it's evolving on the time scale of minutes." Source


Ego plays a role in decision making. I know my fair share of obese folks that will find any reason to justify their diet choices, rather than deliberately changing them to affect their overall health and condition of the body.

The body-image aspect is just another mechanism for this. If you can influence what you believe is acceptable, what others will find acceptable, then why change it? Even when people are suffering from it, they just go on to find other justifications.

Stomach banding is the new rave. Especially for people that develop Diabetes because of their obesity. When a doctor recommends it, it's like a godsend to them. Typically, as a last resort. It's not the First thing, it's the last thing, after countless visits and advice to alter one's diet and exercise (or lack there of).

Age plays a role but it's easy to say "Well, I'm getting older that's why I'm fat" then altering your lifestyle to compensate for body changes.

Ego: I'm good with my body type, I hate to exercise.

Ego: I'm tired of looking and feeling this way, I need to do something about it.

Control implies a lack of it in the face of environmental factors but I don't believe that to be true. Consciously we are aware but it's easier to tuck things away in the subconscious. "I'll eat this cupcake today because I like it. I'll just buy a bigger size".

I saw that CA study in 2014 when it was first reported to the public, then the wave of blogs that followed to use it as a vehicle (control meme) to justify a lack of personal control.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
Even the prehistoric humans who lived in small tribes had a sort of primitive government - alpha males/tribe leaders. Monkeys have their alphas and betas too. Aren't we too idealistic by any chance?
I don't think it's idealization that it's a new environmental factor but rather just observing what people do (or don't do) when faced with such obstacles in their way to attainment.

Some may say that it's their RIGHT to keep eating at McDonalds while ignoring the consequences for doing so. Much like complaining about devaluing your own 'property', an obese person isn't a very convincing exemplar of value judgement.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103403 - 10/14/15 04:36 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1762
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
"I'll eat this cupcake today because I like it. I'll just buy a bigger size"... justify a lack of personal control.


What you've just written is a defense mechanism often used by obese people against their feelings of helplessness and frustration after plenty of failures to lose weight. It's all about regaining self-confidence and the feeling of control by means of deluding oneself. I'm fat but I don't care. All right, I'm gaining weight. So what? I like my body as it is. We all should love our bodies no matter how they look like. I'll eat this cake because I want to, because I like it etc. Fake it till you make it.

I didn't mean that the ego doesn't play any role in decision making but its power is extremely feeble. Our emotions and our bodies have greater influence on us than we are willing to admit. Take, for example, the low blood sugar Xiao sometimes complains about. It's not only a problem of people who are on a diet, but it's just one example of the pressure your body puts on you and it's such a strong pressure that it can make a totally healthy person faint. It's enough that you eat too little and exercise too much.

Sure, we have some influence on our gut bacteria but they in turn influence our mood and eating habits. Something about the past choices having an impact on the future. You can try and resist the piece of cake but the very fact you desire it usually has nothing to do with your ego or any conscious decision.

You mentioned diabetes, what about the diabetes of the first type, which doesn't depend on your lifestyle or diet? It's more shitty and more difficult to cope with than the second type. Yet, this illness has enormous control over the body like many other diseases that don't depend on your conscious choices.

Let's not forget that the amount of money in your purse also influences your diet just like to some extent culture and the place of living. Not to sound sarcastic, Africa has many problems but obesity is not one of them.

I don't think we are slaves but the freedom we have is more limited than most people imagine.


Edited by Czereda (10/14/15 04:38 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#103407 - 10/14/15 08:02 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Czereda]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6676
Loc: Virginia
'Freedom' now there's a word. The point is, even limited control, is control. You can either be a slave to your decisions or make better ones. Even people with limited resources and health conditions still have choices. I'm not convinced that gut-bacteria rules the desire for particular foods. Brain retains memory of taste and texture. We are rather tactile creatures so that leads me to believe the memory of tastes and sensations, are probably more influential.


Value judgment may involve better thinking about your 'property'.

I'm guessing you're not aware that Obesity as a health-crisis in Africa has been on the radar for a few years now. Especially in South Africa, sociology studies have been published for quite some time. The Economist put out an article last year which points to poor nutrition, so it's a lot of filler-foods and lifestyle (modernization). The health report was concerning the growing number of cases of heart disease.

Diabetics tend to succumb to being exhausted from having to be so conscious of food intake, exercise and other factors.

Your examples fall a bit short for me.

Using justifications as a defense mechanism is just a way to deal with the day to day. Whether that's internal or external value judgment.

I didn't exactly get a pull up bar because I think I'm lifting a size 3 off the ground, yanno?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103421 - 10/15/15 07:53 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1762
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
I'm guessing you're not aware that Obesity as a health-crisis in Africa has been on the radar for a few years now. Especially in South Africa, sociology studies have been published for quite some time. The Economist put out an article last year which points to poor nutrition, so it's a lot of filler-foods and lifestyle (modernization). The health report was concerning the growing number of cases of heart disease.


Lol. It seems I can't keep up with the news. Soon, the slim people will be a dying species unless there is a nuclear war or some global natural calamity looming on the horizon. However, isn't obesity in the South Africa a cultural thing? If a fat body is regarded as an ideal of beauty and a symbol of prosperity, there is no motivation to change one's habits.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we can't make any choices or have no free will but that the range of our choices is more limited than we are willing to admit to ourselves. Our bodies, our unconscious and the environment we live in strongly influence us. It's better to realize this than live with delusions.


Edited by Czereda (10/15/15 07:55 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#103426 - 10/16/15 11:23 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Czereda]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6676
Loc: Virginia
If you mean that in terms of Obesity being a cultural expression of being well-off and/or Wealthy - not so much.

The most recent studies are pointing to the modernization of the area (which is why I put it in parenthesis).

Even in an area where 1 out of 4 households experience hunger, it's the food available that contributes to weight-gain over nutrition. Much like the U.S. prepackaged convenience foods and fast-food chains are a contributing factor.

South African National Health and Nutritional Council put out a 400 page report (mostly survey) that pin-pointed reasons for body image and food-insecurity. 40% had poor diets and of those roughly 20% were eating high-fat, high-sugar menus.

The council was focused on education, a lot of the ailments started in youth where the younger generation wants the latest trendy thing (like a Cheeseburger from McDonald's) vs. preparing nutritional meals. It's again, about choices. How limited are they? The difference between dropping $5.00 on a Happy Meal and a Chicken Salad.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103431 - 10/16/15 04:38 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1762
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
Even in an area where 1 out of 4 households experience hunger, it's the food available that contributes to weight-gain over nutrition. Much like the U.S. prepackaged convenience foods and fast-food chains are a contributing factor.


True but the culture seems to play a role too. I took it from here:

Obesity: Africa's new crisis

Mchiza also pointed to cultural issues that fuel obesity in Africa, with big men seen as successful and big women seen as beautiful. “The majority of black South African men prefer chubby women,” said the 34-year-old scientist. “If you are too thin it means your husband is not taking care of you or you are unhappy. And your children must be fat, too – we were force fed growing up, always told to eat up all our food and not waste anything on our plates.’

I heard similar claims from other experts – and certainly a glance at the internet indicates specialist dating sites for “cuddly” people are booming. A study last year by the Human Sciences Research Council found that 88% of South Africans regard a fat body as their ideal.


Then, there comes the expansion of McDonald's and Burger King restaurants and as fast food is still something new in that area, people are very enthusiastic about it.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
Page 3 of 4 <1234>


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

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.