Page all of 4 1234>
Topic Options
#13723 - 11/01/08 01:32 PM Self Ownership.
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I own my body. The ego that is my self, that strange effect of consciousness that is resultant itself from the physical body, owns the physical body.
Seems a strange concept, but it is very important. This is something that should be observed by anyone that values their own freedom.

Economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues that self-ownership is axiomatic. His reasoning being that any argument against self-ownership is self-contradictory. Making this argument is making a "performative contradiction" because, in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person is implicitly granting those who he is trying to persuade the right to disagree. If they have the right to disagree, then they have legitimate authority over themselves.

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 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.

More to come!
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13726 - 11/01/08 01:49 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1753
Loc: New York
You know, I've been trying to convince the IRS of this for years. They just don't get it. ;\)

On a serious note, how would you explain this to someone who is physically enslaved?


Edited by Asmedious (11/01/08 01:50 PM)
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#13728 - 11/01/08 02:07 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Asmedious]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I suppose I could answer that by saying I do not recognize things like the IRS or slavery as legitimate. I see them as things to stand as adversary to, and that is really the heart of the matter.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13753 - 11/01/08 09:14 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Dan_Dread]
blsk Offline
member


Registered: 09/22/08
Posts: 298
Loc: salem or
Ones, if I may, who are physically enslaved are first mentally enslaved. I cannot recall the term for the condition right now, but it is similar to battle fatigue.

Take for example, the school that was held hostage in Russia. These hundreds of people were held hostage for days by nothing more than a handful of people. They were so dicouraged by the sudden circumstances that they lost the will to fight. This crowd could have easily overcome the hostage takers yet remained in their control until law enforcment freed them.

It's the sense that they lost their self ownership and unconsciously handed themselves over to their captors.
_________________________
Ed made mens sewing cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9mhsW5aWJM

Top
#13783 - 11/02/08 01:46 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: blsk]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I'm not sure if you can consider people who were taken hostage and made no measure of attempt to free themselves as having lost their sense of self-ownership. Maybe they were just scared for their lives. I'm sure the captors were armed therefore it didn't matter to the hostages that they had the numbers. The instinct for self preservation is one of the strongest and most deeply ingrained in all intelligent life. It is really easy to tell people what you would do in such a situation. When you are actaully put in that situation,however, you might not react the way you thought you would. On the other hand such a situation could make a person feel powerless. The feeling of having no control over a situation could be akin to that of loss of self-ownership.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#14987 - 11/28/08 02:31 AM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Jaguar Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 24
Loc: OR, Multnomah
Wow! Dan! You need to learn some basic skills in typing and speech. Do you enjoy priding yourself by living on an island of your own?
RESULTANT is a great word but you can't type "my self" as "myself" correctly. I think you mean't AFFECT not EFFECT, big difference, not to be a dick about it, just pointing out a flaw in your typing and I am by no means a english grammer person. I suck and english grammer. I really suck bad at english grammer honestly. Affect fits your term better then effect. hmm... I could go on.
If you have intelligence and skill with typing, you would learn how to convey a message that speaks to the community, rather then to yourself.

Maybe you simply lack communication skills. No problem. Take some English lessons!!!!

Communication is a powerful skill for only intelligent people who can deliver the message. I wish I could have a better response to your note, but I imagine it would be difficult for any Satanist to respond to a message based on a riddle of conflict. Stop making an ass out of yourself.

Cheers!
Honestly, I had to look up some words you used to even follow what you said, my conclusion results in the above. Speak to yourself I guess is your point. Maybe I am the fool, but I am certain after looking up your words that you are a total fool.
Stop. Who the fuck really follows what you said? Well take care. Speak straight to the community or don't speak at all!!!!


Edited by Jaguar (11/28/08 03:14 AM)
_________________________
Learn From the Past,
Provide for the future,
Live in the present.

Top
#14994 - 11/28/08 09:09 AM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Jaguar]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
 Quote:
but you can't type "my self" as "myself" correctly

There is a differentiation between these two ideas in English. Since this is not your native language, it's easy to see why you do not see the slight variation between "my self" (objective), and "myself" (subjective).

 Quote:
I think you mean't AFFECT not EFFECT, big difference, not to be a dick about it, just pointing out a flaw in your typing and I am by no means a english grammer person.

As used in Dan's sentence:
 Quote:
The ego that is my self, that strange effect of consciousness

EFFECT: a verb meaning “have an influence on”
AFFECT: to make a display of or deliberately cultivate.

You state that you are by no means an English grammar person (by the way, you spelled "grammer" wrong, and there is no apostrophe in "meant" Mr. Know-It-All), yet you presume to tell the original poster what his own words mean? Dan used "effect" correctly, it is you who are in the wrong.

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about, and have made yourself look like both a dick and a fool. Congratulations! Dan wouldn't still be here if we thought he was incapable of expressing himself in an intelligent and forthright manner. You on the other hand, raise some doubts about whether you can do the same. Your reply to Dan was little more than a pathetic attempt to cut him down using your incorrect interpretaion of English grammar. Try using a spell check on yourself.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#14995 - 11/28/08 09:10 AM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Jaguar]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
What's your problem mate?
Do a couple of errors trouble your emotions that much that this is the only thing you can come up with after reading his post or is there some lack of content in that great mind of you and the best you can produce is this banter?

Or are you maybe some sort of a nancy and instead of spilling the beans, you prefer to show your dislike at another level.

Feel free to check my posts, I'm pretty sure you can come up with a couple of errors in at least 50% of the replies. Then feel free to mention it to me and watch how I shove my foot up yer ass.

Thanks,

D.

Top
#15003 - 11/28/08 12:45 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Jaguar]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
This is pure comedy. You think I need english lessons because you don't possess the language skills to understand me?

I will not dumb down for you, or anyone.

Good Day.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15022 - 11/28/08 02:40 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Originally Posted By: jaguar
I think you meant AFFECT not EFFECT, big difference, not to be a dick about it, just pointing out a flaw in your typing and I am by no means a English grammar person. I suck and English grammar. I really suck bad at English grammar honestly.

If you can't, why correct others? Learn the grammar to yourself first before criticizing people.

To get back on topic;
Self-ownership, pretty interesting topic actually.
We indeed own ourselves. But within this social and economical environment, don't we sell ourselves to the big industrials to get a fee for our doings? 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.
As far as I can say, we certainly own our ideas and thoughts. But owning our entire body could be a whole different thing.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#15029 - 11/28/08 03:09 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm in the contract biz, so you can't be more of a rental whore than me and although I do think I am my own property, the moment I sign a pact with ze devil, I am his property. At the level of work that is. So as long as things go as pre-defined, I am a slave but a well-paid one. I think my self-ownership stops during those hours. This doesn't imply he can treat me like a slave.

About ideas and thoughts, I doubt if we own them. I cherish the illusion yes but realistically it is perfectly possible our ideas own us.

D.

Top
#15030 - 11/28/08 03:23 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I don't think a mutual contract such as employee/employer or contractor/contractee implies a submission of self-ownership simply because these are voluntary relationships.

A more concrete example of why we don't actually own ourselves in this society is our relationship to government, which is not voluntary or mutual. An argument could be made for a sort of implicit 'social contract', but to me that is bullshit. I did not ask to be born under the rule of my oppressors nor is leaving to go live under a different set of oppressors a real option.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15031 - 11/28/08 03:25 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
About ideas and thoughts, I doubt if we own them. I cherish the illusion yes but realistically it is perfectly possible our ideas own us.

How come you have doubts about it?
Maybe to clearify things up a little:
When I speak about ideas or thoughts I'm referring on what we think.

For example: You see a very attractive young girl/boy marching by. However other friends of you start call her ugly. The idea she is attractive to you is something personaal and you can decide if you share it with your environement.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#15032 - 11/28/08 03:28 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I don't know. If I rent a car, I do own it for a certain period of time. It is not my property but I am allowed to act as such for a while. I think the same goes for labor. It's not total submission, I agree upon that. I am still free to think my employer is a twat.

Government is different yeah but so was slavery. The place you are born or the period of time defines a lot.

D.

Top
#15033 - 11/28/08 03:33 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
A part of what you think is rooted inside your brains or culturally defined. If I find her attractive, there are physical factors that make her appear attractive that are beyond my choice. If she's looking very unhealthy, odds are I won't find her attractive at all, other aspects increase attraction. Many are beyond my control, even when realizing them.

Other ideas that I might consider my own might actually own me. The ideas we have are mostly all 'borrowed' so we are subject to what we are exposed to. You very likely aren't going to come up with brand new stuff, at best recycled. The fact that some of them are that strong that we feel an urge to share them or make others embrace them, can be an indication that ideas own us instead of we them.

D.

Top
#15041 - 11/28/08 03:59 PM Re: Self Ownership. [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
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: 3151
 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: 3935
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: 3935
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: 3935
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: 3935
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
#19962 - 02/08/09 01:51 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: ballbreaker]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
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: 6873
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: 3935
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: 6873
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: 1147
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: 6873
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: 6873
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: 1857
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: 3151
 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: 6873
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: 1857
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: 6873
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: 1857
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: 6873
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: 1857
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
#103432 - 10/16/15 08:28 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: SIN3]
Sargeist Offline
member


Registered: 02/20/15
Posts: 358
Loc: Chile
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Let's face it, it can be quite the headache and you're in to a lot of liabilities as the owner.


Not always the case of course, if a person or several people own a multinational or corporation they can just vanish any fuck up made, it doesn't even get swept under the rug.

BP Oil didn't seem to take any noticeable punishment for their insignificant oil spill in 2010, for instance.

On the subject at hand, if we aren't our ideas nor words nor actions then, what are we? what makes us?
_________________________
Perdition will set you free.

Top
#103437 - 10/17/15 05:16 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Sargeist]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1147
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Quote:

BP Oil didn't seem to take any noticeable punishment for their insignificant oil spill in 2010, for instance.

Oh yeah. That $18 billion settlement for the claims was chump change. The additional $18 billion they've been found liable for in fines and penalties is a slap on the wrist. And they spent a mere $10 billion in cleanup costs.

Those are billions. With a b.

Seriously, do you not think before you post?
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#103439 - 10/17/15 11:02 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: XiaoGui17]
Sargeist Offline
member


Registered: 02/20/15
Posts: 358
Loc: Chile
Ok, bad example then. But what I was trying to convey is that bigger companies can at least still operate, lesser ones have a lot of more pressure on them since a fuck up can put them out of biz.

Where I live there isn't much market for small enterprises since despite having a 98% presence on the market they barely make up for a 15% of total sales, while big companies such as WalMart have only a 1,5% presence an 85% total sales.

I don't mind big companies anymore, but things such as microbrewing make going out with friends an awesome experience and I'd hate to see these being completely wiped out by insipid industrial beer.


Edited by Sargeist (10/17/15 11:45 AM)
_________________________
Perdition will set you free.

Top
#103442 - 10/17/15 12:53 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: XiaoGui17]
JamesSTL Offline
member


Registered: 11/29/13
Posts: 312
Loc: St. Louis
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
That $18 billion settlement for the claims was chump change. The additional $18 billion they've been found liable for in fines and penalties is a slap on the wrist. And they spent a mere $10 billion in cleanup costs.


Although the monetary sum total of the 2010 Gulf spill may seem large from where we are all standing, it amounts to a mild-to-moderate hurdle for a conglomerate with a roughly $110 billion market cap ($284 billion in total assets). Especially since we are talking about one of the largest oceanic oil spills in recorded history.

You can bet your ass that if that shit went down under the same culture of neglect in Chinese waters, heads would roll.

Nothing expresses "consequence" quite like the forfeiture of life.

A swifter and sterner system of justice might be something to look forward to after the PRC succeeds in buying America one bearer bond at a time.

Edit:typo police


Edited by JamesSTL (10/17/15 01:42 PM)

Top
#103456 - 10/18/15 12:31 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: JamesSTL]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1147
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: JamesSTL
You can bet your ass that if that shit went down under the same culture of neglect in Chinese waters, heads would roll.

I'll take that bet. The People's Republic is notorious for selective enforcement in the most corrupt manner possible. Poor subsistence fishermen get beat down for violations of environmental regulations, while a little wink and nudge and guangxi lets any major oil company get away with much more egregious violations. So...just like the US, pretty much.

 Quote:
A swifter and sterner system of justice might be something to look forward to after the PRC succeeds in buying America one bearer bond at a time.

Yeah, about that. The PRC buying our debt isn't insidious bait to take over. China needs us as bad as we need them. If we didn't undervalue yuan, it wouldn't be as much of a deal to let them have all the manufacturing jobs. And if they lost their role as a manufacturing powerhouse, it would create an economic sinkhole. Trying to call in our debts all at once would be a monumental mistake.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#103460 - 10/18/15 08:17 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: XiaoGui17]
JamesSTL Offline
member


Registered: 11/29/13
Posts: 312
Loc: St. Louis
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
I'll take that bet. The People's Republic is notorious for selective enforcement in the most corrupt manner possible. Poor subsistence fishermen get beat down for violations of environmental regulations, while a little wink and nudge and guangxi lets any major oil company get away with much more egregious violations. So...just like the US, pretty much.


Kinda like the US, but with a lot more fun twists. Embrace the chaos (ie corruption). The de jure is a lullaby for the sleeping. The de facto is the dancing song of the Awakened. "A thing for every place, and a place for every thing," says the assassin of the human spirit.

As an aside: I think your cultural Calvinist underwear shows a little bit in your posts. It is definitely a different shade than the cultural Catholic underwear majority that post on this forum (myself included). Unless I'm totally wrong and you were raised either Jewish or Muslim.

Anyway, back to it...

The element in common is that they are both essentially oligarchies, and as thus exhibit characteristics very common to oligarchies: Corruption, economic/judicial disparity, unfairness everywhere! The PRC is generally more straightforward with its oligarchic nature than the USA. The PRC doesn't pretend to be the "Land of the Free". I think the PRC's ideal-of-self matches their reality-of-self much closer than a United States of America that likes to pretend that it is something other than a de facto fascist (ie corporatist) State.

Where the two diverge in approach is with the application of violence as a consequence of "crime". The unfairness and selectiveness of this applied violence is irrelevant to its core purpose. The Chinese understand, as did the Romans, that Man's appetite for violence is an intrinsic element of his nature. While many collectives have tried to use capital punishment as a means of deterrence with varying degrees of success, the root motivator for capital punishment has nothing to do with the hollow ideal known as "justice". Capital punishment is about vengeance. Capital punishment is about blood lust.

To use this "tainted milk" incident as an example, a CEO, a salesperson, and farmer were all sentenced to death. The CEO was able to wiggle out of it with a suspended sentence, but the other two faced the firing squad. And the peoples' vengeance was (partially) sown.

As for the CEO, I suppose the mob has grown to be satisfied with some-blood rather than none-at-all. Judicial disparity as it correlates to wealth is a common theme of collectivism throughout history. The underclass accepts it as a given, like breathing air being taken for granted, or water being wet. The fruits of collectivist conditioning. Who needs balls when you have a television? And what's on TV? Vicarious depictions of violence. Pornography compared to the real thing, but good enough for most.

"You get as much 'justice' as you can afford," as they say in them streets.

What they should really say is that you get as much vengeance as you are willing to exact. The Bolsheviks understood that. Say what you want about those pinko bastards. They were men of action. And the anomaly of a guillotine blade kissing the back of a king's neck is a thing of rare beauty...

I digress.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
Yeah, about that. The PRC buying our debt isn't insidious bait to take over. China needs us as bad as we need them. If we didn't undervalue yuan, it wouldn't be as much of a deal to let them have all the manufacturing jobs. And if they lost their role as a manufacturing powerhouse, it would create an economic sinkhole. Trying to call in our debts all at once would be a monumental mistake.


Give them a little more credit than that. The debt pawn is just one piece on the board. The board to a game that is being quietly played every day. Friends close, enemies closer... and all that jazz.

The next "Big One" will not come in the form of trench warfare or nuclear explosions. It will most likely come in the night like a daylight savings time switch.

And if you're reading about it in the Washington Times its already too late. Behold! The shape of war to come:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...-econ/?page=all

As with all organisms whose nature and very existence relies on the functions of survival and self-propagation, my loyalties lie with myself. But there are definitely times when I think I might have been born on the wrong side of the Pacific. I guess the jokes on me.

Edit: It is 7:40 AM on a Sunday. Big Brother heard that you were talking shit.


Edited by JamesSTL (10/18/15 09:16 AM)

Top
#103461 - 10/18/15 09:15 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Sargeist]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6873
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Sargeist
Ok, bad example then. But what I was trying to convey is that bigger companies can at least still operate, lesser ones have a lot of more pressure on them since a fuck up can put them out of biz.


Operate sure, operate without headaches? Nope. You don't exactly hear about the laborer at BP having to take the hit for the Oil Spill, which was the point I was honing in on. It's among the reasons (aside lack of innovation and capital) that most labor for owners of companies instead of owning companies.

Incidentally, I was listening to Deferred Gnosis Episode 7 and where Steve Leyba and I part ways in our views, is the so-called 'Moral Obligation to cast away Evils'. He rebuttals his own point by saying that people had the word 'Moral' but I'd replace that with 'Obligation'.

Whether the people seek its vengeance against BP for one of the biggest spills in our history doesn't exactly address the environmental consequences. Five Years Later, effects linger... How much punishment would be satisfactory? How much money will it take to reverse the effects and why should we even bother?

 Quote:
"Our beaches were ruined."

Now Craft says they have recovered and visitors are coming back. But the disaster was a huge blow, both economically and environmentally, and he's not sure it's over.


To go on as business as usual, to keep the money machine well oiled? "Our Beaches" is more telling of the human psyche. Do we own the environment? Or, do we merely contribute to it?

 Originally Posted By: V
If we didn't undervalue yuan, it wouldn't be as much of a deal to let them have all the manufacturing jobs.


If the U.S. seeks to change the economic climate, to build upon its own machine, then it must throw the monkey-wrench into competing machines.

 Originally Posted By: James
As with all organisms whose nature and very existence relies on the functions of survival and self-propagation, my loyalties lie with myself. But there are definitely times when I think I might have been born on the wrong side of the Pacific. I guess the jokes on me.


Do machines dream? I suppose they do.

You could live in China and still just work in a factory.

_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103517 - 10/22/15 05:47 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: SIN3]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
Let's cut things short (general reply btw).

We spoke of rights and the possible consequences.
A red line is being treated and jumped over on many an occassion during this past-blast.

"Duty".

Not a very liked word. Shunned even by liberterian free-thinkers.
Yet, that's all what it boils down to. The duty to uphold "....". [Fill in blank]

Having a right means having a duty to perform/uphold.


Edited by Dimitri (10/22/15 05:48 AM)
Edit Reason: Scrabbilyflupbloob
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#103536 - 10/23/15 03:26 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: Dimitri]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1147
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
We spoke of rights and the possible consequences.
A red line is being treated and jumped over on many an occassion during this past-blast.

"Duty".

Not a very liked word. Shunned even by liberterian free-thinkers.
Yet, that's all what it boils down to. The duty to uphold "....". [Fill in blank]

Having a right means having a duty to perform/uphold.

Very true.

Hohfeld is one of my favorite jurists precisely because he made the logical and practical relationship between "right" and "duty" clear.

For every one party's right, another party has a corresponding duty. If I have a right to exclusive ownership and control of my Lenovo ThinkPad, everyone else has a duty to keep their sticky mitts off of it. If I have a right to free speech, some entity has a duty not to interfere with that. Interesting how the very first right enshrined in the Bill of Rights is phrased in terms of the corollary duty: "Congress shall make no law..."

And as I noted way back, the exercise of our rights creates duties. If I exercise my right to sign a contract, I take on the duty of performing its terms.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#103538 - 10/23/15 09:27 AM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6873
Loc: Virginia
Duty/Obligation same thing in my mind. If people choose to uphold that ideal, I think it has more to do with personal morality. There are plenty of broken contracts, failed obligations and the consequence is seeking punishment. Thing is, it's not really a solution because it fails to reconcile the amorality.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103541 - 10/23/15 01:28 PM Re: Rights vs Consequences [Re: XiaoGui17]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Quote:
And as I noted way back, the exercise of our rights creates duties. If I exercise my right to sign a contract, I take on the duty of performing its terms.


In an ideal world, this would be so. Still, I wouldn't recommend that anyone approach contracts in such a way. One glaring example would be in the case of a contract signed under duress. Less obvious examples encompass scenarios wherein the stipulations of the contract violates state, federal, and/or local laws. In such cases the contract itself is null-and-void inclusive of anything by way of a waiver or agreement to arbitration. This can often work to one's favour, and is not necessarily dishonorable or unethical. After all, if it were a mere matter of honor and ethics there'd be no need for a contract in the first place.

Quite often the conditions of, shall-we-say, shady contracts are tolerated simply because the thinking is "well, I did sign it".

While in a perfect world, one does have a duty to fulfil their commitments, since this is not a perfect world, one also has a supreme duty to ensure that they are not being screwed on account of their own ignorance of contractual law.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
Page all of 4 1234>


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

Generated in 0.072 seconds of which 0.019 seconds were spent on 70 queries. Zlib compression disabled.