[Pants-of-dog]

You are your mind, so it follows that if your bodies mind is you then you own the body, this can only be a purposeful misrepresentation of what I have said.

If all minds own their own bodies, how is it that minds cannot sell their own bodies? Or rent their own bodies to other minds?

The wallet thing too I can only imagine is a misrepresentation of my meaning, either that or I have underestimated your abilities to understand information and discern meaning. Quite clearly I meant by ultimate control was not that you have the absolute power to do any impossible feats but that you have the final ability to do something with something else.

So, your control is necessarily limited by the laws of nature and you have no total control over anything. Your updated definition of ownership implies that you won that which you have total control over outside of the laws of physics.

I can point out that you cannot control many bodily processes, but you will continue to insist that you own your body even though you cannot control when you get headaches.

Why are you folks so stuck on this idea that you own your body?

You have partial control over your children because you make decisions for them but they will not neccesarily carry them out because they are their own separate person.

According to your logic, I therefore have partial ownership.

[SolarCross]

Pants - claims of property are to do with right of use. If you think you can't own anything unless it is immune to the laws of nature then basically claims of property are meaningless and the word ought to be taken out of the dictionary. If you don't believe society should recognise any claims to property then you can't complain if anyone steals from you. If property doesn't exist then neither does stealing.

[mikema63]

You cannot cede your minds control over your body, a table cannot decide to no longer be your table, a slave can.

By your own purposeful warping of what I've said the rest is certainly right, except we are talking about use rights and not magic powers.

[Pants-of-dog]

You cannot cede your minds control over your body, a table cannot decide to no longer be your table, a slave can.

By your own purposeful warping of what I've said the rest is certainly right, except we are talking about use rights and not magic powers.

Are you talking to me?

[mikema63]

Yes, you seem to be taking my point about ownership and trying to make it about having magic powers over something, which is not what I meant and you seem intelligent enough to have realized that. I can only assume that whatever obsession you have with libertarians is driving you to try to misrepresent my position.

Fortunately I don't care if you agree with me or not, but I do find it odd that you can't bring yourself to accept that we disagree in a non-reconcilable way and we should just go our separate ways.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, you seem to be taking my point about ownership and trying to make it about having magic powers over something, which is not what I meant and you seem intelligent enough to have realized that. I can only assume that whatever obsession you have with libertarians is driving you to try to misrepresent my position.

Fortunately I don't care if you agree with me or not, but I do find it odd that you can't bring yourself to accept that we disagree in a non-reconcilable way and we should just go our separate ways.

So, how did your post relate to mine?

I am not clear about which are the posts (or part thereof) to which you are replying.

[Rothbardian]

Thank you for providing an example of how absurd it can be when you decide bodies are property.

I didn't decide your body is property. I asked if you're controlling your body to the exclusion of the rest of humanity.

It's not possible to be alive without restricting others from the resources necessary for you to live. I could stand in a field and not move until I starve to death to try to assuage your wrath and I'd still be a violator since you wouldn't have access to the land immediately beneath my feet.

Really, I am going to go out on a limb and say that as a general rule, any theory that concludes that women who resist rape are violent aggressors is fundamentally flawed in some way.

Did you not claim that owning resources is aggression because it restricts the rest of humanity from using them?

[Pants-of-dog]

I didn't decide your body is property. I asked if you're controlling your body to the exclusion of the rest of humanity.

Not entirely. The pheromones and body of my beloved often excite my libido and cause me to become sexually excited.

Did you not claim that owning resources is aggression because it restricts the rest of humanity from using them?

No, but there is a certain logic to that argument. Obviously, it is not universally true, but there are instances where it is.

[Eran]

Not entirely. The pheromones and body of my beloved often excite my libido and cause me to become sexually excited.

An excellent exception proving the rule.

Generally speaking, we all agree that nobody other than you can rightly control your body or apply physical force to it. In practical terms, you enjoy the privileges of ownership over your own body, with the obvious and notable exception that you cannot sell it (though you might be able to "rent it out" for a limited period).

Obviously, it is not universally true, but there are instances where it is.

First, in practice, those instances are very rare indeed. They qualify as the "emergency exceptions" to the NAP that some libertarians accept.

Second, people can only acquire ownership through homesteading of those resources that aren't being used at the time. It is hard to argue that resources that aren't being used are also essential for others to use.

When discussing homesteading, most people hold the wrong mental picture - perhaps one of pioneers rushing to claim an empty continent.

In practice and at any given time, all economically-viable resources are being used. The only resources open to homesteading are the marginal ones - those which require an extraordinary application of effort, risk, ingenuity or technological innovation.

[Rothbardian]

Not entirely. The pheromones and body of my beloved often excite my libido and cause me to become sexually excited.

Sometimes when I drive my car, the traction control turns on even when I don't tell it to. Therefor it's not my fault if I run over a pedestrian.

Let me know what you think of this argument.

No, but there is a certain logic to that argument. Obviously, it is not universally true, but there are instances where it is.

Such as?

[Pants-of-dog]

Sometimes when I drive my car, the traction control turns on even when I don't tell it to. Therefor it's not my fault if I run over a pedestrian.

Let me know what you think of this argument.

I think it is an irrelevant attempt at a comparison.

Such as?

Hoarding during times of famine. Hydraulic despotism. Even two-tier health systems display some of this activity.

[Eran]

Can you give a single historic example of non-government actors exhibiting such behaviour?

Even if you can, do you really want to claim that this is in any way typical or common?

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not arguing that it is typical or common.

What I am saying is that the assertion that "property is aggression" can be anywhere on the spectrum of completely true to completely false depending on the context.

[Rothbardian]

I think it is an irrelevant attempt at a comparison.

You're clearly inferring that because your body does things without you telling it to, you do not exclusively control it.

If you don't control your body exclusively, then obviously you're not responsible for it's actions.

]

Hoarding during times of famine. Hydraulic despotism. Even two-tier health systems display some of this activity.

Hoarding during a famine is common sense. Not familiar with the other terms. Are you saying that storing food for yourself and your family is aggression, and that taking that food from someone with the foresight to gather it for your own use is not?

[Eran]

What I am saying is that the assertion that "property is aggression" can be anywhere on the spectrum of completely true to completely false depending on the context.

Not by my definition of property (in the normative sense) and aggression.

The former is precisely defined as those natural resources over which one person (or group of people) exercise exclusive control so as to reasonably protect an ongoing peaceful project.

Aggression is defined as the initiation of force against other people's peaceful projects (or their body).

If aggression is used as part of a project, that project is no longer peaceful, and the natural resources incorporated into it do not qualify as property (in the normative sense).

Hoarding during a famine may be immoral, but it isn't aggression (assuming the food hoarded was justly acquired by the hoarder).

It is important to note the difference between property rights and ethical behaviour. Under normal circumstances, it is immoral to violate another person's property rights, as such violation constitutes an initiation of force (or aggression) against their peaceful projects.

Under emergency situations, however, such violation may be morally warranted. Provided, of course, that such violation is recognized for what it is, and that the violation is remedied as soon as practicable after the emergency has passed.

Luckily, especially in the modern and developed world, such emergencies are very few and far between.

[Pants-of-dog]

You're clearly inferring that because your body does things without you telling it to, you do not exclusively control it.

Yes.

If you don't control your body exclusively, then obviously you're not responsible for it's actions.

This does not logically follow.

If a person turns me on, they are exercising some minor control over my body, whether they mean to or not. However, that minor control does not somehow take away my control completely. I do not then become a mindless automaton out to rape. The way I see it, you cannot control certain instinctive reactions but you can control your behaviour that arises from those instincts.

Hoarding during a famine is common sense. Not familiar with the other terms. Are you saying that storing food for yourself and your family is aggression, and that taking that food from someone with the foresight to gather it for your own use is not?

I suggest you look up the other terms.

If it can be reasonably expected that not hoarding will allow everyone to survive without too many negative health effects, while hoarding will cause yourself to be perfectly healthy while others suffer from malnutrition and starvation, then your use of resources has direct negative implications for others.

------------------------------------

Not by my definition of property (in the normative sense) and aggression.

The former is precisely defined as those natural resources over which one person (or group of people) exercise exclusive control so as to reasonably protect an ongoing peaceful project.

Aggression is defined as the initiation of force against other people's peaceful projects (or their body).

If aggression is used as part of a project, that project is no longer peaceful, and the natural resources incorporated into it do not qualify as property (in the normative sense).

This is semantics.

I am saying that sometimes property can be bad. You are turning around and saying that if it is bad, then it can't be property. This seems like a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Hoarding during a famine may be immoral, but it isn't aggression (assuming the food hoarded was justly acquired by the hoarder).

It is important to note the difference between property rights and ethical behaviour. Under normal circumstances, it is immoral to violate another person's property rights, as such violation constitutes an initiation of force (or aggression) against their peaceful projects.

Under emergency situations, however, such violation may be morally warranted. Provided, of course, that such violation is recognized for what it is, and that the violation is remedied as soon as practicable after the emergency has passed.

Luckily, especially in the modern and developed world, such emergencies are very few and far between.

Really?

Let us say someone has a machine that expels toxic gases, but uses this machine in his or her daily activities to make money. Thus, when using their property to add value to the rest of their property, they are aggressing against others by increasing their rate of pulmonary diseases.

In other words, the use of cars (one of the most common things in the modern and developed world) is an aggressive use of private property

[Eran]

If a person turns me on, they are exercising some minor control over my body, whether they mean to or not.

Let's not confuse "control" with "influence". While we can envision extreme circumstances (e.g. brain-washing) under which influence morphs into control, under normal circumstances, the two are easily separable.

It is legitimate for one person to influence another. In fact, under a normatively-neutral perspective, all concious interaction is, at some level, an attempt to influence another. But as long as such influence doesn't involve force (or the threat of force), it doesn't negate self-ownership.

Self-ownership consists of the exclusive moral right of a person to control his own body, notwithstanding the myriad of influences he faces daily.

If it can be reasonably expected that not hoarding will allow everyone to survive without too many negative health effects, while hoarding will cause yourself to be perfectly healthy while others suffer from malnutrition and starvation, then your use of resources has direct negative implications for others.

Quite possibly. But again, let's not confuse "having negative consequences on others" with aggression.

Aggression is nothing less and nothing more than the initiation of force. It is (normally) morally wrong. Non-aggressive acts may be morally right, wrong or neutral. Within the libertarian ethical system, however, non-aggressive acts do not justify aggressive retaliation, regardless of their moral worth.

Some libertarians (myself included) recognize moral exceptions to the rule that it is morally wrong to initiate force (i.e. to act aggressively), but only under narrow circumstances ("emergencies"), and subject to subsequent rectification.

I am saying that sometimes property can be bad. You are turning around and saying that if it is bad, then it can't be property. This seems like a No True Scotsman fallacy.

No. I already agree that property can be (under very narrow and rare circumstances) bad. But "bad" isn't the same as "aggression". Property, by definition, cannot involve aggression.

Setting aside semantics you will see that I am in substantive agreement with you, at least in principle.

Let us say someone has a machine that expels toxic gases, but uses this machine in his or her daily activities to make money. Thus, when using their property to add value to the rest of their property, they are aggressing against others by increasing their rate of pulmonary diseases.

In other words, the use of cars (one of the most common things in the modern and developed world) is an aggressive use of private property

But the emission of noxious gases IS a violation of other people's property rights, and thus aggression by libertarian principles.

My point is that examples in which "property is bad", as you put it above (or, put differently, in which it is moral to initiate force against another person's property) are very rare.

[Pants-of-dog]

Eran, you seem to be confused.

I never suggested that it is moral to initiate force against another person's property, or that it is rare to do so.

What I am simply saying is that the idea that "property is aggression" is not untrue under all circumstances. There are rare examples of this and there are common examples of this.

Other people owning and using cars is a commonplace example of how the use of private property is a form of aggression against others.

[Rothbardian]

This does not logically follow.

If a person turns me on, they are exercising some minor control over my body, whether they mean to or not. However, that minor control does not somehow take away my control completely. I do not then become a mindless automaton out to rape. The way I see it, you cannot control certain instinctive reactions but you can control your behaviour that arises from those instincts.

Well you've done a pretty good job of describing the principles of self ownership. Your body can give you urges and impulses, but ultimately you are the one in control that decides whether or not to act on them.

Just like if you pick up a gun you are responsible for what is done with it, even if you don't have control of every specific mechanical part of the gun. Just like if you get drunk and kill a pedestrian, it doesn't matter that you don't control whether or not your anti-lock brakes engage, etc.

Whatever it is that makes you "you", you have exclusive control of what you do with your body, hence you own your body and are responsible for what's done with it, good or bad.d

If it can be reasonably expected that not hoarding will allow everyone to survive without too many negative health effects, while hoarding will cause yourself to be perfectly healthy while others suffer from malnutrition and starvation, then your use of resources has direct negative implications for others.

You used your resources to buy a computer rather than send it to a child that is starving to death in Africa right now. Are you a murderer? Have you violated the non aggression principle?

[Eran]

Other people owning and using cars is a commonplace example of how the use of private property is a form of aggression against others.

The example demonstrates that property can be used aggressively. If this is the essence of your claim, we are in complete agreement. This is obviously the case, starting with the first stone-aged axe used to kill a person (other than in self-defence).

But the identification of property with aggression is only meaningful in a much narrower sense. In the spirit of "property is theft", some people argue that the actions associated with defending property rights (specifically forcibly excluding others from your property) are aggressive.

Is it your claim that there are circumstances under which the act of excluding others from one's justly-acquired property is aggressive?
If so, can you give a specific example?

Is it sometimes immoral? Can you give a specific example of that?