/liberty/ - Liberty

self ownership exists because actors have the capability to physically carry out their will; theres no conceptual plane of existence except our physical reality, especially in ancapistan where theres no govt to enforce rules they make up; if a wolf prevents someone from getting near a rock then sure, he owns the rock, whatever

>>70297

>self ownership exists because actors have the capability to physically carry out their will

An incapacitated person would, in your view, not own themselves then? Even if he is only temporarily incapacitated? What about someone who is sleeping?

>>70299

I think he means that ownership isnt a right exactly but a reality, I own this house because I will shoot anyone trying to invade it ect (i might be misunderstanding him though)

personally I think that a person "owning themselves" is just a simple fact that they can make their muscles move and their synapses fire and think their thoughts and no one can control them to the same level they can control themselves or make decisions for them, so obviously they own themselves, and its impossible to own another person unless you can control their thoughts

as far as animals go, I think as long as nothing else is controlling their thoughts they do in fact own themselves and killing them is an agression, but the nap isnt a hard and fast rule in an anarchy but more like a tendency that will enforce itself, you likely wont agress against anything if you fear the retaliation sufficiently, but you likely do not fear livestock, you might think twice about a move that could trigger consequences like trespassing, but if they are incapable of understanding the nap in the first place (like an animal for example) then you may face the same consequence whether you transgress or not and have no real reason to stick to it in that instance

Tl;DR animals have rights but we have no reason to respect those rights and cannot expect them to respect our own

>>70299

If a person still has the ability to contest others on if they own something or not after a period of "inactivity" through sleeping, coma or illness by using a system of law or their own family and friends' help through a show of aggression or documents that say "I own this", does that not show that they still own something?

>>70318

Does potentiality for self-ownership imply self-ownership? I'm not asserting it doesn't, by the way. Im not sure either way.

>>70305

>>70308

I like these answers. They establish an important distinction between ethical principle and factual reality which I had overlooked. I would like to clarify this view: are self-ownership and therefore property rights exclusively facts of nature which only exist when they are defended by the individual or society or are they universal ethical principles which always exist independently thereof?

>>70357

>Does potentiality for self-ownership imply self-ownership?

It doesn't imply self-ownership, but I think it does make a difference. I think it's how we do think of it naturally, too. We notice that there is something wrong with declaring braindamaged people not to be human, but cannot capture that sense with the categories of contemporary philosophy.

>I'm not asserting it doesn't, by the way. Im not sure either way.

I'm still trying to learn metaphysics myself, so no problem. It's challenging. Aristotelian metaphysics also used to be the basis of all western philosophy. Kinda scary that I now have to learn it from scratch.

how can things be taken seriously if they are a priori?

>>70296

Praxeologically, the act of attempting to argue expresses implicit normative claims. It is therefore impossible to engage in persuasive discussion without implying some normative agency. When one makes an attempt to convince another of something–regardless of whether it is convincing or not–they have demonstrated that they must necessarily have this agency.

Any attempt to convince another of an idea is proof positive of ethical agency, regardless of the efficacy of that attempt. Any such attempt made by an animal (and humans are animals) would be evidence that it as an ethical agent. Ethics is only useful because of the ability to understand it, which is dependent upon the ability in principle to communicate it. It fundamentally cannot be practiced by actors who are incapable of some level of negotiation.