/liberty/ - Liberty

>>77702

The NAP is the logical conclusion of self ownership. It might seem redundant and pointless to go over simple concepts like "don't be mean to people" repeatedly, but that's the level of discourse we're at.

>>77703

So long as we recognize that the trivial act of being born does not entitle one to any property, ownership of self, or anything else.

>to force someone into doing something.

Giving birth is against the NAP

>>77710

Birth is a productive act. Children are property.

>>77728

Children are not the property of parents, the only person who owns a child, is the child himself. The parents at most, have a default guardian status over their own children, something that can be easily lost if they mistreat their child.

>>77857

>Children are not the property of parents, the only person who owns a child, is the child himself

Yea okay so the kid owns himself but cant contract with anyone, but somehow has a contract with the parents that means they have to be fed. Okay bud.

Children are property get over it.

>>78048

>but cant contract with anyone

I do not recall stipulating that their rights to contract are different from anyone elses'. That appears to just be some authoritarian bullshit you started spewing.

>>78049

>I do not recall stipulating that their rights to contract are different from anyone elses'. That appears to just be some authoritarian bullshit you started spewing.

If they can contract with anyone then they can be trivially exploited. They is no "mistreatment" of the child because the child will have agreed to it by the time it happens. Children are retards and will trade their sovereignty for a 2 liter of coke.

>>78050

Children are under an implied contract with their legal guardian(s), who is authorized to make contract-based decisions on the child's behalf until the child has self-actualized his self ownership.

>>78053

Right so you have a child and then somehow magically contract with a child who is not capable of contracting, while you are the one actually contracting for them, so you contract with implied contract with yourself.

There is no implied contract when I grow a tree, build a robot, or raise a chicken. It is obscene a supposed "implied" contract to be forced simply because the baby is human.

>>78054

The parents created the child, so it's their job to either care for it or arrange for someone else to do so.

>>78055

And its your job to make sure you feed your neighbor, and provide jobs to everyone, and donate to the poor, and give away your time, and be nice to everyone and …

>>77710

Nah, the 9 month contract came to an end, the mother is just evicting the child.

>>78057

>contract

no contract was made, the child is the property of the mother / father, it is the result of their production, the child can be killed at any time.

>>78056

Did you voluntarily agree to create your neighbor?

>>78056

I didn't directly bring my neighbor into existence by busting a nut inside my wife.

>>78060

>>78062

You voluntarily moved into the neighborhood

>>78063

And unless the neighborhood is part of a homeowner's association that stipulated diaper-changing obligations for all residents that doesn't mean shit.

>>78067

And when did I sign the contract when I had a child that I must care for it?

>>78067

>>78065

You guys are worse than the "muh social contract" statists

>>78070

If you don't want to be responsible for a child, wear a rubber/get a vasectomy/don't have sex with girls/make sure your bitch gets her fallopian tubes tied/put the kid up for adoption.

>>78071

If you don't want to be a parent, you simply have to abstain from a particular action. Social contract is the idea that the onus is on you to take positive action and move somewhere else.

>>78084

If I decide to buy a car, and later decide I don't want to use it, I have no responsibility to drive it, sell it, fuel it, or anything. If I want to set it on fire that is my business.

>>78058

>the child is the property of the mother / father

Children can't be property because if the mother and father die does the child become unowed? Could other people come and claim the child? Would their claim be legitimate? Likely not, since the child has self-ownership due to the fact that they has a greater relation to his/her body. However, since the child lives under the parent's household they're still bound by the rules.

>>78085

A car is an inanimate object. It is not sapient, it never will be sapient.

>>78087

This applies to literally any property

>A car cannot be property because if the owner dies does the car become unowned?

If I die what happens to my chickens?

>A car is an inanimate object. It is not sapient, it never will be sapient.

No but my cow is an animate object and we butcher them for meat.

>>78089

A car can't own itself unlike a human. Meaning the car can't express self-ownership making it unowned.

>>78090

Animals can go off and do they want. Eat in the forest, have families, some can even use tools. That does not make animals not property.

>>78091

Do even animals recognize self-ownership? I just feel like they're apart of nature. Just like how we catch fish.

>>78093

Babies are just a part of nature

>>78096

And they can recognize self-ownership.

>>78099

Infants cant even recognize themselves in a mirror. Recognizing "self-ownership" is far off.

>>78099

Also, a person can recognize self ownership and still sell themselves into slavery.

>>77702

>I find NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) to be a bit redundant.

Ok, how?

>It states that it's wrong to initiate force on to someone, more specifically to force someone into doing something.

Sure, fine. And?

>However, isn't this a violation of property rights, that being doesn't everyone own themselves?

How does not violating self-ownership… violate self-ownership?

Even if that wasn't patently insane, you haven't even attempted to point out a redundancy; you've suggested that a tautology is a contradiction, which is coocoobananas.

>Which makes you your own property?

Ok, and so anything you get yourself to do, you necessarily consented to, by definition. There really isn't any logical error here.

This is all, by the way, coming from somebody who isn't a fan of the NAP as a rhetorical device.

>>77709

It's not a matter of entitlement; it's a matter of logical consistency. Legitimate property is that set of rivalrous goods which you exercise exclusive control over without initiating a conflict with anyone else. Controlling your own self does not in itself initiate a conflict with anyone else. Therefore you own yourself. It's not that you should own yourself; it's that logically, only an individual is even capable of owning themselves. It simply isn't possible for it to be any other way.

>>77710

There's a weird sense in which you could almost argue that this is true, but it isn't exactly.

>>77728

That's kind of tricky; parents undoubtedly have stewardship, but that's not exactly the same as ownership. The difficulty with picking this apart comes when you try and examine exactly if and when children are people.

>>78048

>cant contract with anyone, but somehow has a contract with the parents that means they have to be fed

That's not really what's going on; there are ways other than contracts to develop an obligation. If as a result of your actions, you are responsible for somebody being unable to provide for themselves, then you have an obligation to provide for that person, despite having never signed a contract to that effect. Whether that's because you paralyzed them with your car or because you gave birth to them, it's the same.

>>78050

>If they can contract with anyone then they can be trivially exploited.

Believe it or not, there are legal precedents that protect people in these sorts of situations.

>>78058

>the child can be killed at any time

That's the case whether or not it's right, or whether or not there's a contract, or whether or not the child is property. This observation is irrelevant. Even if we recognize the rights and personhood of the child, after said child is killed, who has standing to represent that child in court? Only the child's parents. Are they going to sue themselves? Somebody could have had standing on the child's behalf while it was alive, but there's really no case once it's dead. At that point you have to turn to social enforcement.

>>78070

Again, you don't sign a contract with your victims when you hit them with your car, but you have an obligation to them nonetheless.

>>78071

>somehow, the people saying that they don't have obligations to everyone who happens to live within some arbitrary distance of them implied by vague assertions regarding social niceness are precisely as bad as the people saying that they do have obligations to everyone who happens to live within some arbitrary distance of them implied by vague assertions regarding social niceness

Alright, everybody's equally bad. Bad as they may be, however, the ones who reject the "Social Contract" are right.

>>78085

Unless you're Knight Rider, your car isn't a person. Big difference.

>>78091

The moment those animals demonstrate the capacity for ethical agency, they can stop being eligible for being property. Until then, we can own them.

>>78100

Well, we can know EXACTLY, when awareness kicks in. Every child develops at different rates. However, such appropriation of one's self usually comes in when the child states, "no" or is able to run away.

>>78101

Selling yourself just proves the point, because how can you sell something (legitimately) if you don't even own?

>>78102

>Unless you're Knight Rider, your car isn't a person. Big difference.

People can be property, voluntary slavery is a thing.

>The moment those animals demonstrate the capacity for ethical agency,

Plenty of animals that clearly have morality

>Again, you don't sign a contract with your victims when you hit them with your car, but you have an obligation to them nonetheless.

I only have an obligation to them because they are not property. If they were property I would owe have aggressed on their owner.

>you are responsible for somebody being unable to provide for themselves,

If I out compete someone in a market and they starve to death I don't owe them anything.

> examine exactly if and when children are people.

Children are people, that does not mean they own themselves or anything else.

>without initiating a conflict with anyone else

I initiate conflicts all the time. Its called a competitive market. That is not the same as a NAP violation.

>>78103

> because how can you sell something (legitimately) if you don't even own?

But you do own your children. They are property. You created it with your resources.

>Well, we can know EXACTLY, when awareness kicks in.

An aware slave is still property.

>>78102

>Even if that wasn't patently insane, you haven't even attempted to point out a redundancy; you've suggested that a tautology is a contradiction, which is coocoobananas.

When did I suggest such a thing? All I stated is that the NAP is an unnecessary principle because it's already accounted for through property rights.

>>78107

I would say that the NAP is defined only through property rights. If its not an infringement of property its not a NAP violation.

>>78105

>But you do own your children. They are property. You created it with your resources.

And are they not born with with self-ownership as well?

>An aware slave is still property.

Sure, if you have a contract

>>78109

>And are they not born with with self-ownership as well?

They cant recognize themselves in a mirror, they can barely think, no you are not born with it. Even if it was aware of the concept, being aware of the concept does not mean you own anything.

>Sure, if you have a contract

You don't need to contract with your property. Should you choose to free your children then they make be contracted with.

>>78108

What would it need to be defined in the first place If it's principle is already consider? That's like writing a law stating "you're not allowed to violate property rights" while writing another stating "you're also not allowed to trespass".

>>78113

Why define the word apple if we already have a picture of one

>>78113

The NAP is just a simple rule to make it clear when violence is moral and when its not.

>>78111

>They cant recognize themselves in a mirror, they can barely think, no you are not born with it. Even if it was aware of the concept, being aware of the concept does not mean you own anything.

So where does self-ownership come from then? Because, if you don't own yourself then you can own anything.

>You don't need to contract with your property. Should you choose to free your children then they make be contracted with.

I think we need to address point 1 before moving on with this point.

>>78114

>Why define the word apple if we already have a picture of one

To communicate it.

>>78116

*can't

>>78116

>if you don't own yourself then you cant own anything.

Of course, a slave owns nothing.

>So where does self-ownership come from then?

It comes from being released by your owner.

>>78115

>simple

Very, and I hate when people shill it out.

>>78120

>It comes from being released by your owner.

But doesn't that then make you unowned?

>>78123

Yes you are then unowned and can then begin contracting as you wish. Should your owner die before you are released you are transferred according to his will as with any other property.

>>78126

So you don't own yourself?

>>78129

Once you are released you could say that you own yourself sure.

>>78130

You cant own a person

>>78130

How do you do go from unowned to owning yourself if you didn't already? How does one acquire this authority simply from being released?

>>78133

>You cant own a person

AKA it is illegal to sell yourself into slavery so that your wife can have her cancer treatment. If you cant sell yourself you don't own yourself.

>How do you do go from unowned to owning yourself if you didn't already?

The owner of you says "here George, I have signed your ownership papers and put down your own name."

>>78104

>voluntary slavery is an oxymoron

FTFY

>Plenty of animals that clearly have morality

That's lovely. That's also not what I said. I said "ethical agency", not "morality". Try reading.

>If they were property I would owe have aggressed on their owner.

And people own themselves, therefore….

>If I out compete someone in a market and they starve to death I don't owe them anything.

That's true, because you're not responsible for that person being unable to provide for themselves. That isn't a counterexample.

>Children are people, that does not mean they own themselves or anything else.

That's actually exactly what that means.

>I initiate conflicts all the time. Its called a competitive market.

Competition and conflict are not the same thing. Again; reading is your friend.

>>78107

>When did I suggest such a thing?

When you said,

>However, isn't this a violation of property rights

>All I stated is that the NAP is an unnecessary principle because it's already accounted for through property rights.

No, that isn't all you said. If it was, then I wouldn't have had anything to disagree with you about. It may have been all that you meant, but it's not all that you said.

>>78138

You cant sell yourself because you self isn't a tangible commodity. The closest you can get to selling yourself is selling your labor.

>>78142

>voluntary slavery is an oxymoron

You cant kill yourself twice, you can both be alive and then die.

>That's lovely. That's also not what I said. I said "ethical agency", not "morality". Try reading.

wordgames.jpg

>And people own themselves, therefore….

Only because the state has used violence to make slavery illegal.

>You cant sell yourself because you self isn't a tangible commodity.

Right and I suppose the self cant be killed either because the i'm not a tangible commodity.

>because you're not responsible for that person being unable to provide for themselves

Just like i'm not responsible for the baby not being able to provide for itself.

>That's actually exactly what that means.

<You have a right to something just because you were born

We call that socialism here

>Competition and conflict are not the same thing. Again; reading is your friend.

Owning property is not conflict either.

>>78138

>The owner of you says "here George, I have signed your ownership papers and put down your own name."

Massive contradiction.

Why would property need to sign anything if they held no authority? Also, how could their signature hold any power, since you own the kid and therefore own his signature. Lastly, you can't delegate someone their own authority over themselves unless you recognize they have the ability to do so. Meaning, they already had such an abilities to begin with without your "papers".

>>78150

>Why would property need to sign anything if they held no authority?

The owner holds the authority. The writing is just evidence for society. Don't want someone to think you are stealing a car, so you give them the cars paperwork. Simple.

> Also, how could their signature hold any power,

Its not their signature its your signature. You are just writing their name as the recipient like you would a bank check.

>>78142

>When you said,

LOL, when I stated "However, isn't this a violation of property rights". I wasn't talking about the NAP but expanding upon it's definition. Whenever I wrote "It states that it's wrong to initiate force on to someone, more specifically to force someone into doing something". I was merely stating isn't this already a violation of property right, rendering the NAP redundant.

Sorry for the mix up.

>>78155

>The owner holds the authority. The writing is just evidence for society. Don't want someone to think you are stealing a car, so you give them the cars paperwork. Simple.

So if a car sign these "papers" the car owns itself now? My point is, how can your property hold a claim to anything if you are it's highest authority? This render's the property's (kid) signature your signature.

> You are just writing their name as the recipient like you would a bank check.

Then why would you need their signature in the first place? Also, that still doesn't make the property have self-ownership, you're just signing them away, you're not making them have authority over themselves.

>>78161

>So if a car sign these "papers" the car owns itself now?

I don't know where you got this idea. The property is not doing the signing of anything. You the owner are writing down on a piece of paper the identity number, or name of the person / car.

>Then why would you need their signature in the first place?

Its not their signature. They are never writing their signature. I have no idea where you got this from.

>>78149

Just cause people dont have an intrinsic right to own themselves doesnt mean you have any sort of a right to own them. After all, rights are a spook. Just cause you use coercive action to make people obey you doesnt mean that they arent free agents, that could, if it was beneficial to them, refuse to comply.

>>78163

>I don't know where you got this idea. The property is not doing the signing of anything. You the owner are writing down on a piece of paper the identity number, or name of the person / car.

>Its not their signature. They are never writing their signature. I have no idea where you got this from.

So you write your property's tag number done. Exactly how do you acquire self-ownership from this?

>>78169

> doesnt mean you have any sort of a right to own them.

Of course not. The act of creating them is what makes them your property.

>After all, rights are a spook.

Another conversation

>Just cause you use coercive action

You created them, they are yours. No coercive action. No NAP violation.

>So you write your property's tag number done.

No you don't write your tag number down. The slave / property does not do anything. They don't have control over themselves remember.

>>78171

>No you don't write your tag number down. The slave / property does not do anything. They don't have control over themselves remember.

Alright, "you" write their tag number down. NOW, how exactly do you acquire self-ownership from this?

>>78172

The slave acquires self ownership by the owner transferring the deed of ownership to the slave itself. This is in the same way you can acquire a car by the car owner transferring the cars deed to the new owner of the car.

You might ask "what if a car owner transfers ownership of the car to itself?". Great! The car now owns itself. However the car is going to have a very difficult time contracting somewhere for it to stay. It will probably be trespassing, judged in violation by a court, either executed (smashed to bits), or sent to a work program (used as a car). If you were to also give the car some land though it could sit their undisturbed. I imagine it would be enslaved by another human though unable to defend itself. Its a sad world that it would be enslaved again against the NAP but thats the world.

>>78149

>You cant kill yourself twice, you can both be alive and then die.

Now what are you on about?

>wordgames.jpg

They're very different concepts, referring to very different things.

>Only because the state has used violence to make slavery illegal.

Oh sorry, that's incorrect. Unfortunately, positivism is not a valid answer. Thanks for playing.

>>You cant sell yourself because you self isn't a tangible commodity.

I never said this. Don't put words into my mouth.

>Just like i'm not responsible for the baby not being able to provide for itself.

Except that you are, by virtue of having created it. The child's helplessness is a direct consequence of your actions.

><You have a right to something just because you were born

>We call that socialism here

Then "we" are retarded, because "we" are equating rights with entitlements.

A person (not a human, but a person) is an entity which has the ability to be ethically responsible for its actions. An entity other than a human could conceivably be a person, and it's even conceivable that a human could be a non-person. That ethical agency is logically identical to self-ownership.

>Owning property is not conflict either.

That is correct, in itself. Attempting to act like you own something which somebody else owns without their permission, however, is the initiation of a conflict.

>>78156

>Sorry for the mix up.

Alright.

>>78176

>ow what are you on about?

If you are free you can kill yourself, or you can sell yourself into slavery. Being free includes the ability to limit yourself.

>They're very different concepts, referring to very different things.

go on

>Oh sorry, that's incorrect. Unfortunately, positivism is not a valid answer. Thanks for playing.

Implying positivism

>I never said this. Don't put words into my mouth.

other guy did

>The child's helplessness is a direct consequence of your actions.

Me opening up a bagel shop next door and putting a man out of business is a direct consequence of my actions.

Me raising a cow and then killing it is a direct consequence of my actions. The cow is till my property.

>Then "we" are retarded, because "we" are equating rights with entitlements.

Self ownership is entitlement. You don't own yourself just because you were born. You were created by someone else with their resources.

>which somebody else owns without their permission,

of course

>>78175

>The slave acquires self ownership by the owner transferring the deed of ownership to the slave itself.

This presumes that the slave is capable of owning anything. And you can't own anything if you don't own yourself. You're not giving slave ownership, you're just releasing them.You're in a dilemma here if you believe kids are property, that being.

1. If your kid doesn't own his/her self, then they can never own anything at all, not even themselves

2. If they can own something, then they already have self-ownership independent of your request. You're just suppressing it.

You can't give property ownership over itself, it would first need the agent to do so.

>>78178

>And you can't own anything if you don't own yourself.

You are giving ownership of yourself. It happens at the same instant. There is not some paradox here.

>If your kid doesn't own his/her self, then they can never own anything at all, not even themselves

They can be given ownership of themselves. Which releases them from your ownership.

If someone voluntarily sells themselves into slavery so that their wife can get cancer treatment, you are saying that they could never be freed by their master. Of course they can be set free. They can be given ownership of themselves.

>>78179

It is a paradox

1. "Take this ability, so you can own things."

2. "I can't take it, because I can't own anything."

And back to 1

What these things just magically happen at once?

Also by this logic, you can give all unowned property self-ownership.

>>77702

>It states that it's wrong to initiate force on to someone, more specifically to force someone into doing something.

The first part is correct, the second, not really. But I guess that was just a small phrasing error on your part.

>However, isn't this a violation of property rights, that being doesn't everyone own themselves? Which makes you your own property?

It is. Self-ownership and property rights entail that aggression against anyone isn't valid, that's true. Property means excludability, which translates to non-aggression. So yes, in a way, the NAP is redundant.

Haven't read the thread further than the OP, I must admit.

>>78182

>It is a paradox

Its not a paradox, you are playing a word game. A slave can be freed. There is not some magic going on here. The owner frees them. Its that simple. That is all there is too it. You are coming back with "lololo you cant be freed because you are a slave". Retarded.

Is it against the NAP to preemptively kill those who would do you harm?

>>78177

>Being free includes the ability to limit yourself.

Ok, sure, fine. That doesn't give you the ability to transcend logic. If it's truly voluntary, then it isn't slavery. If it's slavery, then it isn't truly voluntary. You're no more free to be a slave than you are free to be a square circle.

>go on

Morality refers to the values of a person or group. Ethics refers to logical consistency of normative premises. Morality is subjective, ethics is objective.

>Implying positivism

Indeed, that's precisely what you did.

>other guy did

Then don't quote it in the middle of a response to me.

>Me opening up a bagel shop next door and putting a man out of business is a direct consequence of my actions.

Him being out of business is an indirect consequence of your actions, and his inability to pursue any other venture is in no way a consequence of any of your actions. That means you're not responsible for it.

>Me raising a cow and then killing it is a direct consequence of my actions. The cow is till my property.

How is this supposed to be a response to anything I've argued?

>Self ownership is entitlement.

Incorrect. You already have yourself; nobody else is required to give you to you. Self-ownership logically cannot be an entitlement. Respecting that self-ownership consists of negative action, not positive action, and therefore is not an entitlement.

>You don't own yourself just because you were born.

If you'd been paying attention, you'd notice that I've pointed out repeatedly that self-ownership is not a consequence of merely being born, but of having ethical agency. Should you birth a braindead child, then it is incapable of self-ownership and therefore your property. However, if it possesses the capability in principle to be responsible for its actions, then it must own itself, whether you acknowledge that fact or not.

>>78248

> If it's truly voluntary, then it isn't slavery.

If everything was voluntary we would not need contracts. You can sign a contract saying you will pay back a mortgage, and then later be compelled against your will.

You can agree to be a slave, it can become against your will at a later point, you agreed to a contract though and are to be compelled.

>Indeed, that's precisely what you did.

okay bud sure thing nice argument

>Then don't quote it in the middle of a response to me.

<the whole world revolves around me

>Him being out of business is an indirect consequence of your actions,

I don't have any responsibility to him the same way I don't have any responsibly to treat my cow one way or another.

>How is this supposed to be a response to anything I've argued?

A cow is property and can be treated as such. The fact that it is alive does not make it not property.

>Self-ownership logically cannot be an entitlement.

Wrong. You do not own yourself just because you were born. You were created with someone elses time and resources.

>Respecting that self-ownership consists of negative action,

Only when someone does own themselves. They don't own themselves just because self ownership is negative. They did not create themselves.

>but of having ethical agency.

Capability for self ownership is not the same as owning one self in the same way that being able to drive a car does not entitle me to own one.

>>78231

I didn't say that the slave couldn't be freed, I'm saying that the master isn't the one that gives him self-ownership.

>>78267

>I'm saying that the master isn't the one that gives him self-ownership.

He has the capacity for self ownership. This does not mean he own himself. Just because someone has the capacity to drive does not mean they have a car or even a right to a car.

>>78240

depends

>>78265

>If everything was voluntary we would not need contracts.

This does not follow. A contract is precisely a voluntary agreement.

>You can sign a contract saying you will pay back a mortgage, and then later be compelled against your will.

It is not against your will; you expressed your will in agreeing to the contract. You may regret it, but that does not change that it was your will.

>nice argument

Thank you. I'm glad you agree.

><the whole world revolves around me

When you argue with one person about something that they didn't say, that just makes you sound like a crazy person.

>I don't have any responsibility to him the same way I don't have any responsibly to treat my cow one way or another.

These are completely unrelated. You don't own the other person, but you do own your cow.

>A cow is property and can be treated as such. The fact that it is alive does not make it not property.

At no point have I argued anything contrary to this. Again; what does this have to do with anything I've argued?

>You do not own yourself just because you were born.

It does you no good to try to refute something I've never claimed. I've repeatedly clarified that self-ownership is not a consequence of mere birth, and that self-ownership is not an entitlement because it does not represent a positive obligation on anyone else's part. You are tilting at windmills.

>Only when someone does own themselves.

All persons own themselves by definition. It is impossible for things to be any other way.

>They did not create themselves.

At what point has it been established that creation is a sufficient condition for ownership?

>Capability for self ownership is not the same as owning one self in the same way that being able to drive a car does not entitle me to own one.

But you do have a right to own a car. Nobody has any right to stop you from owning a car, so long as you do not initiate a conflict in doing so. This does not entitle you to receive a car from anyone else, obliging them to give one to you, but you are still entitled to exercise your right of car ownership, and nobody has any right to stop you. In the same way, nobody has any right to stop you from exercising self-ownership. Nobody's obligated to give you a self, but fortunately enough, you happen to have one by virtue of existing.

You haven't done yourself any favors with this line of argument.

>>78314

>This does not follow. A contract is precisely a voluntary agreement.

Which is why slavery can be voluntary

>It is not against your will; you expressed your will in agreeing to the contract. You may regret it, but that does not change that it was your will.

Which is why slavery can be voluntary

>Thank you. I'm glad you agree.

:^}

>When you argue with one person about something that they didn't say,

Wasn't arguing with you though

<Whole world revolves around me

> You don't own the other person, but you do own your cow.

Except when I do own the other person

>and that self-ownership is not an entitlement

If you mean being born means you own yourself thats an entitlement bud

>All persons own themselves by definition

Except when someone else owns them because they are a slave

>At what point has it been established that creation is a sufficient condition for ownership?

When all the resources were my property before hand, when I took no one elses property, when I used my labor to produce something, that makes it my property.

>But you do have a right to own a car.

No I don't

>Nobody has any right to stop you from owning a car,

Correct, not the same thing as a right to a car.

>nobody has any right to stop you from exercising self-ownership.

If you own yourself. If you don't own yourself then "exercising self-ownership" is theft.

>you happen to have one by virtue of existing.

There is some matter you are made of. That does not mean you own yourself. That is someone elses property who made you.

>>78316

>Which is why slavery can be voluntary

That's not called "slavery". It's indentured servitude at worst. There is no slavery contract.

>Wasn't arguing with you though

Funny; you were linked to my post, so the fact that you don't consider yourself to have been arguing with me indicates mere incompetence on your part.

>Except when I do own the other person

Which is impossible, and wasn't even the scenario under discussion. We were talking about your neighbor being competed out of the market. Stay on topic.

>If you mean being born means you own yourself thats an entitlement bud

How. Many. Times. Do. I. Have. To. Point. Out. That. This. Is. Not. What. I. Said?

>Except when someone else owns them because they are a slave

Being a slave means that somebody else is acting like they own you, but they do not. They cannot. They cannot own you any more than they can own any other stolen goods. They can possess you, but they cannot own you. It's impossible.

>When all the resources were my property before hand, when I took no one elses property, when I used my labor to produce something, that makes it my property.

Prove it.

>No I don't

So you need a third party's permission to rightfully purchase a car from a willing seller? No; you don't. It's unfortunate that you think you do, but you don't.

>Correct, not the same thing as a right to a car.

It is exactly the same thing. It's not the same thing as an entitlement to a car, but it is the same thing as a right to a car. Nobody owes you a car, but nobody's got a right to stop you from voluntarily acquiring one. That's what it means to have a right, as opposed to an entitlement.

Nobody has to give you a you, but you have every right to exercise ownership over your you. You have a right to a you, but not an entitlement to a you.

>If you own yourself.

If you're a person, you own yourself; it's logically necessary.

>If you don't own yourself then "exercising self-ownership" is theft.

And since it can't be, then it isn't.

>There is some matter you are made of. That does not mean you own yourself. That is someone elses property who made you.

They gave it up by making a person out of it. When you make a person out of stuff, you have given that stuff to that person, in the most literal way possible. Once they're a person, they own themselves. It's not that you're obligated to give them ownership of themselves; they automatically have it by virtue of being a person.

>>78320

>There is no slavery contract.

Except when you sign a contract saying "I will be a slave".

>Funny; you were linked to my post, so the fact that you don't consider yourself to have been arguing with me indicates mere incompetence on your part.

<Every response in a post that includes me must be to me

>How. Many. Times. Do. I. Have. To. Point. Out. That. This. Is. Not. What. I. Said?

Right so we can agree that children are property then.

>Being a slave means that somebody else is acting like they own you, but they do not.

But they do, it says so right there in the contract that was agreed to.

>. They cannot own you any more than they can own any other stolen goods.

You are not stolen.

>They can possess you, but they cannot own you. It's impossible.

Right slavery is impossible okay bud.

>Prove it.

<Prove that your property and labor are yours

hahahaha

>So you need a third party's permission to rightfully purchase a car from a willing seller?

You need the sellers permission to buy the car from them. Just because you can drive does not mean you have a right to a car.

>It is exactly the same thing.

Its not the same fucking thing. If someone says "I have a right to food and education" that means they want free shit.

>but you have every right to exercise ownership over your you.

Only when you own yourself. Being able to own yourself does not entitle you to own yourself.

>f you're a person, you own yourself

Except when you are someone elses property.

>And since it can't be, then it isn't.

Except when you are someone elses property

>They gave it up by making a person out of it

A person is not entitled to own themselves.

> When you make a person out of stuff, you have given that stuff to that person,

I suppose when I make a dog house it is now the dogs property right?

> Once they're a person, they own themselves.

Except when they don't

>hey automatically have it by virtue of being a person.

They are not entitled to anything by being born. Just like you are not entitled to food or education by existing. Fucking commies on this board demanding free shit.

>>78326

>Except when you sign a contract saying "I will be a slave".

Just like signing a contract saying "I will be a unicorn". You can sign it all you like; it doesn't make it possible.

><Every response in a post that includes me must be to me

When the post links my comments and only my comments, yes.

Admit it; you done fucked up.

>Right so we can agree that children are property then.

Read, nigger. I said nothing of the sort.

>But they do, it says so right there in the contract that was agreed to.

Contracts do not grant their signers the ability to transcend logical consistency. It's absolutely impossible to transfer ownership of yourself.

>You are not stolen.

When a person attempts to exercise ownership over that which is owned by another, then they are stealing. Nobody can own you but you, therefore anybody trying to act like they own you is stealing.

>Right slavery is impossible okay bud.

Read. What. I've. Been. Writing. Nigger.

Nobody can actually own what they've stolen, but it's still possible to steal things. Nobody can actually own another person, but it's still possible to enslave them. It's still possible to exercise control. That's not the same thing as ownership.

How in the hell can this possibly evade your comprehension? It's one of the simplest ideas in the world. How is it even possible for you to be this dense?

><Prove that your property and labor are yours

Circular reasoning. Try again.

>You need the sellers permission to buy the car from them.

Fucking read what I wrote. That's already accounted for in my words. What part of "third party" do you not understand? The right to own a car means that you have the right to receive one from a willing second party, not that said second party is obligated to give you a car.

Can. You. Fucking. Read. Please?

>Except when you are someone elses property.

>Except when you are someone elses property.

Still impossible.

>A person is not entitled to own themselves.

Right; they aren't entitled; they just do own themselves. It's not an entitlement; it's a fact.

>I suppose when I make a dog house it is now the dogs property right?

Neither dogs nor houses are people, so…

fucking read.

>Except when they don't

Which is literally never ever.

>They are not entitled to anything by being born.

NOT

AN

ENTITLEMENT

LEARN

TO

READ

>Just like you are not entitled to food or education by existing.

Again; I never said that. How can you even see with all this straw flying everywhere?

>>78326

By your reasoning, you aren't entitled to not being murdered just for being born, so you're a communist if you tell me I'm not allowed to kill you.

>>78327

>Just like signing a contract saying "I will be a unicorn". You can sign it all you like; it doesn't make it possible.

Except slaves can and do exist

>When the post links my comments and only my comments, yes.

I quoted someone elses comment actually if you would have read it.

>Read, nigger. I said nothing of the sort.

Just following the implication

>Contracts do not grant their signers the ability to transcend logical consistency.

Sure, and there is nothing inconsistent about slavery

> It's absolutely impossible to transfer ownership of yourself.

Except its not because slavery can and does exist.

>Nobody can own you but you

Except people can both be owned, and agree to be owned.

>Nobody can actually own what they've stolen

Of course. Slavery does not mean someone was stolen though. People can become slaves voluntarily and then be traded around.

> Nobody can actually own another person

Except they can. Its a very simple agreement.

> It's still possible to exercise control. That's not the same thing as ownership

Slavery can exist without any property being stolen. Slavery is not a defacto situation.

>Circular reasoning. Try again.

All reasoning is eventually circular or comes down, but why, but why, but why.

HYPOCRITETHATYOUARE.JPG

>Still impossible

<Slavery is impossible

hahahahaha

>they just do own themselves.

Me owning a car is not an entitlement. Its just a fact. Someone does not own themselves just because they have the capacity just like someone does not own a car just because they can.

>Neither dogs nor houses are people, so…

But they are property :^}

>Which is literally never ever.

<slavery cannot exist

>NOT AN ENTITLEMENT

<I demand free shit but its not an entitlement

>Again; I never said that. How can you even see with all this straw flying everywhere?

You are not entitled to anything by being born. You keep claiming otherwise.

>>78328

>you aren't entitled to not being murdered just for being born,

People can treat their property as they want.

>>78328

>so you're a communist if you tell me I'm not allowed to kill you.

That would be a NAP violation. I am not your property. Should I be your slave feel free to kill me.

>>78330

I give the fuck up. Despite constant correction, you can't read what I fucking write, you constantly assert logical impossibilities, you keep acting like I've said things that I repeatedly and explicitly point that I haven't, you can't tell the difference between ownership and possession, you can't tell the difference between entitlements and rights, and you can't even admit to a simple mistake.

You've proven completely impervious to reason, and you're not worth my time. Go ahead and kill your kids. At least it'll limit the spread of your aggressive stupidity.

>>78333

> you constantly assert logical impossibilities

<Slavery is logically impossible

okay bud sure thing

> you can't tell the difference between ownership and possession

You can posses a stolen item but not own it. Of course slavery does not mean someone was stolen.

>the difference between entitlements and rights

"My entitlements are not entitlements, I have a entitlement to others property but that's my RIGHT"

>You've proven completely impervious to reason

<I proved slavery is impossible with logic QED!

>>78333

>Go ahead and kill your kids.

Why would I waste my property like that? You don't go around setting your house on fire do you? Are you fucking insane?

Do you go around beating slaves so that they cant work? Some shitty slave owner you would be. Wasting all the potential.

>>78334

><slavery is logically impossible

Voluntary slavery is logically impossible, because slavery is defined as involuntary servitude. You can't have voluntary involuntary servitude.

>>78338

Okay well then in your mind replace the word "slavery" with "contract equivalent to slavery but initiated voluntarily" and we get the same result.

>>78339

1) That's indentured servitude, not slavery.

2) Contracts require consideration (a legal concept) in order to be valid and binding, while no such provision exists for slavery.

3) A valid contract therefore cannot produce an identical condition to slavery.

>>78340

Mutual consideration, that is.

>>78268

>Has the capacity to own himself

>Doesn't own himself

Pick one.

Because if he has the capacity to own himself, then he can do it independent of your request. Since such a capacity isn't given by the master. All the master can do is give him freedom not ownership over himself. Do to the fact that if the master dies, the slave can easily own himself. The master's request hold no significance. He's just nothing more than a subjugator at that point. It's not like you can stop him from owning himself, it's impossible to take away his capacity.

>>78340

>That's indentured servitude, not slavery.

Permanent indentured servitude. You know "voluntarily slavery" is a term that exists.

>Mutual consideration, that is.

You become my slave as soon as I give your wife $500. Done.

No reason a contract has to have a mutual exchange though. "I will pay you $20 on Saturday" is valid without me exchanging anything with you.

>>78342

>Has the capacity to own a car

>Does not own a car

<These are the same thing

hahahahaha

> Do to the fact that if the master dies, the slave can easily own himself.

If the master dies the slave is transferred according to his will as with all property. Slaves don't just become free lol.

> It's not like you can stop him from owning himself

When he agrees to a contract saying I own him now I can do whatever.

>>78343

> You know "voluntarily slavery" is a term that exists.

So is "communist utopia". Doesn't make it coherent.

>You become my slave as soon as I give your wife $500. Done.

The "contract" gets thrown out in court for being incoherent. I you agreed to it, then you're not a slave. That's how definitions work. It also grants the "slave" a written avenue for legal remedy, as unlike an actual slave, they have a contract to contest in court, and the right to do so.

>No reason a contract has to have a mutual exchange though.

The definition of a contract is reason enough that it does.

>"I will pay you $20 on Saturday" is valid without me exchanging anything with you.

This is a promissory note, not a contract. Has different legal characteristics. You really can't salvage this idea.

>>78346

>So is "communist utopia". Doesn't make it coherent.

Of course!

>I you agreed to it, then you're not a slave.

Of course! I slave cannot sell themselves. Only a freeman can sell himself. You have money before you buy a house, you don't have money after.

>The definition of a contract is reason enough that it does.

Okay lets try a couple

"a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law."

"enter into a formal and legally binding agreement."

Seems like it fits in both of those definitions. O Wait! You meant "In my hypothetical legal system that prevents people from doing what they want with themselves". Of course!

>This is a promissory note, not a contract.

Well let me find the first answer on le google:

" When all of these conditions are addressed in the promissory note details and it is signed by both parties, the promissory note meets all the elements of a legally binding contract."

>>78346

>It also grants the "slave" a written avenue for legal remedy

If the owner is found in contract violation then the contract is null and void obviously. A slave does not have to continue serving under a null contract. The slave simply leaves. Becoming a slave is not like killing yourself. You can enter free and non free states.

>>78344

>Has the capacity to own a car

>Does not own a car

Nice equivocation fallacy, apparently my ability to drive corresponds with my license given to me.

>Slaves don't just become free

Then what happens in the absence of a will then.

>When he agrees to a contract saying I own him now I can do whatever.

>Contracts prevent capacities

Lol

>>78349

>talks about legal concepts

>uses colloquial definition rather than legal definition

Sure. Have fun with that.

>>78351

>Sure. Have fun with that.

<Using legal definitions from the statist legal system.

You know there is more than one legal system right? Its not the whole fucking world for all of time.

>Then what happens in the absence of a will then.

Someone does not become a robot when they become a slave lol. It just because illegal to oppose the master.

> apparently my ability to drive corresponds with my license given to me.

Just like your ability for self ownership corresponds with self ownership. Just like the car though it does not mean you have one / it.

>Contracts prevent capacities

Capacity to drive is not the same thing as having a car

>>78352

>uses colloquial definition rather than legal definition

Lets go with blacks 9th shall we "An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law " Him no mention of mutual exchange there.

>>78353

>Someone does not become a robot when they become a slave lol. It just because illegal to oppose the master.

You didn't answer the question.

>Just like your ability for self ownership corresponds with self ownership. Just like the car though it does not mean you have one / it.

Not having a car doesn't prevent my ability to drive. The same way being "owned" doesn't prevent my ability from self-ownership. A car is an outside object unlike my skills.

>Capacity to drive is not the same thing as having a car

Not having a car doesn't prevent my capacity to drive.

>>78356

>The same way being "owned" doesn't prevent my ability from self-ownership.

You have the capacity for self ownership, not self ownership. Having a car does not prevent you from driving. But signing a contract saying "I will never drive again" does.

>Not having a car doesn't prevent my capacity to drive.

See above.

>You didn't answer the question.

Free will is fine and all but your actions will be legally restricted.