13bfa0 No.6293
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c6542a No.6296
The notion that one must "own one-self" in the ancap version of property to not be a criminal in one's own body and that ancappery is therefor the only logical conclusion rests on the premise that said ancappery is already intertwined with the fabric of reality. It's like arguing that one must believe in creationism, because the very existence that allows them to deny creationism is testament to them being created by god.
It's liberalism brought to its final conclusion; humans being nothing but their own commodities with the world being their ideal market.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
dd475d No.6414
>>6296
Well looky here it's a retard. In free market ethics it is recognized that every person owns themselves, not that one "must" own themselves. It is necessary and true that you are the owner of your body by the existence of your particular will which is attached to that particular body. Being that no other may use their particular will to move another's arm by that arm's particular qualities, no other will but that one intrinsically attached to it may claim ownership over that arm. Likewise with all of the body. You get the definitions backwards. Property is based off of this understanding, not the other way around.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.