Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

–“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.”— by Bill Joslin: What about possession? Context: In fact : Possession – what you can defend is yours Agreement : Property– what others agree is yours is yours Legal : 3rd party insurance of ownership agreement In fact : (de facto) soverienty – hold monopoly of violence over a domain Agreement (De jur): recognition of soverienty by other soveriegns (example Israel) Legal – (and currently non-existent) 3rd party ensurance of agreement of soverienty (no world power to enforce) The notion of possessing the volition of another can not exist ‘in fact’ only in agreement. (a slave agrees to be a slave when given this choice: “be a slave or die”) In other words ownership of a human can not be demonstrated ‘in fact’, only in agreement and in law. The simple act of raising one’s arm or scratching one’s ass demonstrates possession of volition which, in fact, can only be the person doing the scratching. The only type of human ownership which remains coherent across all three domains (physical – in fact, social-agreement, legal-3rd party ensurance) is self ownership were by we agree to self ownership (ownership coheres to possession) and the law ensures it. Any other form of human ownership can only cohere to 2 of the 3 (agreement and law) To clarify further. Human volition remains bound by biology and thus can not be transferred, in fact, to another. One human’s volition bent to the will of another can only occur via agreement between the slave and master. The slave always retains possession and control. So the quote follows the same structure as libertarian arguments which rally for liberty while ignoring the physical necessity of soverienty for liberty’s existence. Liberty can only exist in agreement with the soveriegn and law by the soveriegn. Human ownership can only exist in agreement with the slave bolstered by the law of the masters. Just as libertarians seek liberty while avoiding the costs of soverienty, this argument seeks slavery without the requirement of reciprocity (slave’s agreement). I can only think of one reason to promote the idea – the wish to justify coercion.”—

–“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.”— by Bill Joslin: What about possession? Context: In fact : Possession – what you can defend is yours Agreement : Property– what others agree is yours is yours Legal : 3rd party insurance of ownership agreement In fact : (de facto) soverienty – hold monopoly of violence over a domain Agreement (De jur): recognition of soverienty by other soveriegns (example Israel) Legal – (and currently non-existent) 3rd party ensurance of agreement of soverienty (no world power to enforce) The notion of possessing the volition of another can not exist ‘in fact’ only in agreement. (a slave agrees to be a slave when given this choice: “be a slave or die”) In other words ownership of a human can not be demonstrated ‘in fact’, only in agreement and in law. The simple act of raising one’s arm or scratching one’s ass demonstrates possession of volition which, in fact, can only be the person doing the scratching. The only type of human ownership which remains coherent across all three domains (physical – in fact, social-agreement, legal-3rd party ensurance) is self ownership were by we agree to self ownership (ownership coheres to possession) and the law ensures it. Any other form of human ownership can only cohere to 2 of the 3 (agreement and law) To clarify further. Human volition remains bound by biology and thus can not be transferred, in fact, to another. One human’s volition bent to the will of another can only occur via agreement between the slave and master. The slave always retains possession and control. So the quote follows the same structure as libertarian arguments which rally for liberty while ignoring the physical necessity of soverienty for liberty’s existence. Liberty can only exist in agreement with the soveriegn and law by the soveriegn. Human ownership can only exist in agreement with the slave bolstered by the law of the masters. Just as libertarians seek liberty while avoiding the costs of soverienty, this argument seeks slavery without the requirement of reciprocity (slave’s agreement). I can only think of one reason to promote the idea – the wish to justify coercion.”—