–“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.”
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 ensurance 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
Theme: Property
-
“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.” Bill Josli
–“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.” 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 ensurance 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.” Bill Josli
–“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.”
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 ensurance 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
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-22 23:15:00 UTC
-
Will be a failure they should make it a Propertarian country and hire you as the
http://www.trustnodes.com/2017/09/21/bitcoin-millionaires-announce-plans-form-libertarian-country Will be a failure they should make it a Propertarian country and hire you as the head adviser..
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-21 16:12:00 UTC
-
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need. 2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution. 3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons. 4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption. 5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption. 6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation. 7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive. TWO AXES: X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property). Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers. That’s all the axes we have to work with. That’s all there is to do. Period. -
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need. 2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution. 3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons. 4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption. 5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption. 6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation. 7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive. TWO AXES: X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property). Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers. That’s all the axes we have to work with. That’s all there is to do. Period. -
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need.
2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution.
3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons.
4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption.
5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption.
6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation.
7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive.
TWO AXES:
X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property).
Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers.
That’s all the axes we have to work with.
That’s all there is to do.
Period.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-21 16:04:00 UTC
-
Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated i
Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated interest in a rivalrous opportunity; where interest is demonstrated by the bearing of costs of homesteading (origination), Conversion(Transformation), Exchange(Reciprocity), or Forgone Opportunity; and where we warranty our own non-retaliation against restitution or retaliation by individual, group, insurer, or institution against violators of that rule – and optionally warranty insurance others by participation in restitution or retaliation against violators of that rule. That is the most accurate, complete, scientific definition of libertarianism that I know of, with the variation among libertarians being only the scope of interests they are willing to insure. Any claim otherwise, that I know of, is an act of fraud. (Theft). -
Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated i
Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated interest in a rivalrous opportunity; where interest is demonstrated by the bearing of costs of homesteading (origination), Conversion(Transformation), Exchange(Reciprocity), or Forgone Opportunity; and where we warranty our own non-retaliation against restitution or retaliation by individual, group, insurer, or institution against violators of that rule – and optionally warranty insurance others by participation in restitution or retaliation against violators of that rule.
That is the most accurate, complete, scientific definition of libertarianism that I know of, with the variation among libertarians being only the scope of interests they are willing to insure.
Any claim otherwise, that I know of, is an act of fraud. (Theft).
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-12 11:39:00 UTC
-
Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated i
Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated interest in a rivalrous opportunity; where interest is demonstrated by the bearing of costs of homesteading (origination), Conversion(Transformation), Exchange(Reciprocity), or Forgone Opportunity; and where we warranty our own non-retaliation against restitution or retaliation by individual, group, insurer, or institution against violators of that rule – and optionally warranty insurance others by participation in restitution or retaliation against violators of that rule. That is the most accurate, complete, scientific definition of libertarianism that I know of, with the variation among libertarians being only the scope of interests they are willing to insure. Any claim otherwise, that I know of, is an act of fraud. (Theft).