Slavery without self-ownership -- HUH!?

[zonsb]

If you don't own yourself there can be no slavery. If ownership is only by valid agreement/contract then slavery cannot exist. For if a person agrees to be owned by another person then it's not slavery. But you must own yourself for consent to be valid. If there is slavery, which is commonly understood to be one person claiming ownership of another against the will of the person being enslaved, how is it that the alleged slave has been harmed when s/he never owned himself/herself in the first place.

Ask essentially any person if they own themselves and they will reply: "Yes."

Interesting that for the vast majority of our actions among regular folks we interact voluntarily and honor the first premise of freedom of association, which is: the choice to deny to associate with any person and/or peoples you chose. We exorcize that right/power individually for ourselves and acknowledge that right/power in others.

In short, we trust other persons and don't suspect them of having a predisposition to commit acts of aggression against us.

A person often knows when they are in a potentially dangerous situation of being attacked. It could be a bad neighborhood infested with warring street gangs. It could be when there's a knock at they door followed by a voice saying: "We're from the government and we're here to help." They lie. Not all the time. But they have earned a healthy cause for being suspected aggressors.

In general, people don't suspect their fellow man of being violently aggressive. That means, not expecting initiatory force, threat of force or fraud. Most of us don't go through life forever worried that everyone around us wants to harm us. We trust our fellow man to treat us with respect that we each own ourselves.

Conversely, to the government, everyone is a suspect. According to their millions of laws, rules and regulations were one big lawless society of criminals. Essentially every person is in violation of one or more of their laws, rules, regulations, statutes, codes on a weekly, if not daily basis. That includes all the people in government too because they too are repeatedly in violation of governments' millions of laws, statutes, etc.

Conversely, us common folk are consistently in honor of self-ownership -- we don't commit act of aggression against our fellow man. Government agents routinely violate us commoners' honorary membership in society. For the most part we're civilized and government agents are uncivilized. Though most people are lemming like, they're not criminal like.

When a cop or government agent is beating you and you strike back in self defense, you might as well be an 1850's slave striking back at your master. Except the 1850's master would be less likely to kill you and would be acting alone. With government, they all "own" you so they can all beat you; as is often the case with police and government agents' acts of aggression -- they pile on.

Government is a band of killers, thieves and liars.

What? You say they're not that?

Well, whether they are or not there is a solution to the problem regardless of what you believe. It is this: Twelve Visions Party and The Prime Law. It may not be the only viable solution but is the only one that has a widely integrated plan of action to deconstruct government from the inside out. There are two other alternative choices. 1) resist and fight against government and, 2) ignore government -- withdraw all support. All three are gaining momentum.

The powers that be know the people are waking up in droves. Off the table is their strategy of docile humans doing as they're told -- it's no longer a viable strategy to produce long term results. They prefer people resist and fight against government. It's how they can maintain control of manufactured consent. From Alex Jones to Rush Limbaugh, there's no shortage of pundits in that regard.

A civilized person always honors self-ownership. Bottom line, initiatory force, threat of force and fraud against any individual's self, property and contract done with nefarious intent or purpose is immoral. No means no. No thank you, I decline your offer. And/or, I decline to associate with you. Civilized people respect that exercise of self ownership and withdraw the offer and/or offer to associate.

The U.S. government suspects three-hundred million people. Three-hundred million people suspect the government. In general, the government/State never has a case and three-hundred million people always have a case. What are the two elements of a valid cause of action?

--

[Dionysus]

(12-27-2011 05:39 AM)zonsb Wrote:  If you don't own yourself there can be no slavery.
.
.
.
Ask essentially any person if they own themselves and they will reply: "Yes."

You're gonna make NonE angry. I hope he has his purple pants handy (Incredible Hulk reference).

[NonEntity]

(12-27-2011 02:24 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 05:39 AM)zonsb Wrote:  If you don't own yourself there can be no slavery.
.
.
.
Ask essentially any person if they own themselves and they will reply: "Yes."

You're gonna make NonE angry. I hope he has his purple pants handy (Incredible Hulk reference).

So let me see if I have this straight. If it is true that I do not own myself, then somehow or other that magically makes it impossible for another person to aggress against me. I see. Yes, that makes perfect sense - just like the omnipotent, loving god who condones mass murder, rape, torture, and other fun stuff. Cool! I just love magic.

- NonE

[zonsb]

(12-27-2011 02:24 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 05:39 AM)zonsb Wrote:  If you don't own yourself there can be no slavery.
.
.
.
Ask essentially any person if they own themselves and they will reply: "Yes."

You're gonna make NonE angry. I hope he has his purple pants handy (Incredible Hulk reference).

Na. It's more likely he'll concoct a strawman so he can magically kick the stuffing out of it -- perhaps it will be the flying spaghetti monster.

--

[Jace: Johanson]

Actually, I don't get what the first paragraph offers compared to the rest. It sounds like a load of gibberish and linguistic sleight-of-hand. I get that that was kinda the point, and I can follow it, but it's not really in line with the rest. Cut it out or revise it to be more lucid and you'd have a nice little article here. It's not hard to see how NonE took it where he did, though I don't get how his response offers value on it's own merits, either. Is the thesis that ownership is inherent, and can only be rationally acknowledged and utilzed / or irrationally denied and abdicated? Or is the thesis that ownership is not inherent, and must be established through external negative rights, type-a-thing?

Whenever you say ownership is by valid agreement/contract this strikes me as altogether not accurate enough. Who's agreement? What acknowledgement of others is required for what I own to be factually a product of actions I took to create or aquire it, given that any able-bodied human being can and does create of himself without taking from another? It's only once someone tries to dispute the casues and effects that this even matters. But factually "what caused B was A" is the only point. Whether one is alone or the actions and their reactions were observed my one's self and a number of others doesn't matter.

The ownership is. Beyond that is defense of owhership, should any dispute arise. But a fact of a dispute being made does not inherently alter the facts of action A and reaction B. The relationship between A and B is indissoluable. The dispute is only a matter of whether A did in fact cause B, or whether it rather casued C, and B was really E caused by D, which were correlated to A, but not causally related to either.

And since the man on the street isn't likely going to follow explanations like this, or will just get bored, a simpler message would be more useful.

I've got it down to something like this:

Quote:Ownership is just the acknowledgement of cause and effect. The word "own" is used because it describes an exclusionary singular. That there is only one nexus between "A" and "B," and that is "I."

If you can condense it without losing it's effectiveness, please do. I always am.

[Jonathanr]

Yeah! Jace is on to it. Ownership is a function of defence, not agreement.

[zonsb]

(12-28-2011 03:23 AM)Jace: Johanson Wrote:  And since the man on the street isn't likely going to follow explanations like this, or will just get bored, a simpler message would be more useful.

Very good. You got the point. The first paragraph, and the second paragraph--the point, had nothing to do with what followed. I'll do that sometimes to make a point. You touched upon the reason it was included more than you know. Here's a thread I started with a secondary intent of getting a particular expected response to emphasize the point of the post: Money, Power and Glory if You Can Prove This....

Follow the flying-spaghetti-monster link in my last reply (or here) and watch the short video. At 5:58 there's a "man-in-the-street" reaction.

--

[NonEntity]

(12-28-2011 04:38 AM)Jonathanr Wrote:  Yeah! Jace is on to it. Ownership is a function of defence, not agreement.

So, let me see now, the thief who stole the car that you bought and paid for (from the company who made it) can defend his possession of that car with an AK-47 or whatever and that defense makes the ownership of the car reside with him?

New definition: Ownership = biggest gun.

- NonE

[zonsb]

(12-28-2011 04:38 AM)Jonathanr Wrote:  Yeah! Jace is on to it. Ownership is a function of defence, not agreement.

I disagree; it's a function of neither. As I just posted on the thread started by Dionysus, NonE's call about self-ownership; in agreement with his well said point, quoted herein below:

zonsb Wrote:

(11-20-2011 08:46 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  To follow up on ol' NonE's latest call to Marc yesterday to continue the "self-ownership" discussion, Marc remarked that even if everybody agreed that NonE owned the moon, there would be no evidence that he did indeed own the moon. Why can't the same standard apply to the "self?" Is there any evidence that something other than "me" owns "me?" Well, I'm waiting...

That's a very good point. I've been pondering recently the common practice of identifying with "external authority" to identify self-ownership as opposed to using self-authority. I disagree that self-ownership is reliant on gaining agreement from anyone or defending thyself against anyone.

I touched on the self-reference authority in a post I made a day or so ago. The reason the vast majority of people don't initiate force, threat of force or fraud is not primarily and seldom secondarily because of empathy for/with others ("external authority") but rather, because of what they'd sacrifice of their own integrity -- having to look themselves in the mirror/conscience. The internal sacrifice would be too great. For that reason, most of the time people never even think of committing acts of aggression. Acts of aggression are ruled out by default. That's self-authority, not external authority. In this regard, empathy may serve as a sort of last ditch effort to save oneself from oneself.

--

[eye2i2hear]

(12-27-2011 05:39 AM)zonsb Wrote:  If you don't own yourself there can be no slavery. If ownership is only by valid agreement/contract then slavery cannot exist.

Well, DUH.

Ok, but let's Taboo this, shall We? Taboo version:
If you don't wno rouyfles there can be no verysla. If wnoership is only by dilav agreement/contract then verysla cannot exist.

Got it? Man on the street -who isn't quite so "man on the street" after all? (unless We mean Main Street, English, in this specific case)

Or to quote (ok, morph) another Wall sitter:

Humpty NoTaboo Dumptyb Wrote:You don't know what 'glory' means? Of course you don't, until I tell you --or have you Educated! Why, 'glory' means a snort and a wheeze and to own and to enslave --now there's a nice knock-down argument for you!

--The Official Authoritarian Dictionary, Dear Juris Prudence. et tu, Bru`te.

Dearest Humptyd got that last part right --'er leftaccurate.

Quote:Ask essentially any person if they wnown themselves and they will reply: "Yes."

Which only proves the fact that certain individuals answer a certain way at a certain time and space. Heck, ask "essentially" any person if the State(s) exist(s) and they will also reply: "Yes". "Oh, hell yes! That's a fact!" even. No?
[suggested extra credit reading list: flat earth, God, Creator, astrology, soul/spirit/ghost, demons/devils, Government (see also devils), marriage, borders, citizens, rights, leader, authority, democracy... per man on the street (streets of gold optional)]

It seems to me We (guys on the other streets of gold -bullion) just aren't going back far enough here (either).

One means to determine whether that's the case is to play Taboo: substitute the word and all it's popular synonyms and prove -factually- the point. Another (or along side that) is to Joe Friday it: just the facts 'mam. (including proving factually, what the word stixe "exists" means --equally factually)

One guys FSM is anothers FSExists*.

Tho They won't like it said so. No?
Joe Friday? No Taboo? *[Friggin Slaves Exist, dammu Jim! --said in my best Bones voice]

[Jonathanr]

(12-28-2011 09:35 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 04:38 AM)Jonathanr Wrote:  Yeah! Jace is on to it. Ownership is a function of defence, not agreement.

So, let me see now, the thief who stole the car that you bought and paid for (from the company who made it) can defend his possession of that car with an AK-47 or whatever and that defense makes the ownership of the car reside with him?

New definition: Ownership = biggest gun.

- NonE

Well Non-E,
If you consider that the concept of registration, title and recording, being a function of 'the state', and which probably had origins in the petitioning of a king and his men to assist in defending ownership (and assisting the extraction of rents), then I'd say it isn't so much the size of the gun, but the number of guns that can be enlisted in the defending of a claim of ownership.

The phrase "possession is nine tenths of the law" doesn't come from nowhere.

[NonEntity]

(12-28-2011 03:04 PM)Jonathanr Wrote:  The phrase "possession is nine tenths of the law" doesn't come from nowhere.

Indeed. But the point I'm making is that Ownership and Possession are two different things, and what many people describe as Ownership is in fact only Possession. If you have to have armed guards about your stuff at all times then you Possess it, but you don't Own it. Ownership is an understanding, acceptance and agreement by all that you deserve to possess something. Possession is simply possession, as long as you can hold it and no longer.

- NonE

[Jonathanr]

If possession wasn't defended, then you'd have access to every thing in existance. The concept of ownership wouldn't exist. In fact to the Australian Aboriginals, their lack of a notion of land ownership and livestock ownership was to their downfall. Being a somewhat nomadic sort, they didn't defend their 'right' to access the land, unlike the British colonialists, who 'invaded', colonized and subsequently defended their notion of ownership. Many an Aboriginal was shot for 'stealing' livestock 'owned' by white farmers. The Aboriginals thought that access to livestock were the same as access to any other animal that roamed the land. They discovered this new concept of ownership the hard way.

[NonEntity]

(12-28-2011 04:26 PM)Jonathanr Wrote:  If possession wasn't defended, then you'd have access to every thing in existance. The concept of ownership wouldn't exist. In fact to the Australian Aboriginals, their lack of a notion of land ownership and livestock ownership was to their downfall. Being a somewhat nomadic sort, they didn't defend their 'right' to access the land, unlike the British colonialists, who 'invaded', colonized and subsequently defended their notion of ownership. Many an Aboriginal was shot for 'stealing' livestock 'owned' by white farmers. The Aboriginals thought that access to livestock were the same as access to any other animal that roamed the land. They discovered this new concept of ownership the hard way.

I suppose then that you'd support shooting any two-year-old who takes a candy bar or some such owned by another?

This is why I have such a hard time with the libertarian view of rights. A "right" is often a unilateral claim and deemed to be "the TRUTH." Sure, shoot the kid. It was MY candy bar and he STOLE IT! The fact that the kid is incapable of comprehending such a concept as property is irrelevant, as it obviously was to those who moved in and claimed land that had been used communally for probably centuries or at least generations of the people whose home this land was.

It must feel really good when you get to kill someone because you are "right."

- NonE

[zonsb]

(12-28-2011 01:48 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

Quote:Ask essentially any person if they wnown themselves and they will reply: "Yes."

Which only proves the fact that certain individuals answer a certain way at a certain time and space. Heck, ask "essentially" any person if the State(s) exist(s) and they will also reply: "Yes". "Oh, hell yes! That's a fact!" even. No?

DUH!

Facts aren't identified or created by consensus. People are right about some things and wrong about others. Most people will/do answer "yes" to self-ownership. Those three sentences are DUH statements. In speaking with the general populace, how does delving deep into philosophical debate about self-ownership help the man in the street to bring about voluntary society?

Quote:One means to determine whether that's the case is to play Taboo: substitute the word and all it's popular synonyms and prove -factually- the point. Another (or along side that) is to Joe Friday it: just the facts 'mam. (including proving factually, what the word stixe "exists" means --equally factually)

Okay Joe, what does "self-ownership" mean? Just the facts, please. Preferably written so it can be useful to the man in the street. Ie., submitizens.

--