Political Theory

Re: Self-Ownership?

Anenome — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 02:08:29 GMT

Ownership means control. You are given exclusive control of your body as a fact of reality. Therefore, you must already own your body.

The speech in this thread has proceeded as if the concept of ownership weren't derived intuitively from our control of our own body. It is by analogy with our innate control over our physical selves that we understand extended ownership of things that are not our body, yet still considered under our control.

Re: Self-Ownership?

Cortes — Mon, 14 May 2012 07:02:33 GMT

I saw this link posted before that includes some critiques of methodological individualism:

http://171.67.193.20/entries/methodological-individualism/#6

Is there anything here in these criticisms that is relevant to my understanding of self-ownership via AE? Are there any criticisms here that Austrians would find challenging?

Re: Self-Ownership?

Malachi — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 03:35:31 GMT

A simple yes would have sufficed. Your anger only makes it harder for you to be agreed with. But you're wrong about light; consider the double slit experiment. It's not about it being either wave OR particle at given times. The double slit experiment shows that it is both particle AND wave, at the same time. Now, if I understand you correctly you are saying A=A1/A2, and so logically it still follows the identity axiom (A[A1/A2]=A[A1/A2].

it wasnt anger, it was emphasis. My argument is that the wave/particle dichotomy is a theory, not an observed distinction, and furthermore "photons" behave in the way that they behave, which is their identity. Sometimes physicists explain "photons" as if they were "particles." sometimes they explain them as "waves." neither are factual, photons are photons and they behave like photons. Any contradiction is in your mind, not the photons or the experiments.

So, I affirm (A[A1/A2]=A[A1/A2]).

Except I'm saying "life sucks because me not having things means I don't have any power nor autonomy."

Oh, ok. How so? What or whom do you want power over? And how exactly does a person with no real property or chattel somehow lose his autonomy?

I think much of cognitive neuroscience disagrees that private ownership, and its concurrent "work for pay" (or wage labor), is the best incentive. Look up RSA videos and the empathic civilization; they do a pretty good job of summing it all up. What motivates people is 1) having enough "pay" to not have to worry about pay 2) autonomy 3) reward for effort, not necessarily success. This is how it seems the most innovative firms are the most innovative.

that seems to me to be highly superficial at best. For example, wouldnt everybody like to "not have to worry" about their survival? But that is illusory and ridiculous, no one "makes" you worry about anything. People like security, but they generally settle for the illusion of security. But, there is a lot of trust involved in trusting an employer enough to "not have to worry" about whether you are going to be in business next week or not. Basically, I apologize if this is going too far, but it seems like you want to relieve the working class of the burden of having to account for their own future survival. I prefer to give people impetus to acquire the tools for true autonomy. I mean they would own these tools outright, as in human capital, social capital, and capital goods; rather than be forced into a collective management system where their autonomy were restricted by their supposed partners.

I believe in reward for effort and constructive criticism, and as I have said earlier, I believe that everyone has something to offer. But, without ownership rights, the calculation necessary to determine the right amount of reward (to encourage growth) from the wrong amount (that would encourage sloth) is impossible. This is because if you are spending other people's wealth you have no real idea of how much effort and time it represents. I watched the video. It was very interesting, but I think they are lost in the desert here. They tested money as an incentive under very specific circumstances, and they assume that a performance failure is an incentive failure. He even calls it a crazy left-wing idea, which is hard for me to see. I think he revealed something of himself there.

at any rate, the free market will determine what kind of compensation is best at getting the best performance out of each worker.

They will, whether you want them to or not. There simply is no feasible way to stop busibodies from thinking we don't have to all live under the same umbrella. To suggest otherwise is utopian.

nonsense. I could levy the same criticism at your dismissal of property rights. Lets simplify this. Tell me why I should have my freedom to contract with consenting adults legally limited in such a way as to necessitate a specific type of consideration?

If you have a way to provide universal right to due process, an attorny, and at least the semblance of a fair trial, I will be all for it. I'm not against markets. I think we can do better. I just think ancap will not provide certain protections, and will revert not back to what we have now, but to a neo-feudalism; where a small group of people own basically everything, and everyone else rents from them.

I would never claim I had a way to provide any of that. And I would love to hear what an anarchist who thinks we can do better than markets has to offer. Please dont say "democracy." As for neo-feudalism, I sincerely doubt that a free market in feudal baronies and earldoms would be any worse than life in a state. Honestly, I feel the same way, and frank herbert crossed with robert a heinlen is the way the future will look.

Not for the sheer cruelty of it, but because they can make a few extra bucks. Is that so unreasonable; that people will screw over others if there is a net profit to be made and they lack empathy?

It is unreasonable to suppose that corruption will be worse in a system where people trust each other less, there is more competition to offer these services, and the reputation for fairness is all they really have. It is fine with me if you believe it to be the case. Please tell me how a free market in justice/arbitration would be worse than one in which there is a monopoly that is already favorable to monied interests. The state does not have to maintain their brand as much because they face less competition.

I believe common nomenclature would call that "efficiency." Laziness is the opposite of productive; you would not call someone productive that did far more work than necessary for simple goods. If X and Y are hunting elephants and X uses a spear while Y uses a rock... who would be the lazy one? Most people would say neither, Y is just being dumb.

efficiency has to do with conservation of inputs. Laziness describes the tendency to refrain from caloric expenditure, whether producing or not. In your little story, neither of them is lazy. But the dead asses back at the camp, who did not do anything and still want elephant meat because they are "hungry" are lazy. And, if they get fed, the lazy behavior is incentivized.

I am not lying to them. I am pointing out the systemic nature of the issue, rather than the apparent personal nature of it. Big difference. For you, someone who got hooked on drugs, sold themselves into prostitution is in a fair arrangement. To me they are not. I would do whatever I could to help them realize their bottom, and get off the drugs.

You need to realize the systemic nature of business before you try to lecture others about it. As for your libelous mischaracterization Of my positions, if someone "got" hooked on drugs, they are either the victim of a chemical assault or a poor decision-maker. Either way they suffer the consequences. If they "sold" themselves into contract they retain originary rights which cannot be transferred, so they execute their native escape clause as soon as they wish to leave. Although I will grant that sequences of exceedingly poor decisions tend to end badly. In my opinion.

however, I share your subjective disgust for prostitution, and do not appreciate the implication that a wage earner is analogous except in the broadest of senses.

So living in the states to you is a voluntary arrangement? You are under no force to stay? You can leave at any time, all you need is $200 for a passport.

when did we go from discussing a voluntary employment contract to international politics? If I want to leave my job, the border patrol isnt charging me $200.

I am saying, at the very least, that the "owner" should not have legally enforced monopoly power on who gets compensated how much for what.

when did the owner stop being the owner of his own wallet? He doesnt have a monopoly power over anything except himself and his property. If his terms are unacceptable, then do not deal with him. You do not think people should have monopoly power over themselves?

I am saying that the good they make are of equal, if not greater, quality.

that is something only the consumer can decide.

The wages they offer are more competitive for general labor, less for management and investment.

perhaps the quality of the labor sweeping the floor and filling out the delivery tickets is not as important to the customer as the quality of the laborers who buy steel and hire and fire general labor. Perhaps the high return on investment is a sign that it was a risky investment, or an indicator of the market's demand for investors. We do agree that some of these things would happen organically, however.

I am saying that despite any of this, or any criticism you may have; they continue to grow, thrive, and prosper... and all without government subsidies. The cooperative movement, at least the IFC (I think is the name) is. Chavez has begun to give state funding for it. But prior to that, co-ops funded themselves.

If they are growing, thriving, and prospering why did they now receive state funding, instead of running a surplus?

Then I retract it. And ignore my previous statment in this response. Much apologies.

apology accepted my good man!

What's so magical about exerting that not everybody is motivated by material/monetary gain? I would think it magical to suggest they are.

I believe in the existence of psychic profit as much as anyone else. I dont believe I said anything to contradict that. I simply observe that factories are built by people who want profits, and when you rob them of those profits, you disincentivize the building of factories.

It's important for me to meditate. It's not necessary. It's important to me to help kids not become subject to addiction; it's not neccessary. I could get along fine without either of these; many people do either day.

so it is important for your value structure, but it isnt necessary for life. Well, investors are necessary and important for a business, because you cannot have a business without capital. The high wages that those investors receive are a measure of the demand for them to invest. Both terms "important" and "necessary" refer to a purpose. Nothing is inherently important or necessary.

The top" of the proverbial pile. I realize it has no top; that has not, as of yet, stopped people from trying.

I dont see any examples of what you describe in the business world.

I still think you think I want to force cooperative business upon everyone... have I not made it clear I want people to choose this? You have a caricature of socialists you are trying to project unto me... I assure you, I'm not the droid you're looking for. If you consider me nosy, I am fine with that; I believe what I believe. But I'm no tyrant.

why would you want them to choose that instead of wanting them to choose what they want? Who says workers are willing or able to assume the burden of management/ownership across all industries? Is this the fabled worker fetish (descriptive, not pejorative) of radical politics?

in any case, I apologize for any misapprehensions and I think we agree on more than I thought we did at first.

Re: Self-Ownership?

banned — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 01:57:31 GMT

So A still = A, if you realize that A is equal to A AND Not A... right?

Still, the idea that the cat is both alive and not alive, that light is both a particle and wave at the same time, is pretty self-contradictory to our mundane logical brains.

The copenhegan interpretation of QM does not imply a negation of the identity axiom. It doesn't even imply that an object can be represented as two disjoint states. It implies that an object can exist as a superposition of two disjoint states that collapses into a singular state when a measurement is made. You should bear in mind, the superposition state is itself a ditinct state that is not equivalent to either disjoint sate.

Re: Self-Ownership?

z1235 — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 01:33:35 GMT

Laotzu del Zinn:

I still think you think I want to force cooperative business upon everyone... have I not made it clear I want people to choose this? You have a caricature of socialists you are trying to project unto me... I assure you, I'm not the droid you're looking for. If you consider me nosy, I am fine with that; I believe what I believe. But I'm no tyrant.

Then you're no socialist, my friend. You are a free market capitalist with a peculiar subjective preference for exclusively entering/supporting voluntary enterprises where all participants are necessarily partial owners, as well. Welcome to the club.

Re: Self-Ownership?

Laotzu del Zinn — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 00:36:40 GMT

If A has properties of A/~A, then there you go! Thats A! No contradiction implied

A simple yes would have sufficed. Your anger only makes it harder for you to be agreed with.

But you're wrong about light; consider the double slit experiment. It's not about it being either wave OR particle at given times. The double slit experiment shows that it is both particle AND wave, at the same time. Now, if I understand you correctly you are saying A=A1/A2, and so logically it still follows the identity axiom (A[A1/A2]=A[A1/A2].

life sucking at times isnt a problem, it is a fact. As far as private ownership exacerbating the problem, I disagree. For every person who says "life sucks because I dont have things" there are people who have worked to produce those things, in order that the individual could perceive his life getting worse because other people are happier. On the whole, life would suck a lot more without private ownership because the incentive to produce and maintain would be diminished considerably.

Except I'm saying "life sucks because me not having things means I don't have any power nor autonomy."

I think much of cognitive neuroscience disagrees that private ownership, and its concurrent "work for pay" (or wage labor), is the best incentive. Look up RSA videos and the empathic civilization; they do a pretty good job of summing it all up. What motivates people is

1) having enough "pay" to not have to worry about pay

2) autonomy

3) reward for effort, not necessarily success.

This is how it seems the most innovative firms are the most innovative.

They will, whether you want them to or not. There simply is no feasible way to stop busibodies from thinking we don't have to all live under the same umbrella. To suggest otherwise is utopian.

If a consumer doesnt feel he will get justice from one court because of perceived bias, he can hire his own arbitrator. Rather than compare private courts to some mythical ideal world where every criminal is punished justly, we should simply apply the logic and wisdom of the market to the justice system.

If you have a way to provide universal right to due process, an attorny, and at least the semblance of a fair trial, I will be all for it. I'm not against markets. I think we can do better. I just think ancap will not provide certain protections, and will revert not back to what we have now, but to a neo-feudalism; where a small group of people own basically everything, and everyone else rents from them.

You seem to envision a world where a few fat cats with all the wealth just go around sueing people who have less than nothing for the sheer cruelty of it, and a monolithic court system that toes the line because there is profit in making biased decisions against people who have no property to seize.

Not for the sheer cruelty of it, but because they can make a few extra bucks. Is that so unreasonable; that people will screw over others if there is a net profit to be made and they lack empathy?

you dont understand because for you, laziness has pejorative connotations (and perhaps denotations). I use the word "laziness" to refer to the tendency of human beings to tend towards less caloric expenditure. Its not a pejorative any more than "human" would be. If you have a better word or term for this phenomenon I would love to hear it

I believe common nomenclature would call that "efficiency." Laziness is the opposite of productive; you would not call someone productive that did far more work than necessary for simple goods. If X and Y are hunting elephants and X uses a spear while Y uses a rock... who would be the lazy one? Most people would say neither, Y is just being dumb.

I am not lying to them. I am pointing out the systemic nature of the issue, rather than the apparent personal nature of it. Big difference. For you, someone who got hooked on drugs, sold themselves into prostitution is in a fair arrangement. To me they are not. I would do whatever I could to help them realize their bottom, and get off the drugs.

Why is an ownership share a necessary component of a labor contract, in your opinion? The individual remains autonomous as long as he is not being held their by force.

So living in the states to you is a voluntary arrangement? You are under no force to stay? You can leave at any time, all you need is $200 for a passport.

You appear to imply that none of this is deserving of compensation.

I am saying, at the very least, that the "owner" should not have legally enforced monopoly power on who gets compensated how much for what.

But I doubt that individuals who have not shown themselves to be resourceful enough to obtain capital goods through nonviolent means will be resourceful enough to manage them in such a way as to be more efficient than someone who has.

I think there is evidence that they can be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Take_(2004_film) Just to get you started

and it is supposed to be self-evident that this is a problem?

No, or else everyone would realize it. If it were self-evident, we woudln't even be having this conversation.

Let's just drop the "do h/g's work less" becuz it's not important, and not a settled matter even amongst anthropologists. And I don't really have the time to look up things I learned years ago in university.

Businesses exist for the purposes of those who create and sustain them. A firm, as a voluntary collaboration of people, only continues to exist so long as it serves all of their purposes enough for that person to continue the association. When investors and entrepreneurs create a business, they do it for profits. When customers buy from a business, they do it for products. When laborers take a job, they do it for wages. All of these outputs represent production. your personal value judgments as to which products are superior and which are inferior is fine, as far as philosophy goes, but to make it normative is just hampering other people's freedom of association and freedom to contract. Workers "working less" versus being "better paid" is a false dichotomy. If someone gets more money for the same work, that is relatively equivalent to getting the same money for less work. It all averages out, when the workers are paid more for the same work, there is less money in the payroll, so fewer people can be hired

I swear... I can listen to physics, biology, and anthropological lectures all the time. But when capitalists talk, I often hear "wah wah, wahahwhaha. bloom blown pocka trow." That's not your fault, it's mine. I just think our brains work differently.

I am saying that the good they make are of equal, if not greater, quality. The wages they offer are more competitive for general labor, less for management and investment. I am saying that despite any of this, or any criticism you may have; they continue to grow, thrive, and prosper... and all without government subsidies. The cooperative movement, at least the IFC (I think is the name) is. Chavez has begun to give state funding for it. But prior to that, co-ops funded themselves.

please do. I believe no such thing.

Then I retract it. And ignore my previous statment in this response. Much apologies.

well with this magical notion of human motives, it is no surprise you can dismiss ownership as a component in human motives. As for salk, he probably gave it away because he was foolish enough to think he was doing some good, or he was smart enough to know that when you fire the first shot in a war, you had better make it count. People do what people do. Man acts with purpose

What's so magical about exerting that not everybody is motivated by material/monetary gain? I would think it magical to suggest they are.

do enlighten me.

It's important for me to meditate. It's not necessary. It's important to me to help kids not become subject to addiction; it's not neccessary. I could get along fine without either of these; many people do either day.

"The top" of the proverbial pile. I realize it has no top; that has not, as of yet, stopped people from trying.

Here's the thing, though. I like worker-managed businesses. I happen to be part of one. But I am not nosy enough to expect other people to follow my preferences when they get together to hash out an employment contract.

I still think you think I want to force cooperative business upon everyone... have I not made it clear I want people to choose this? You have a caricature of socialists you are trying to project unto me... I assure you, I'm not the droid you're looking for. If you consider me nosy, I am fine with that; I believe what I believe. But I'm no tyrant.

Re: Self-Ownership?

Malachi — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:30:32 GMT

Ya, I guess I was just understanding it wrong. Whereas A=A, A has the properties of A/~A. So A still = A, if you realize that A is equal to A AND Not A... right?

If A has properties of A/~A, then there you go! Thats A! No contradiction implied.

Still, the idea that the cat is both alive and not alive, that light is both a particle and wave at the same time, is pretty self-contradictory to our mundane logical brains.

check your premises. Light is not a particle and a wave at the same time, those are just two ways of describing the behavior of light, both of which have glaring inadequacies. As other posters have pointed out, the schrodinger interpretation is kind of crazy, and not even really what it is made out to be, since "collapsed" states are not equivalent to "uncollapsed" states. So a superposition is not an empirical disproof of the identity axiom, it is a new thing with its own identity.

Life sucks sometimes, and the idea of private ownership often, in my opinion, exacerbates the problem; tho many times it does help, especially in comparison to when private ownership translates into political authority; for example feudal ownership.

Yes, a theif is a consumer. But his position will not hold up very well in court, not that it necessarily should. My point is that when speaking of consumers, we have to remember that the nature of money means some people have inherently more sway than others. If we take the analogy of "voting with your dollars" we must remember that this means 1 man can have virtually no votes, while another can have theoretically infinite votes. It is about as far from 1 person 1 vote as you can get; especially when the situation is set up to make greater the gaps between the haves and have nots.

those "votes" do not compel anyone to do anything, which certainly cannot be said of the political system. Before you can claim that people should have equal "votes" you should first argue that we need to give others a say in our affairs at all. As for the issue at hand, I do not think your analogy is very illuminating. Ballots are not scarce in the same way as money. If a consumer doesnt feel he will get justice from one court because of perceived bias, he can hire his own arbitrator. Rather than compare private courts to some mythical ideal world where every criminal is punished justly, we should simply apply the logic and wisdom of the market to the justice system.

The monied interests mostly includes everyone. But it is inhrently weighted towards those with more. Courts who cater to the bigger clients will find more business, and those without may at times have no choice but to accept it, for no other reason than that they have nothing substantial to offer.

actually, courts will seek to provide the appearance of fair and just treatment in order to attract as much business as possible. You seem to envision a world where a few fat cats with all the wealth just go around sueing people who have less than nothing for the sheer cruelty of it, and a monolithic court system that toes the line because there is profit in making biased decisions against people who have no property to seize.

But I don't see how this means laziness. If I work smarter, not harder... I'm being lazy? To me, laziness means you let others do your work for you, shunning virtually all effort whatsoever. I don't see how being entreprenurial (in the sense of finding ways to be more efficient) so to say, is being lazy.

you dont understand because for you, laziness has pejorative connotations (and perhaps denotations). I use the word "laziness" to refer to the tendency of human beings to tend towards less caloric expenditure. Its not a pejorative any more than "human" would be. If you have a better word or term for this phenomenon I would love to hear it.

How? I'm not telling them to rob the guy. I'm telling them to demand respect and autonomy. Those who don't work hard accomplish nothing. And those who allow others to define their worth for them, will recieve far less than the value they produce.

because you are lying to them. "money for work" is, by definition, a 2-sided exchange. It is a fair and cooperative arrangement, and to suggest that people are being treated unfairly by a an arrangement they sought out, entered into voluntarily, and with informed consent, is an attempt to pervert their moral sense. Why is an ownership share a necessary component of a labor contract, in your opinion? The individual remains autonomous as long as he is not being held their by force. The individual defined his own worth when he accepted the wages that were offered. And your view of production of values neglects the contributions of the person or persons who created the opportunity for someone to create values with his labor. Capital goods do not appear out of nowhere. Someone has to create them, and someone has to buy them, someone has to purchase maintenance and production inputs for them. You appear to imply that none of this is deserving of compensation.

You know, I misunderstood the term. I thought it was a synonym for lazy. But again, I said earlier to Rothbarddisciple that I don't encourage siezing factories. I said there are times wherein it will be far more efficient, and I will not explicitly condemn it; ends justify the means, so to say.

Point taken, I tend to agree to the extent that, if a factory owner did not take the measures necessary to secure his property, he may not have been entitled to it anyway. But I doubt that individuals who have not shown themselves to be resourceful enough to obtain capital goods through nonviolent means will be resourceful enough to manage them in such a way as to be more efficient than someone who has.

One guy works exhaustively while the other does not and the one that does not gets all the wealth from their mutual productive activity.

and it is supposed to be self-evident that this is a problem? Maybe the guy is working hard at learning his job, and when he makes it up on the learning curve, he will work less. Maybe the guy isnt very good at his job, and is lucky to be working at all. What does his boss have to do with it? Are we supposed to assume that it takes a lot of hard work to supervise a hard worker? Or that he simply is worth less money, because he works smarter not harder? What is the problem here?

I'm trying to convince you that an ownership share should not give you virtual monopoly power on compensation; not that it shouldn't be a component at all, per se.

How does the owner have a monopoly on anything, when he is not even the only employer on the block, and the employee can leave whenever he wants? The owner literally must pay the worker enough money to get him to come back every day. Thats not any kind of monopoly.

Did you miss the part where they discuss housework: how if we add housework and "labor" together, the average modern person works 70+ hours/week?

Yes, I did not see that in your references. Where did they measure that statistic, little house on the prairie? The stats at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm Give approximations of less than 3 hours for men and women in 2010. I am not sure that sounds right, either, but this talk about housework is besides the point. In the reference you posted, they only addressed the work necessary to procure food. They didnt count the time necessary to make the bow, or the arrows, or the poison on the arrows, or the loincloths, or anything else.

still, I will grant that a working household may very well expend more hours of labor than an equivalently sized sample of average aborigines in a given tribe. That productive household is currently supporting one or more idle persons/households, who expend far fewer man-hours and therefore drive the average amount of man-hours/capita lower than man-hours/capita in all but the most fortunate aboriginal societies. Although at this point I should admit that I believe some aborigines did achieve this ideal, I dont think this is good evidence for your argument. After all, the caloric surplus that allowed the tribe to become so leisurely and affluent is bound to be consumed and the equilibrium will set in.

I think the confusion came up in the word "production." They produce as many, and as high quality (if not better) than traditional businesses; but they don't "produce" as high of returns on investment. I don't think the workers actually work less, they are just better compensated for their labor.

your generalizations and wishful thinking are bleeding together now. Businesses exist for the purposes of those who create and sustain them. A firm, as a voluntary collaboration of people, only continues to exist so long as it serves all of their purposes enough for that person to continue the association. When investors and entrepreneurs create a business, they do it for profits. When customers buy from a business, they do it for products. When laborers take a job, they do it for wages. All of these outputs represent production. your personal value judgments as to which products are superior and which are inferior is fine, as far as philosophy goes, but to make it normative is just hampering other people's freedom of association and freedom to contract. Workers "working less" versus being "better paid" is a false dichotomy. If someone gets more money for the same work, that is relatively equivalent to getting the same money for less work. It all averages out, when the workers are paid more for the same work, there is less money in the payroll, so fewer people can be hired.

It seemed to me you hold a view that most people are unproductive ignoramus'. I'm sorry if I was being prejudgemental. If this caricature of you is incorrect, I will retract it.

please do. I believe no such thing.

Why did Jonas Salk give away the polio vaccine? Why do people become scientists knowing their abilities in math can get them far better money in more economical/business fields? People do what people do.

Important and necessary are far different matters.

do enlighten me.

Not neccessarily. It could be as simple as being dishonest about your competitors product; for example the way Edison tried to refute A/C power.

ok, so lying is "strongarming," fine. What is the top? The top of what?

I understand that, else I wouldn't have brought it up. My point was that at least the sheep gets a say in if and how he dies; perhaps he can get a more quick and painless death. Perhaps he can convince one of the wolves to vote for cow instead of sheep. Either way he has a normative right to represent himself in decisions involving himself. Your analogy is also absurd, and not refflective of actual existing natural equiliibrium that guards against the over use of resources.

my analogy isn't any more absurd than the original. I agree, that the natural control preventing the overuse of the resource, a herd of sheep, which is an owner/shepherd, is missing. I thought the wolves killed him because of his bourgeouis tendencies. The problem with your arrangement is that the sheep doesnt get a say, he gets an up-or-down vote on a measure, or a person as a delegate. The wolves could easily propose the measure that the sheep are eaten in various torturous ways, with no merciful death as an option. In a free market action, the sheep can decline to participate. Thats the normative right that already exists that makes a vote into an unnecessary addition. Here's the thing, though. I like worker-managed businesses. I happen to be part of one. But I am not nosy enough to expect other people to follow my preferences when they get together to hash out an employment contract.

Re: Self-Ownership?

Laotzu del Zinn — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:07:05 GMT

no logical contradiction was suggested therein. So "A=A" remains unchallenged

Ya, I guess I was just understanding it wrong. Whereas A=A, A has the properties of A/~A. So A still = A, if you realize that A is equal to A AND Not A... right?

Still, the idea that the cat is both alive and not alive, that light is both a particle and wave at the same time, is pretty self-contradictory to our mundane logical brains.

I think your point equates to "life sucks, sometimes." if there is something deeper I have missed, please enlighten me.

Life sucks sometimes, and the idea of private ownership often, in my opinion, exacerbates the problem; tho many times it does help, especially in comparison to when private ownership translates into political authority; for example feudal ownership.

I wasnt using consumers as a synonym for "monied class." everyone is a consumer. You seem to think that monied interests are not everyone. If you dont consume, you die.

Yes, a theif is a consumer. But his position will not hold up very well in court, not that it necessarily should. My point is that when speaking of consumers, we have to remember that the nature of money means some people have inherently more sway than others. If we take the analogy of "voting with your dollars" we must remember that this means 1 man can have virtually no votes, while another can have theoretically infinite votes. It is about as far from 1 person 1 vote as you can get; especially when the situation is set up to make greater the gaps between the haves and have nots.

The monied interests mostly includes everyone. But it is inhrently weighted towards those with more. Courts who cater to the bigger clients will find more business, and those without may at times have no choice but to accept it, for no other reason than that they have nothing substantial to offer.

obviously the work was not necessary, if he got out of it. We can define laziness differently, it is immaterial. It is human nature to minimize caloric expenditure

I am used to defining things differently than those around here. It's fine. I know that even tho mine more often match up with the standard definition, that will make no difference. There's nothing I can do to change that.

But I don't see how this means laziness. If I work smarter, not harder... I'm being lazy? To me, laziness means you let others do your work for you, shunning virtually all effort whatsoever. I don't see how being entreprenurial (in the sense of finding ways to be more efficient) so to say, is being lazy.

the guy who thinks "money for work" is one-sided and tells them about it is urging them towards larceny

How? I'm not telling them to rob the guy. I'm telling them to demand respect and autonomy. Those who don't work hard accomplish nothing. And those who allow others to define their worth for them, will recieve far less than the value they produce.

The guy who thinks that a mutually agreed-upon contract for employment is exploitation instead of cooperation is urging them towards larceny. The exploitative behavior wherein a factory owner was deprived of his ownership rights by a hostile party is actual larceny.

You know, I misunderstood the term. I thought it was a synonym for lazy. But again, I said earlier to Rothbarddisciple that I don't encourage siezing factories. I said there are times wherein it will be far more efficient, and I will not explicitly condemn it; ends justify the means, so to say.

see, you did not mention the guy's boss before now. Nevertheless, you think it's easy to see a "problem." ok, enlighten me. What is the "problem"?

One guy works exhaustively while the other does not and the one that does not gets all the wealth from their mutual productive activity.

and you dont see utility in convincing me that an ownership share is a necessary component of compensation? Why are you discussing politics if you want to keep your cards close to the vest. Although I see now what you describe yourself as.

I'm trying to explain myself. If my explanations seem inadequate, all I can do is try to flush them out further in the future. But it's inhonest to suggest I am deliberately dodging questions. That, I can assure you, I have not done. I'm trying to convince you that an ownership share should not give you virtual monopoly power on compensation; not that it shouldn't be a component at all, per se.

I did not ask you to do my research, I asked you to support your statement, rather than challenge it, because I wanted to discuss the subject without being accused of making up your position again. Your first link provides one example of an h/g population that works approximately 40 hours/week. Thats everybody, even the kids, as soon as they are able to help, they help. Now, the united states is considered to be a hard-working nation. We support a population of 300 million on 140 million workers who work approximately 40 hours/week. Thats less than half the work, and when we are done, we get to go inside instead of feeding the mosquitoes and lions (equilibrium).

Did you miss the part where they discuss housework: how if we add housework and "labor" together, the average modern person works 70+ hours/week?

I empathize with you. I hope the world will one day recognize the plain fact that Axl Rose is the greatest rock singer in the history of ever.

Well... his range is dynamic, and he has just the right amount of scratchiness to not be pretentious. But if you want to convince the world of that, it is your job to do so.

Like I said, " its because they are not generally as productive. This is why workers like it, wages are higher and they work less." you should do some thinking about your premises, because you restated what I said as if we were disagreeing, when we agree. Look, here is you: "What holds them back is their inability to produce as high of dividends for investors, because the dominant business model works directly against the interest of labor in order to produce those high returns." they dont produce as much, the workers like it because wages are higher and they work less. Surely you will concede that higher wages and less work is in the interest of the workers

I think the confusion came up in the word "production." They produce as many, and as high quality (if not better) than traditional businesses; but they don't "produce" as high of returns on investment. I don't think the workers actually work less, they are just better compensated for their labor.

thanks for trying to sketch out my position for me. I havent referenced nietzche or the ubermensch concept, so its hard for me to see this as anything other than laziness or an attempt at slander? I will assume good faith and believe that you have me confused with someone else. As to your point

It seemed to me you hold a view that most people are unproductive ignoramus'. I'm sorry if I was being prejudgemental. If this caricature of you is incorrect, I will retract it.

that is due to a deliberate denial of the concept of ownership

Yes. Yes it is. Have I not made that clear?

Why would anyone accumulate enough capital to assemble a factory if he was going to have to give it away?

Why did Jonas Salk give away the polio vaccine? Why do people become scientists knowing their abilities in math can get them far better money in more economical/business fields? People do what people do.

I see no reason why it has to be voted on. If his job was not important, then the others would simply do business without him. They would vote with their feet, in other words.

Important and necessary are far different matters. It is my opinion that capitalism has served it's purpose. We can do better, and it's time to move on. Occupy Autonomy; so to say.

no, that has nothing to do with business. This is the second time you have used the term "strong arm" in an economic context. Could you possibly explain yourself? Are we talking about violence or not?

Not neccessarily. It could be as simple as being dishonest about your competitors product; for example the way Edison tried to refute A/C power.

What on earth do you not see about the original criticism? Your rebuttal rebuts nothing, the wolves vote to eat the sheep, the sheep all die, then the wolves die because no one owned the property in order to husband the herd in order to make future generations of sheep.

I understand that, else I wouldn't have brought it up. My point was that at least the sheep gets a say in if and how he dies; perhaps he can get a more quick and painless death. Perhaps he can convince one of the wolves to vote for cow instead of sheep. Either way he has a normative right to represent himself in decisions involving himself.

Your analogy is also absurd, and not refflective of actual existing natural equiliibrium that guards against the over use of resources.

Re: Self-Ownership?

tunk — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 04:18:24 GMT

But need is not effective economic demand. Effective economic demand requires both need and corresponding purchasing power.~Henry Hazlitt

The monied class (consumers as you call them) will find it perfectly reasonable to support a court that is always biased in the interests of the monied class.

Why is this considered to be such an insurmountable objection by socialists to the free market? If you lack money, there's nothing stopping your from selling your labour, earning a small wage, and saving your income, or appealing to mutual aid or private charity. And as Malachi pointed out, the idea there exists inexorable castes in a market economy between which there is no hope of mobility and to which you are confined to cramp and starve for the rest of your existence is preposterous. Anyone can be a member of the "monied class", for the reasons I gave. (Anyone can also be a member of the entrepreneurial class, since entrepreneurship requires no previous ownership of resources, or of the investment class, or of any class.) Despite all the neomercantilist policies that has recently been shoved down the throats of taxpayers recently, America remains a good example:

• There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.

• Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.

• Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.

[...]

• Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005.

Anyway, the amount of nominal income you earn as measured by dollars is ultimately unimportant. It's your real income, that is, your purchasing power, that is always increasing in a competitive market. As Paul Kirklin writes:

The significance of lower prices must be emphasized. [...] Income is typically thought of in nominal terms. Nominal income is the quantity of monetary units (e.g., dollars) of income. Real income is the amount of wealth that can be acquired with income; it is the ratio of nominal income to prices. So, for example, if a person makes $50,000 a year and the prices of everything he buys fall by 50%, his nominal income has not changed, but his real income has doubled since he can buy twice as much wealth. If he gets a pay raise from $50,000 to $100,000 and the prices of everything he buys also double, his nominal income has doubled, but his real income has not changed since he can't buy any more wealth.

To determine the level of wealth that income represents, real income should be considered and not nominal income. Prices are equally as important as dollar incomes; they are half the equation. To a person's well-being, a fall in prices (other things unchanged) is the equivalent of an increase in pay (other things unchanged). [...]

The abundance of wealth and consequently lower prices [...] causes an increase to the real incomes of [consumers]. It allows them to acquire more wealth with the money they have. Of those customers, the ones whose real incomes increase by the highest percentage are those who spend the highest portion of their incomes on [consumption]. This group is made up primarily of people with lower incomes.

Re: Self-Ownership?

Malachi — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:26:06 GMT

Laotzu del Zinn:
How did my links not support my position?

no logical contradiction was suggested therein. So "A=A" remains unchallenged.

I'm saying, and forgive the graphic nature of this response, that it is like having the choice between getting raped, or butt raped. It's a choice wherein you don't really want either option.

I forgive you for the unnecessarily crude equivocation. I think your point equates to "life sucks, sometimes." if there is something deeper I have missed, please enlighten me.

The monied class (consumers as you call them) will find it perfectly reasonable to support a court that is always biased in the interests of the monied class.

I wasnt using consumers as a synonym for "monied class." everyone is a consumer. You seem to think that monied interests are not everyone. If you dont consume, you die.

Not performing unnecessary work is far different than being lazy. Being lazy means not performing work at all, if you can get out of it; whether it's necessary or not.

obviously the work was not necessary, if he got out of it. We can define laziness differently, it is immaterial. It is human nature to minimize caloric expenditure.

I won't stop them from voluntary arrangements; I will point out to them that it's a 1 sided deal, and there are better ways to go about it. Who's urging them towards larceny; the guy who supports cooperation, and away from exploitation. Or the guy who wants to allow a system wherein 1 guy can have everyone else do his work, and he makes all the profits?

the guy who thinks "money for work" is one-sided and tells them about it is urging them towards larceny. The guy who thinks that a mutually agreed-upon contract for employment is exploitation instead of cooperation is urging them towards larceny. The exploitative behavior wherein a factory owner was deprived of his ownership rights by a hostile party is actual larceny.

I think if anythere were self-evident, everybody would get it. It's obviously not self-evident. Nevertheless, to me it is easy to see a problem when 1 person works his butt off and remains broke. And his boss works half as hard and is living fat.

see, you did not mention the guy's boss before now. Nevertheless, you think it's easy to see a "problem." ok, enlighten me. What is the "problem"?

I am talking about you inserting unneccessary and wrong caveats because of your preconcieved bias (the bolded). As far as I know, voluntary unemployment is like 2-5%...tho I cannot find any data. If you have some, I'd be happy to see it. Remember I am talking about voluntarily unemployed people, who just want to live off the dole.

are we talking about the united states, today, or are we still going off your statement where you said that not very many (paraphrasing) of them were industrious enough to get jobs? Because the current system is hardly an example of a free market. Even so, I reject your statistics. What did they do, ask people? Mcdonalds is hiring, burger king is hiring, and if they cannot find a job that sucks. I suppose I am expected to assume that the plain fact that their labor is unmarketable is the fault of "monied interests"? It couldnt be that minimum wage laws have priced them out of the market, or that it simply makes more economic sense for them to collect unemployment rather than get a job?

I'm not going to do your research for you. If you think my statement wrong, prove it. Don't just assert the opposite and ask me to prove YOU wrong

I did not ask you to do my research, I asked you to support your statement, rather than challenge it, because I wanted to discuss the subject without being accused of making up your position again. Your first link provides one example of an h/g population that works approximately 40 hours/week. Thats everybody, even the kids, as soon as they are able to help, they help. Now, the united states is considered to be a hard-working nation. We support a population of 300 million on 140 million workers who work approximately 40 hours/week. Thats less than half the work, and when we are done, we get to go inside instead of feeding the mosquitoes and lions (equilibrium).

How many times must I answer this? It is a preference which I hope will become a norm, and such a norm that the idea of doing otherwise would be absurd.

I empathize with you. I hope the world will one day recognize the plain fact that Axl Rose is the greatest rock singer in the history of ever.

Brother, I guarantee that I will not be the one to start the cussing out and angry responses. I am not attached to my expecation of being able to sway you from your position. So, when you in fact don't come to my side, I'm not going to beat myself up about it. As far as "declare yourself a filthy communist" statement; I am a social libertarian and anarchist without adjectives. I feel I am doing a good job of explaining how it works without a state. I'm sorry if we disagree.

what I meant was, here we are, on a political/philosophical board, and I am willing to discuss whatever crqzee ideas you come up with, even to the point of entertaining objections to the identity axiom, and you dont see utility in convincing me that an ownership share is a necessary component of compensation? Why are you discussing politics if you want to keep your cards close to the vest. Although I see now what you describe yourself as.

No that's false. I implore you to do a little research. What holds them back is their inability to produce as high of dividends for investors, because the dominant business model works directly against the interest of labor in order to produce those high returns. Again, this is likely to change as capitalism evolves, people have more abundance, and economic fluctuations become more wild. It may not; but I see it as likely that it will.

Like I said, " its because they are not generally as productive. This is why workers like it, wages are higher and they work less." you should do some thinking about your premises, because you restated what I said as if we were disagreeing, when we agree. Look, here is you: "What holds them back is their inability to produce as high of dividends for investors, because the dominant business model works directly against the interest of labor in order to produce those high returns." they dont produce as much, the workers like it because wages are higher and they work less. Surely you will concede that higher wages and less work is in the interest of the workers.

Again, you have this preconceived bias that everybody is or wants to be a freeloader, and that only the ubermensch (or w/e Neitzche called it) can save us. That's your view, I disagree. I also think you will find it increasingly hard to create a populist movment with anti-populist rhetoric. I see people as generally kind, compassionate, and industrious. Sometimes they are not, and each individual is different. But that's been my experience with people. They're pretty great, overall.

I hold a strict position of human amorality. We like to make moral choices, but sometimes we forsake that out of convenience.

any individual person may treat you fairly, or even very well, for an unbroken string of contacts stretching for years, perhaps a lifetime. Do not be deceived. Humans are evil.

Preferable to the tyrany of the elite

False dichotomy.

I can see the validity in this. Again, this is why I said charity would be preferable. But welfare, again, worked for my family. It's not as if it is an utter failure. Also, aren't most of the people on assitance only on it for a short time? Is it not but a small minority that perpetually lives on some kind of assistance?

I cannot tell you what "most" of the people on welfare do. I can tell you that it seems to be more than, shall we say, a "small minority" that is perpetually on assistance. But my firsthand impressions of the situation are irrelevant. I would like to point out that welfare tends to rob people of the surplus that they would have given to charity, so it's not as though the small amount of good it does isnt tainted with bad itself.

No, I am suggesting that when he hires someone to work it for him, it ceases to become the fruit of his labor

that is due to a deliberate denial of the concept of ownership. Why would anyone accumulate enough capital to assemble a factory if he was going to have to give it away?

Investment is a labor activity, like managment, and real labor; I see no reason why the investor couldn't put compensation up to a vote if he believes his job to be the most important.

I see no reason why it has to be voted on. If his job was not important, then the others would simply do business without him. They would vote with their feet, in other words.

You strong arm your way to the top and buy out any competition that threatens your hegemony of the market...? Isn't that what good business is all about?

no, that has nothing to do with business. This is the second time you have used the term "strong arm" in an economic context. Could you possibly explain yourself? Are we talking about violence or not?

You must not have heard the argument that "democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner."

I was giving you a chance to bow out gracefully. What on earth do you not see about the original criticism? Your rebuttal rebuts nothing, the wolves vote to eat the sheep, the sheep all die, then the wolves die because no one owned the property in order to husband the herd in order to make future generations of sheep.

Re: Self-Ownership?

Laotzu del Zinn — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:47:29 GMT

Y'know, I got so busy I forgot about this thread. Much apologies.

How did my links not support my position?

Imminent death, or short-term survival. Seems like a pretty significant choice to me. Are you suggesting that because he dies in the end, it really doesnt matter what he chooses?

I'm saying, and forgive the graphic nature of this response, that it is like having the choice between getting raped, or butt raped. It's a choice wherein you don't really want either option.

why, exactly, do you think that the guy with the water would find it necessary to strong-arm a guy dying of thirst?

He can...? I hold a strict position of human amorality. We like to make moral choices, but sometimes we forsake that out of convenience.

are you suggesting that no one has ever agreed on morals?

There are general agreements. I think it would be hard to find two people that agree 100% on everything moral... espeically if you count actions rather than preferences.

ok, how are your morals any different from your music preferences? What grounds would you use to persuade someone to your moral viewpoint?

They're not. And I say what I believe, and make a sincere attempt not to act against my beliefs.

a good track record according to the judgments of the consumers. It does little good for monied interests to support biased courts in ancap because people just wont use those courts. This is why we support removal of the monopoly on arbitration

But need is not effective economic demand. Effective economic demand requires both need and corresponding purchasing power. ~Henry Hazlitt

The monied class (consumers as you call them) will find it perfectly reasonable to support a court that is always biased in the interests of the monied class.

first of all, every human being alive today has the condition of laziness because of our genetic history. It is bad for survival to perform unnecessary work, so humans constantly try to eliminate work that appears to be unnecessary. Secondly, if they are willing to work hard and take responsibility for their own survival, then what is the big deal? Why do you oppose their voluntary agreements to exchange labor for money? Why urge them towards larceny?

Not performing unnecessary work is far different than being lazy. Being lazy means not performing work at all, if you can get out of it; whether it's necessary or not.

I won't stop them from voluntary arrangements; I will point out to them that it's a 1 sided deal, and there are better ways to go about it. Who's urging them towards larceny; the guy who supports cooperation, and away from exploitation. Or the guy who wants to allow a system wherein 1 guy can have everyone else do his work, and he makes all the profits?

would you mind sharing what you consider to be self-evident about that statement?

I think if anythere were self-evident, everybody would get it. It's obviously not self-evident. Nevertheless, to me it is easy to see a problem when 1 person works his butt off and remains broke. And his boss works half as hard and is living fat.

if the have nothing to offer but their labor, and most of them arent industrious enough to use that, then I call them "people who have nothing to offer and demand to e taken care of."

I am talking about you inserting unneccessary and wrong caveats because of your preconcieved bias (the bolded). As far as I know, voluntary unemployment is like 2-5%...tho I cannot find any data. If you have some, I'd be happy to see it. Remember I am talking about voluntarily unemployed people, who just want to live off the dole.

How do you propose to abolish scarcity in order to make your system workable?

Again with the putting words in my mouth. Abolishing scarcity would be absurd, and entirely unworkable It is not a prerequisite of my "system." It IS tho a prereq of higher order Communism. But we will produce ourselves to abundance, not abolish scarcity. My "system" is merely encouraging worker cooperatives and market regulations; preferably by private companies such as the BBB.

what is your source for aborigines having a fewer than 8hr work day?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society (Note that even considering food prep time, etc that their total work week is shorter than ours today)

http://www.google.com/#pq=how+many+people+are+voluntarily+unemployed&hl=en&cp=28&gs_id=2c&xhr=t&q=hunter+gatherers+worked+less&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=hunter+gatherers+worked+less&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=9161e2c00f8072b6&biw=1366&bih=552

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?pq=how+many+people+are+voluntarily+unemployed&hl=en&cp=28&gs_id=2c&xhr=t&q=hunter+gatherers+worked+less&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1366&bih=552&wrapid=tljp1321470777064240&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

I'm not going to do your research for you. If you think my statement wrong, prove it. Don't just assert the opposite and ask me to prove YOU wrong.

thats awfully generous of you. Is that a norm or a preference

How many times must I answer this? It is a preference which I hope will become a norm, and such a norm that the idea of doing otherwise would be absurd.

well I guess we could just cuss each other out instead

Brother, I guarantee that I will not be the one to start the cussing out and angry responses. I am not attached to my expecation of being able to sway you from your position. So, when you in fact don't come to my side, I'm not going to beat myself up about it.

As far as "declare yourself a filthy communist" statement; I am a social libertarian and anarchist without adjectives. I feel I am doing a good job of explaining how it works without a state. I'm sorry if we disagree.

its because they are not generally as productive. This is why workers like it, wages are higher and they work less.

No that's false. I implore you to do a little research. What holds them back is their inability to produce as high of dividends for investors, because the dominant business model works directly against the interest of labor in order to produce those high returns. Again, this is likely to change as capitalism evolves, people have more abundance, and economic fluctuations become more wild. It may not; but I see it as likely that it will.

Again, you have this preconceived bias that everybody is or wants to be a freeloader, and that only the ubermensch (or w/e Neitzche called it) can save us. That's your view, I disagree. I also think you will find it increasingly hard to create a populist movment with anti-populist rhetoric. I see people as generally kind, compassionate, and industrious. Sometimes they are not, and each individual is different. But that's been my experience with people. They're pretty great, overall.

tragedy of the commons?

Preferable to the tyrany of the elite

People are entitled to welfare under color of law. Charity is a gift. If you cannot see how these programs are as different from each other as the night is from the day, say something and I will explain further.

I can see the validity in this. Again, this is why I said charity would be preferable. But welfare, again, worked for my family. It's not as if it is an utter failure. Also, aren't most of the people on assitance only on it for a short time? Is it not but a small minority that perpetually lives on some kind of assistance?

you appear to be suggesting that when this capitalist purchases things, they cease to become the fruits of his labor.

No, I am suggesting that when he hires someone to work it for him, it ceases to become the fruit of his labor... at least to the amount allowed by the legal enforcement of private property. Investment is a labor activity, like managment, and real labor; I see no reason why the investor couldn't put compensation up to a vote if he believes his job to be the most important.

please explain how a monopoly arises without any sort of qualifications

You strong arm your way to the top and buy out any competition that threatens your hegemony of the market...? Isn't that what good business is all about?

Hahahahaha I did not realize we were discussing interspecies relations?

You must not have heard the argument that "democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner."

Re: Self-Ownership?

Jackson LaRose — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:17:28 GMT

z1235:
Hmm, this "end suffering" business sure seems painful.

LOL, that depends on how hard you are clinging. Short term pleasure usually leads to long term suffering. See heroin.

z1235:
I never was religious so I have hard time associating with the "dark night of the soul"

We are all religious. The basis for anyone's reasoning is faith in the starting premise. A more secular analogy might be Existential Crisis. This is what Camus reasons through in The Myth of Sisyphus. His conclusion is that the struggle of existence becomes the meaning of existence. The means become the end, in other words.

"By now it is proven...

Life is sorrow!

But we have learned to love sorrow in order to love life!

Because in loving sorrow we have learned to struggle.

And in struggle - in struggle alone - is our joy of living"

- Renzo Novatore

I think Western thinkers see nothingness at the end of the logic, which I tend to disagree with. In the Eastern tradition, confounding logic is seen as a necessity, in order to liberate oneself from our own self-inflicted mental bonds. See Zen Koan.

Re: Self-Ownership?

z1235 — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:40:18 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

As distinctions and mirages melt away, it becomes more and more diffcult to distinguish "this" and "that", "should" "shouldn't", etc. This can lead to a sort of nihilistic despair, known as "The Dark Night of the Soul". I had a rough stint with that, although I'm nowhere near union with the divine, so it must get worse!

Hmm, this "end suffering" business sure seems painful. I agree that this is probably all a play/game, in the end, but play is supposed to be fun where I come from. If walking along a certain "path" decreases fun and increases suffering, perhaps that's not the "right" path to take towards ending suffering (i.e. attaining wisdom). I believe that the tools we have (honed through millions of years of evolution) to experience happines/fun vs. pain/suffering are probably much more sophisticated than we give them credit. There's probably much more "wisdom" in them than we could deduct by pure reason/logic. This is what I meant about being humble. Just throwing this out there.

I never was religious so I have hard time associating with the "dark night of the soul" (as described in the wiki). Btw, take a look at "The Sunset Limited" if you haven't already.

Once, I unexpectedly lost consciousness (from a previous concussion). When I woke up few seconds later laying on the ground, strangely, the first thought that occured to me was how if I hadn't woken up I'd never have even known that I had "disappeared". It was like an epiphany after which I've been feeling more free and happy ever since. Perhaps the easiest way to break free from all attachments is the awareness that you could be "unplugged" into nothingness without notice any moment. However hard, long, fun, cold, miserable, stupid, wasted, enlightened, or happy every "plugged" second may be, it still is infinitely better than an "unplugged" one -- it's still a quantity (something) vs. zero (nothing).

Re: Self-Ownership?

Jackson LaRose — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:59:03 GMT

z1235:
Some also call that "wisdom".

As do I.

Jackson LaRose:
If one considers "enlightenment" as "ultimate understanding", than Sophia is my desired end, hopefully one that will end desire completely.

"Sophia" is just Greek for "wisdom".

z1235:
Whatever its name, it's the 'holy grail' of every human's existence.

If only.

"The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being." - Socrates

This equates the willfully ignorant to animals, which I have a tough time disagreeing with.

z1235:
Jackson, the above is just one "prescription" (suggested path) towards it. What made you think/feel that it is THE path?

You're telling me. Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Krishna, the list goes on and on. I would argue that the path is the same, just the names change.

z1235:
Also, had most of our ancestors "let go of attachments and clinging" to, say, life, we wouldn't be here pondering such alternatives as a possible path to wisdom.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. Take Super Mario Brothers for example. If I am controlling this little "Mario" avatar on the screen, that isn't to say that I think this avatar "is" me, or that I "am" Mario. That being said, I can still "pretend" to be Mario, and control him as if I was Mario, but I still understand that I am not Mario.

"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts..." - Shakespeare

The Eastern traditions do not advocate lack of action, they are advocating that you act with the awareness of the "game" within which you are acting:

"Therefore, O Arjuna, surrendering all your works unto Me, with full knowledge of Me, without desires for profit, with no claims to proprietorship, and free from lethargy, fight." - Bahagavad Gita

"having without possessing,
acting with no expectations,
leading and not trying to control:
this is the supreme virtue." - Lao Tzu

All action becomes play, all experience novel, and all fear and ignorance is washed away. This is all dependent of releasing the illusory "I", the Ego. This is why Shiva dances (a playful action) the world into creation and destruction upon the Dwarf of ignorance:

Shiva Nataraja

z1235:
I've also heard some wise people say that 'it' becomes more elusive the more determined one becomes in pursuing it.

As distinctions and mirages melt away, it becomes more and more diffcult to distinguish "this" and "that", "should" "shouldn't", etc. This can lead to a sort of nihilistic despair, known as "The Dark Night of the Soul". I had a rough stint with that, although I'm nowhere near union with the divine, so it must get worse!

Re: Self-Ownership?

z1235 — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:29:16 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

I prefer to call "engineered pursuit of hapiness" as "the cessation of suffering", which is essentially the same thing as you are describing. Buddha recommends the letting go of attachments and clinging, essentially what Stirner is saying when he dissolves the spooks in his head. Release all false distinction, achieve equanimity for all time.

Some also call that "wisdom". Whatever its name, it's the 'holy grail' of every human's existence. Jackson, the above is just one "prescription" (suggested path) towards it. What made you think/feel that it is THE path? Also, had most of our ancestors "let go of attachments and clinging" to, say, life, we wouldn't be here pondering such alternatives as a possible path to wisdom. Just saying. I've also heard some wise people say that 'it' becomes more elusive the more determined one becomes in pursuing it. Quite the layers on this onion. Nevertheless, interesting discussion, guys.