Political Crossfire Forums

[Harbinger]

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
People do not "own themselves". I've debunked the nonsense about self-ownership a hundred times.

What do you mean you've "debunked" it? You can kid yourself a hundred times but, you can never "debunk" the truth.

Property is a social construct. It is a relationship between an individual and the rest of society regarding a thing. It is an agreement that defines the use, exclusion, benefit, and transfer of the "thing".

No, property is a purely selfish construct. It is anything that can be claimed by a person as their own. Ownership is the relationship a person creates between themselves and the things they claim. It has nothing to do with anybody else at that point. Society comes into the picture when people recognize and respect each others property. Laws are created that apply such rules to the legal recognition of ownership and these laws are the agreements, the social constructs, of society.

RueTheDay wrote:
It is not some natural right based on the natural laws of the universe or any other similar such nonsense.

I agree. There is no such things as a "natural right". It's just us and the laws we choose to respect.

RueTheDay wrote:
And being a relationship between an individual and society regarding the thing, it [property] cannot concern the "self" unless you consider the individual and the self to be two separate entities.

The individual and the self are two separate entities- the mind and the body respectively. The mind is the natural owner of the body and that's what I mean when I say people naturally own themselves.

RueTheDay wrote:
False. A property right by definition includes the right to transfer. You can't transfer ownership of yourself to another party because you and yourself are not two separate entities.

Where does it say we must be capable of transferring property in order to own property? Nowhere! Of course you can't transfer your entire self at once but, you can transfer parts of yourself such as blood, bone barrow, organs, eggs and sperm etc. Why are these parts of ourselves considered to be our property until we transfer them by sale or donation? It's because people naturally understand that they own themselves.

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Exclusivity is one of the most fundamental principles of property ownership. It's logistically impossible for more than one person to have full ownership rights over the same piece of property at the same time.

False. My house is registered jointly in my name and my wife's name. So is my checking account. The title to my car is is my name, but my bank holds a lien against it. In all three cases, the property relationship is shared between multiple parties.

Yes, lawmakers have taken full advantage of their legal expertise and lawmaking powers to weave all kinds of crazy legal relationships between people and property, but few of them equate to full ownership. Your house and your car may be in you and/or your wife's names but, that doesn't mean you own these things, your bank and mortgage companies do. In fact, I've heard that the state is the true owner of your vehicle because somebody thought it was necessary in order for states to have the right to make people follow traffic laws. That's why people only have copies of their car titles. Not sure if that's true though.

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Agents do not manage principals, they manage something for a principal.

Okay, then executive agents manage business operations for their corporate principal's.

Correct.

Those principal's being the corporation/person entities.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: It violates one of my fundamental principles of ownership in that property can never be shared.

What is the logic behind this idea?

[Harbinger]

cap'n queasy wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
It violates one of my fundamental principles of ownership in that property can never be shared.

What is the logic behind this idea?

Umm... Perhaps I misspoke. Property can certainly be shared, it's ownership that cannot be shared. When you own something, it means you have the exclusive right to use that thing. Only you can give others permission to use your things and to make up the rules about when, where and how they may use them.

Given the basic rights above, it is not possible for more than one person to own the same thing because any attempt to exorcise any of the above rights of ownership by any of the co-owners would infringe on the rights of the other co-owners. Co-ownership is therefore logistically impossible. One person must be the actual owner of a thing and all others are merely users and/or sublessors whose limited rights of use and transfer are extended to them by the actual owner.

[chris_mthomas]

Quote: I just think it's [90% tax] the moral thing to do.
A couple points.

First, I'm a huge critic of all the ridiculous ideas put forth by supply side "economics", and one of the ideas that is really out there is the idea of the Laffer Curve - that if you increase taxes, you reduce tax revenue. But still, I don't think anyone can deny that something resembling the Laffer Curve exists, and when you levy taxes that are close to 90% of one's income - there's going to be problems.

Secondly, I feel as though the investments that those super-rich will make will most likely be more beneficial for average Americans than the increased government revenue.

[Harbinger]

chris_mthomas wrote:
Quote:
I just think it's [90% tax] the moral thing to do.

A couple points.

First, I'm a huge critic of all the ridiculous ideas put forth by supply side "economics", and one of the ideas that is really out there is the idea of the Laffer Curve - that if you increase taxes, you reduce tax revenue. But still, I don't think anyone can deny that something resembling the Laffer Curve exists, and when you levy taxes that are close to 90% of one's income - there's going to be problems.

Secondly, I feel as though the investments that those super-rich will make will most likely be more beneficial for average Americans than the increased government revenue.

If investments can be excluded, then such extraordinarily high income tax brackets aren't intended to generating additional government revenue but to keep people from stockpiling money by forcing them to reinvest nearly all of it.

[pyrophasma]

I never understood what people had against a family sitting on huge sums of money. It has nothing to do with you, and it doesn't stop you from earning money.

It's not a zero sum game, where if Joe Richguy has billions, that's just that much more money that no one else can have. Wealth is created. Stop complaining about what they have, and go make your own.

And people need to stop trying to use taxes to control behavior. Taxes should be used to cover the costs of services you provide a citizen. If the government only provides $100 of service to a citizen, what logica and justifiable reason does that government have for charging the citizen by using a percentage of their income?

And when did Americans become so hung up on the income tax, anyway? I thought our persons, papers, and effects were protected from unreasonable searches and siezures. Is simply generating income a reasonable enough reason for the government to rummage through your papers (or in this case, legally require you to transpose the information from your papers onto theirs)?

/end rant

[RueTheDay]

Harbinger wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
People do not "own themselves". I've debunked the nonsense about self-ownership a hundred times.

What do you mean you've "debunked" it? You can kid yourself a hundred times but, you can never "debunk" the truth.

Property is a social construct. It is a relationship between an individual and the rest of society regarding a thing. It is an agreement that defines the use, exclusion, benefit, and transfer of the "thing".

No, property is a purely selfish construct. It is anything that can be claimed by a person as their own. Ownership is the relationship a person creates between themselves and the things they claim. It has nothing to do with anybody else at that point.

False.

You are talking about possession here, not property. Possession is a relationship between a person and a thing. "This thing is my possession". It is based upon the physical facts of occupation and use. Property is not a relationship between a person and a thing. A property right is a relationship between a person and all other people REGARDING a thing. The reason for this is simple - all rights imply a corresponding duty on the part of all other people to respect that right. A "thing" cannot have a duty. Please see my thread on "Rights, Duties, and Liberties" in the Philosophy Forum for a more detailed explanation. Libertarians are always confusing property and possessions.

Quote:
Society comes into the picture when people recognize and respect each others property. Laws are created that apply such rules to the legal recognition of ownership and these laws are the agreements, the social constructs, of society.

These are the agreements that define property in the first place. Without these agreements, we are just talking about possessions and not property.

You have a car. Without any sort of societal agreement on property rights, it is your possession. I come along and take your car. Now the car is my possession, and you have nothing. So long as I can prevent anyone else from taking the car from me, it will remain my possession. If someone else is able to take it from me, then it is their possession. Property is different. If we have, as a society, implemented property rights, and I take your car, then you still retain a claim to the car. It does not cease to be your property simply because I have taken it. This is because property is based upon title, which is a social arrangement, and unlike possession is not dependent upon occupation and use.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
It is not some natural right based on the natural laws of the universe or any other similar such nonsense.

I agree. There is no such things as a "natural right". It's just us and the laws we choose to respect.

Good. Glad we got that out of the way.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
And being a relationship between an individual and society regarding the thing, it [property] cannot concern the "self" unless you consider the individual and the self to be two separate entities.

The individual and the self are two separate entities- the mind and the body respectively. The mind is the natural owner of the body and that's what I mean when I say people naturally own themselves.

The "mind" and the "body" are not separate entities. The "body" is an organism, and it includes the organ known as the brain. The "mind" is nothing but a series of electrochemical reactions that take place within the brain and give us consciousness. You can't separate "the mind" from "the body".

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
False. A property right by definition includes the right to transfer. You can't transfer ownership of yourself to another party because you and yourself are not two separate entities.

Where does it say we must be capable of transferring property in order to own property? Nowhere!

The right of transfer is one of the bundle of rights that make up a property right. Without the right to transfer, it isn't a property right.

Quote:
Of course you can't transfer your entire self at once

Which is one of the reasons why the concept of self-ownership is literal nonsense.

Quote:
but, you can transfer parts of yourself such as blood, bone barrow, organs eggs and sperm etc. Why are these parts of ourselves considered to be our property until we transfer them by sale or donation?

They're not considered any such thing. At least not by people who have thought the matter through.

Quote:
It's because people naturally understand that they own themselves.

Nonsense. I don't know what "people" you're referring to. Outside of narrow libertarian circles, most people find the concept of ownership applying to humans to be absurd and disgusting.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Exclusivity is one of the most fundamental principles of property ownership. It's logistically impossible for more than one person to have full ownership rights over the same piece of property at the same time.

False. My house is registered jointly in my name and my wife's name. So is my checking account. The title to my car is is my name, but my bank holds a lien against it. In all three cases, the property relationship is shared between multiple parties.

Yes, lawmakers have taken full advantage of their legal expertise and lawmaking powers to weave all kinds of crazy legal relationships between people and property, but few of them equate to full ownership.

That's because property relationships are defined by society, and society uses laws to express and enforce them.

Quote:
Your house and you car may be in you and/or your wife's names but, that doesn't mean you own these things, your bank and mortgage companies do.

No, it's just that the property relationship isn't 100% black and white, and almost never is.

Quote:
In fact, I've heard that the state is the true owner of your vehicle because somebody thought it was necessary in order for states to have the right to make people follow traffic laws. That's why people only have copies of their car titles. Not sure if that's true though.

It's not true. The state does not own your car. Your title is a legal document, it's not "just a copy", though the state does maintain a copy itself (for proving ownership in case of theft and for providing the ability to provide you with another one if you lose the first one).

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Agents do not manage principals, they manage something for a principal.

Okay, then executive agents manage business operations for their corporate principal's.

Correct.

Those principal's being the corporation/person entities.

The principals are the shareholders who own the corporation. The agents are the executives who manage the corporation for the principals.

None of this has anything to do with "corporate personhood". Corporate personhood means that the corporation itself has legal standing within the judicial system (it's treated as a person for the purpose of filing lawsuits, etc.)

[ubikk]

Harbinger wrote: Umm... Perhaps I misspoke. Property can certainly be shared, it's ownership that cannot be shared. When you own something, it means you have the exclusive right to use that thing. Only you can give others permission to use your things and to make up the rules about when, where and how they may use them.


What about joint ownership? Common Property? Who owns national parks, for example, and who can use them?

[Harbinger]

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
People do not "own themselves". I've debunked the nonsense about self-ownership a hundred times.

What do you mean you've "debunked" it? You can kid yourself a hundred times but, you can never "debunk" the truth.

Property is a social construct. It is a relationship between an individual and the rest of society regarding a thing. It is an agreement that defines the use, exclusion, benefit, and transfer of the "thing".

No, property is a purely selfish construct. It is anything that can be claimed by a person as their own. Ownership is the relationship a person creates between themselves and the things they claim. It has nothing to do with anybody else at that point.

False. You are talking about possession here, not property. Possession is a relationship between a person and a thing. "This thing is my possession". It is based upon the physical facts of occupation and use. Property is not a relationship between a person and a thing.

Without these agreements, we are just talking about possessions and not property. You have a car. Without any sort of societal agreement on property rights, it is your possession. I come along and take your car. Now the car is my possession, and you have nothing. So long as I can prevent anyone else from taking the car from me, it will remain my possession. If someone else is able to take it from me, then it is their possession.

Without the rule of law, possession is always equivalent to ownership.

RueTheDay wrote:
A property right is a relationship between a person and all other people REGARDING a thing. The reason for this is simple - all rights imply a corresponding duty on the part of all other people to respect that right.

A property right is just the legal protection of ownership. Under the rule of law, everyone is obligated to respect the law and that is what obligates them to respect your property rights.

RueTheDay wrote:
A "thing" cannot have a duty.

We are things and yet we have duties.

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Society comes into the picture when people recognize and respect each others property. Laws are created that apply such rules to the legal recognition of ownership and these laws are the agreements, the social constructs, of society.

These are the agreements that define property in the first place.

Laws and contracts may define different kinds of property but, the basic concept of property was invented long before laws and contracts.

RueTheDay wrote:
Property is different. If we have, as a society, implemented property rights, and I take your car, then you still retain a claim to the car. It does not cease to be your property simply because I have taken it.

Right. Under the rule of law, possession is not always equivalent to ownership because ownership is no longer defined by the act of using something but by the right to use something- property rights.

RueTheDay wrote:
This is because property is based upon title, which is a social arrangement, and unlike possession is not dependent upon occupation and use.

You mean ownership is based upon title. Your car is an item of property and the title defines who the owner is. Copy of title defines who the user is.

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
The individual and the self are two separate entities- the mind and the body respectively. The mind is the natural owner of the body and that's what I mean when I say people naturally own themselves.

The "mind" and the "body" are not separate entities. The "body" is an organism, and it includes the organ known as the brain. The "mind" is nothing but a series of electrochemical reactions that take place within the brain and give us consciousness. You can't separate "the mind" from "the body".

A separation isn't necessary. Only a distinction is.

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
False. A property right by definition includes the right to transfer. You can't transfer ownership of yourself to another party because you and yourself are not two separate entities.

Where does it say we must be capable of transferring property in order to own property? Nowhere!

The right of transfer is one of the bundle of rights that make up a property right. Without the right to transfer, it isn't a property right.

Since when is any right conditional upon your ability to exorcise that right?

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Of course you can't transfer your entire self at once...

Which is one of the reasons why the concept of self-ownership is literal nonsense.

You may not be capable of transferring your body despite your mind but, that shouldn't legally disqualify you from owning yourself.

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
...but, you can transfer parts of yourself such as blood, bone barrow, organs eggs and sperm etc. Why are these parts of ourselves considered to be our property until we transfer them by sale or donation?

They're not considered any such thing. At least not by people who have thought the matter through.

Yes they most certainly are! My testicles are MINE! No additional thought necessary.

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
It's because people naturally understand that they own themselves.
Nonsense. I don't know what "people" you're referring to. Outside of narrow libertarian circles, most people find the concept of ownership applying to humans to be absurd and disgusting.

I agree that slavery is absurd and disgusting but, self ownership is what makes slavery impossible. Remember what I was saying about ownership being exclusive. Your body is property like any other, therefore it can only have one owner. If you are not the owner of your body, then who is?

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Exclusivity is one of the most fundamental principles of property ownership. It's logistically impossible for more than one person to have full ownership rights over the same piece of property at the same time.

False. My house is registered jointly in my name and my wife's name. So is my checking account. The title to my car is is my name, but my bank holds a lien against it. In all three cases, the property relationship is shared between multiple parties.

Yes, lawmakers have taken full advantage of their legal expertise and lawmaking powers to weave all kinds of crazy legal relationships between people and property, but few of them equate to full ownership.

That's because property relationships are defined by society, and society uses laws to express and enforce them.

Uh... ownership is defined by law, not by society. Law enforcement agencies use the law to protect property owners from society.

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Your house and you car may be in you and/or your wife's names but, that doesn't mean you own these things, your bank and mortgage companies do.

No, it's just that the property relationship isn't 100% black and white, and almost never is.

Ownership is always black and white. You either own something or you don't. What isn't black and white are many of the legal definitions of ownership that confuse actual ownership with leasing, subleasing and shares of financial interest. Whenever people say they jointly own something- like a house or stocks, what it tells me is that they share financial interest in the property, not actual ownership.

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Agents do not manage principals, they manage something for a principal.

Okay, then executive agents manage business operations for their corporate principal's.

Correct.

Those principal's being the corporation/person entities.

The principals are the shareholders who own the corporation. The agents are the executives who manage the corporation for the principals.

Then who is the 'person' entity of the corporation? If owning a person is absurd and disgusting, then nobody but this 'person' entity can own themeselves- the corporation. Shareholders can only be bondholders and corporate executives should only be agents for the 'person' entity of the corporation, not for a group of shareholders. Otherwise, the corporation cannot be treated as a person.

RueTheDay wrote:
None of this has anything to do with "corporate personhood". Corporate personhood means that the corporation itself has legal standing within the judicial system (it's treated as a person for the purpose of filing lawsuits, etc.)
It's treated as a person for the purpose of limiting liability for all the real persons who own and manage the business.

[gavnook]

pyrophasma wrote: I never understood what people had against a family sitting on huge sums of money. It has nothing to do with you, and it doesn't stop you from earning money.

It's not a zero sum game, where if Joe Richguy has billions, that's just that much more money that no one else can have. Wealth is created. Stop complaining about what they have, and go make your own.

And people need to stop trying to use taxes to control behavior. Taxes should be used to cover the costs of services you provide a citizen. If the government only provides $100 of service to a citizen, what logica and justifiable reason does that government have for charging the citizen by using a percentage of their income?

And when did Americans become so hung up on the income tax, anyway? I thought our persons, papers, and effects were protected from unreasonable searches and siezures. Is simply generating income a reasonable enough reason for the government to rummage through your papers (or in this case, legally require you to transpose the information from your papers onto theirs)?

/end rant

:clap:

Excellent points.

[ubikk]

Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: Somebody brought it up in P&G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_wage

I oppose it. What do you think?
I oppose it as well. Why should income be limited?

I agree, income should have no limit, but I think it should be taxed at a progressive rate.

[Free Thinkr]

ubikk wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: Somebody brought it up in P&G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_wage

I oppose it. What do you think?
I oppose it as well. Why should income be limited?

I agree, income should have no limit, but I think it should be taxed at a progressive rate.
No it shouldn't; in fact, income shouldn't be taxed at all.

[PS_Student]

Free Thinkr wrote:
No it shouldn't; in fact, income shouldn't be taxed at all.

Income tax is one of the biggest sources of government revenue. With out it, we couldn't support a national defense, pay for military, post office, government street clean up crews, and a whole bunch of other services

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

PS_Student wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
No it shouldn't; in fact, income shouldn't be taxed at all.

Income tax is one of the biggest sources of government revenue. With out it, we couldn't support a national defense, pay for military, post office, government street clean up crews, and a whole bunch of other services

And you can prove this?

[pyrophasma]

Just because the income tax is currently the largest source of Fed revenue doesn't mean that it is the only way Fed revenue can be generated. Lern2logic you F**K** tard.

[Revenant]

pyrophasma wrote: Just because the income tax is currently the largest source of Fed revenue doesn't mean that it is the only way Fed revenue can be generated. Lern2logic you F**K** tard.

:shock: :lol:

[PS_Student]

pyrophasma wrote: Just because the income tax is currently the largest source of Fed revenue doesn't mean that it is the only way Fed revenue can be generated. Lern2logic you F**K** tard.
Here's logic for you
If you don't like the income tax, leave- One less a**hole in America

[gavnook]

PS_Student wrote: pyrophasma wrote: Just because the income tax is currently the largest source of Fed revenue doesn't mean that it is the only way Fed revenue can be generated. Lern2logic you F**K** tard.
Here's logic for you
If you don't like the income tax, leave- One less a**hole in America

You do like the income tax? What exactly do you like about it?

[PS_Student]

gavnook wrote:
You do like the income tax? What exactly do you like about it?

I'm neutral about it- I'm willing to pay taxes to live in USA - Can provide police, various other things we take for granted

[RueTheDay]

Harbinger wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
People do not "own themselves". I've debunked the nonsense about self-ownership a hundred times.

What do you mean you've "debunked" it? You can kid yourself a hundred times but, you can never "debunk" the truth.

Property is a social construct. It is a relationship between an individual and the rest of society regarding a thing. It is an agreement that defines the use, exclusion, benefit, and transfer of the "thing".

No, property is a purely selfish construct. It is anything that can be claimed by a person as their own. Ownership is the relationship a person creates between themselves and the things they claim. It has nothing to do with anybody else at that point.

False. You are talking about possession here, not property. Possession is a relationship between a person and a thing. "This thing is my possession". It is based upon the physical facts of occupation and use. Property is not a relationship between a person and a thing.

Without these agreements, we are just talking about possessions and not property. You have a car. Without any sort of societal agreement on property rights, it is your possession. I come along and take your car. Now the car is my possession, and you have nothing. So long as I can prevent anyone else from taking the car from me, it will remain my possession. If someone else is able to take it from me, then it is their possession.

Without the rule of law, possession is always equivalent to ownership.

No, that's also false. Without the rule of law, there's no such thing as ownership, there is only possession and even that tends to be volatile and short-lived.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
A property right is a relationship between a person and all other people REGARDING a thing. The reason for this is simple - all rights imply a corresponding duty on the part of all other people to respect that right.

A property right is just the legal protection of ownership. Under the rule of law, everyone is obligated to respect the law and that is what obligates them to respect your property rights.

How do you define "ownership", as contrasted with either possession or property?

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
A "thing" cannot have a duty.

We are things and yet we have duties.

I should have been more clear. A non-human thing.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Society comes into the picture when people recognize and respect each others property. Laws are created that apply such rules to the legal recognition of ownership and these laws are the agreements, the social constructs, of society.

These are the agreements that define property in the first place.

Laws and contracts may define different kinds of property but, the basic concept of property was invented long before laws and contracts.

No it wasn't. The concept of possession existed long before laws and contracts, probably from the early days of civilization. The concept of personal property came after that, for the simple reason that there is no such thing as property without laws defining it. The concept of real property (e.g., land) came much later - after the end of feudalism in Europe. Prior to that, commoners could not own land - all land was held by nobility and even they were highly restricted in terms of what they could do with the land.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Property is different. If we have, as a society, implemented property rights, and I take your car, then you still retain a claim to the car. It does not cease to be your property simply because I have taken it.

Right. Under the rule of law, possession is not always equivalent to ownership because ownership is no longer defined by the act of using something but by the right to use something- property rights.

Ownership was never defined by the act of using something. That is possession.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
This is because property is based upon title, which is a social arrangement, and unlike possession is not dependent upon occupation and use.

You mean ownership is based upon title. Your car is an item of property and the title defines who the owner is. Copy of title defines who the user is.

Again, you seem to be drawing a distinction between ownership of something and having a property right to something. They are the same thing.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
The individual and the self are two separate entities- the mind and the body respectively. The mind is the natural owner of the body and that's what I mean when I say people naturally own themselves.

The "mind" and the "body" are not separate entities. The "body" is an organism, and it includes the organ known as the brain. The "mind" is nothing but a series of electrochemical reactions that take place within the brain and give us consciousness. You can't separate "the mind" from "the body".

A separation isn't necessary. Only a distinction is.

Nonsense. A property right defines a relationship between proprietor, property, and society. If they are not separate (or separatable) then there is no relationship to define.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
False. A property right by definition includes the right to transfer. You can't transfer ownership of yourself to another party because you and yourself are not two separate entities.

Where does it say we must be capable of transferring property in order to own property? Nowhere!

The right of transfer is one of the bundle of rights that make up a property right. Without the right to transfer, it isn't a property right.

Since when is any right conditional upon your ability to exorcise that right?

If you can't exercise the right, what good is it? It's like saying "I have the right to turn myself invisible".

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Of course you can't transfer your entire self at once...

Which is one of the reasons why the concept of self-ownership is literal nonsense.

You may not be capable of transferring your body despite your mind but, that shouldn't legally disqualify you from owning yourself.

The entire concept is complete f*cking nonsense. Think about what it means to own a toothbrush and then try to apply it to owning yourself. It doesn't work.

What you really mean to say is that people have a right of self control or self-determination. I have no issue with that. But to say you have a right or self ownership is meaningless. The only reason libertarians even use it is to try and derive an absolute right to ownership of items in the physical world from an absolute right to self ownership. Apart from having a faulty premise, it's also a non-sequitur.

Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
...but, you can transfer parts of yourself such as blood, bone barrow, organs eggs and sperm etc. Why are these parts of ourselves considered to be our property until we transfer them by sale or donation?

They're not considered any such thing. At least not by people who have thought the matter through.

Yes they most certainly are! My testicles are MINE! No additional thought necessary.


Now you're equivocating. MY mother, MY country, MY friend. The word "my" doesn't ONLY mean property that belongs to me.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
It's because people naturally understand that they own themselves.
Nonsense. I don't know what "people" you're referring to. Outside of narrow libertarian circles, most people find the concept of ownership applying to humans to be absurd and disgusting.

I agree that slavery is absurd and disgusting but, self ownership is what makes slavery impossible. Remember what I was saying about ownership being exclusive. Your body is property like any other, therefore it can only have one owner. If you are not the owner of your body, then who is?

Now you're arguing that self-ownership is a special type of property right. Otherwise, you'd most certainly be able to sell yourself into slavery. My position is that human beings are not subject to property rights at all, they cannot be owned, either by themselves or anyone else.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Exclusivity is one of the most fundamental principles of property ownership. It's logistically impossible for more than one person to have full ownership rights over the same piece of property at the same time.

False. My house is registered jointly in my name and my wife's name. So is my checking account. The title to my car is is my name, but my bank holds a lien against it. In all three cases, the property relationship is shared between multiple parties.

Yes, lawmakers have taken full advantage of their legal expertise and lawmaking powers to weave all kinds of crazy legal relationships between people and property, but few of them equate to full ownership.

That's because property relationships are defined by society, and society uses laws to express and enforce them.

Uh... ownership is defined by law, not by society. Law enforcement agencies use the law to protect property owners from society.

Huh? Who defines the law then?

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Your house and you car may be in you and/or your wife's names but, that doesn't mean you own these things, your bank and mortgage companies do.

No, it's just that the property relationship isn't 100% black and white, and almost never is.

Ownership is always black and white. You either own something or you don't. What isn't black and white are laws that blur the definition of ownership.

There are many forms of property rights, not just individual private property.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Agents do not manage principals, they manage something for a principal.

Okay, then executive agents manage business operations for their corporate principal's.

Correct.

Those principal's being the corporation/person entities.

The principals are the shareholders who own the corporation. The agents are the executives who manage the corporation for the principals.

Then who is the 'person' entity of the corporation? If owning a person is absurd and disgusting, then nobody but this 'person' entity can own themeselves- the corporation. Shareholders can only be bondholders and corporate executives should only be agents for the 'person' entity of the corporation, not for a group of shareholders. Otherwise, the corporation is not being treated as a person.

Say what????????????

Seriously, go read a little introductory corporate law and then get back to us. Again, corporate personhood is nothing more than a device to give the corporation legal standing in the judicial system. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the corporation owning itself, self-ownership, anthropomophising the company, or any other such nonsense.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
None of this has anything to do with "corporate personhood". Corporate personhood means that the corporation itself has legal standing within the judicial system (it's treated as a person for the purpose of filing lawsuits, etc.)
It's treated as a person for the purpose of limiting liability for all the real persons who own and manage the business.

No. Limited liability and corporate personhood are two separate things.