choice vs. self-ownership...

choice is a consequence or corollary of self-ownership

11 (68.8%)

self-ownership is a consequence or corollary of choice

5 (31.3%)

Total Members Voted: 4

[lapafrax]

who believes that Ayn Rand was correct?

"There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life…Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." -- Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pp. 321-2

With the means to own yourself, you have limited scope to make choices for yourself.

Self-ownership is the foundation of all liberty, not just libertarian values.

[BenTucker]

Self-ownership is the foundation of all liberty, not just libertarian values.

agreed...

[bonerjoe]

I won't vote for either, because the lesser of two evils is still very, very eeeevil.

[BenTucker]

Self-ownership is the foundation of all liberty, not just libertarian values.

If I'm not free to chose what is the point of owning myself?

free to chose what?

[lapafrax]

Without owning yourself, you cannot choose.  To choose means to possess volition.  If you own yourself then you have total control over your own volition.

[lapafrax]

And you can only choose if you have control over the mental ability to choose.  Hence having control over your body and being.

[lapafrax]

But being able to choose stems from having control of your mind.   Without control of your mind, you wouldn't be able to choose. 

[ladyattis]

Without owning yourself, you cannot choose.  To choose means to possess volition.  If you own yourself then you have total control over your own volition.

Show me how your own yourself. Can I buy your self and be you for a day? If not, then will you retract the claim that you own yourself?

-- Bridget is an evil Objectivist that remembers her Aristotlean roots.

[gandhi2]

But being able to choose stems from having control of your mind.   Without control of your mind, you wouldn't be able to choose.

Ok, that settles that.

Crazies don't have control of their minds, ergo they don't have self-ownership, ergo they don't have choice.  As these individuals don't have self-ownership, any indirect causer of their intellectual dispossession in a world built for non-crazies should pay for their dispossession.  Now, if you could extend that beyond just being crazy, to being slightly intellectually disadvantaged.  A crazy should get a lot of intellectual economic rent, and a stupid person should receive some, but not as much.

The argument also works for children, who don't have fully developed rational control.

And that, ladies and germs, is what we call egalitarianism.

I also control my body by using my mentalk ability to chose. You can't have one without the other.

Agreed, although if I had to choose(heh, irony), I would say that choice triggers self.  You can't have choice without having self, but I'd say choice was the chicken.  We can already see in computer AI/machine learning programs "self-like" behavior, but since there is no choice, we don't see self.

[lapafrax]

Without owning yourself, you cannot choose.  To choose means to possess volition.  If you own yourself then you have total control over your own volition.

Show me how your own yourself. Can I buy your self and be you for a day? If not, then will you retract the claim that you own yourself?

-- Bridget is an evil Objectivist that remembers her Aristotlean roots.

I control my own body and being. 

[ladyattis]

Without owning yourself, you cannot choose.  To choose means to possess volition.  If you own yourself then you have total control over your own volition.

Show me how your own yourself. Can I buy your self and be you for a day? If not, then will you retract the claim that you own yourself?

-- Bridget is an evil Objectivist that remembers her Aristotlean roots.

I control my own body and being. 

So you can negate your being so I can occupy it? If not, then it follows logically you don't own it. You are it. Do you understand? Being and ownership are two different things. Ownership implies at one time something was unowned. Being implies it is, either timely or timeless. Thus it follows to say you have self-ownership is logically impossible, but saying you are, it logically possible.

-- Bridget