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

[BenTucker]

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

[Taors]

You fail at polls.

[gandhi2]

Yeah...only 4 people...I haven't even voted, because I'm unsatisfied with the options.  Poll is heavily subjective; e.g.:
"True or False: Niggers sometimes eat fried chicken."
e.g.^2:
"What is your favorite food?
A. Bean Casserole
B. Shit pie"

[BenTucker]

Yeah...only 4 people...I haven't even voted, because I'm unsatisfied with the options.  Poll is heavily subjective; e.g.:
"True or False: Niggers sometimes eat fried chicken."
e.g.^2:
"What is your favorite food?
A. Bean Casserole
B. Shit pie"

I asked for your suggestion...

[ladyattis]

I chose choice begets self-ownership but only in the context that you cannot own yourself like you own a car or a glass of water. In that you are yourself so how can you own a sense of self? How about owning the atomic weight of a hydrogen atom, or the colour spectrum of blue shades and etc...

-- Bridget

[Zhwazi]

Any good ARFCOM user knows the answer before the question.

GET BOTH.

[gandhi2]

choice begets self-ownership

Holy shit, this from the Randian??!!

[ladyattis]

choice begets self-ownership

Holy shit, this from the Randian??!!

That's because Rand as she put Self-ownership isn't true self-ownership or the owning of one's sense of self. Basically, I reduce it per Aristotle's view of the Human Mind, which means you are yourself as a knife is a knife. A knife does not own its 'knifeness', rather it is knifeness. So, it logically follows that self-ownership comes as a result of our ability to make a choice, to exert a force by our reason and intention(s).

-- Bridget

[BenTucker]

choice begets self-ownership

Holy shit, this from the Randian??!!

That's because Rand as she put Self-ownership isn't true self-ownership or the owning of one's sense of self. Basically, I reduce it per Aristotle's view of the Human Mind, which means you are yourself as a knife is a knife. A knife does not own its 'knifeness', rather it is knifeness. So, it logically follows that self-ownership comes as a result of our ability to make a choice, to exert a force by our reason and intention(s).

how can you have choice without self?

[gandhi2]

how can you have choice without self?

So are you agreeing that the "self" refers to sentience?

If self refers to body or mind, or the ideal world of humans(which is apparently mind, body, labor, land...in that order too), then you will still have choice, even if you only have mind.  Patients who are paralyzed still have choice...just not as much means to activate that choice.  Does that mean they are less human?  If somebody were the direct causer of the action that paralyzed them, that direct causer would be held accountable.  If nobody was the direct causer, even though there might be lots of indirect causers(maybe he wasn't rich enough to pay for a valuable operation), then those people could not be held accountable.  Period, plain and simple.  Thus any indirect dispossessors can't be held accountable for "crippling" the human condition in this fashion.

[BenTucker]

how can you have choice without self?

So are you agreeing that the "self" refers to sentience?

If self refers to body or mind, or the ideal world of humans(which is apparently mind, body, labor, land...in that order too), then you will still have choice, even if you only have mind.  Patients who are paralyzed still have choice...just not as much means to activate that choice.  Does that mean they are less human?  If somebody were the direct causer of the action that paralyzed them, that direct causer would be held accountable.  If nobody was the direct causer, even though there might be lots of indirect causers(maybe he wasn't rich enough to pay for a valuable operation), then those people could not be held accountable.  Period, plain and simple.  Thus any indirect dispossessors can't be held accountable for "crippling" the human condition in this fashion.

can you please explain to me how action can come before the body which occupies 3D space?

[velojym]

Inadequate selections. No choice made.

[BenTucker]

Inadequate selections. No choice made.

what selection would you like?

[velojym]

Inadequate selections. No choice made.

what selection would you like?

As a research advisor, I normally charge a $300 retainer, with an additional $300 on completion to the satisfaction of
all involved parties (usually just the pollster, as they normally want leading questions, rather than objective ones).
I am sorry if you are unable to broaden your poll selections without help, but perhaps you'll do better
in the future.
The alternative, of course, is that I do not participate in this poll, and you'll owe nothing.

[ladyattis]

how can you have choice without self?

So are you agreeing that the "self" refers to sentience?

If self refers to body or mind, or the ideal world of humans(which is apparently mind, body, labor, land...in that order too), then you will still have choice, even if you only have mind.  Patients who are paralyzed still have choice...just not as much means to activate that choice.  Does that mean they are less human?  If somebody were the direct causer of the action that paralyzed them, that direct causer would be held accountable.  If nobody was the direct causer, even though there might be lots of indirect causers(maybe he wasn't rich enough to pay for a valuable operation), then those people could not be held accountable.  Period, plain and simple.  Thus any indirect dispossessors can't be held accountable for "crippling" the human condition in this fashion.

Bingo. The humanness of being human is not just whether you can act on a choice, but whether you can conceive it. That's why contradictions can happen, but only as the result of a wrong choice. And so on.

-- Bridget