it is obvious that the fundamental tenet of libertarianism is going to have to contain self-ownership and it will not change a thing - what difference will adding choice make to my argument?
N-O-N-E
Quite simple what a difference it makes. Your definition of self in self-ownership is creating a paradox. Paradoxes don't exist in nature. Therefore your definition of self-ownership must be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bovard
Very informative. Still completely irrelevant to our communally accepted definition of the fundamental tenet of libertarianism.
not "incapable of existing" because they are not forcing you off of their land and directly into a path of an 18 wheeler...
Hmmm... Still doesn't add up.
Come on, birdie, say it ALL.
A rock can exist, even when I take it and put it in the ocean. A loaf of bread can exist if I turn off the light, if I paint it red. It doesn't matter. The existence of self, and by design, self-ownership cannot by removed from a sentience. Any more than you can make a rock less of a rock by changing it's surroundings, you can't make a man less of a man...even if you push him into the path of a semi. He won't be a living man for long, to be sure, but all the qualities that define manhood, besides those tied to life, will still be present after death.
Now. Lad. Please, oh please, qualify ALL of your statements and generalizations with the words you REALLY mean when you speak, so that the people here might understand what it is you hope to communicate. Stop calling the cat a "dog" so that we can have an exchange of ideas, ok? You have to stomach your pride if you hope to discuss IDEAS instead of arguing over semantics.
how is my definition of self-ownership different than anyone else's?
Well I can tell you one area that it seems to differ from mine: self as in human mind/body vs. self as in sentient consciousness. Not sure how many others agree with me here, but many seem to think that choice and self can't be extracted from each other, so I would say that its closer to my definition than yours. The self in your instance can end rather quickly and brutally with death, is not present until some landmark point once life has begun, and those without a stable mind would never truly possess it. If your definition were widely accepted there would be:
No debate over abortion, everyone would agree that it was acceptable, as the life extinguished doesn't fully have self-ownership
No debate over the unwanteds(such as killers, handicappeds and mentally unstables) of society, as their lack of self-ownership would allow any solution, however brutal.
No debate over parental rights, as children hadn't fully developed their self and couldn't be said to own it fully.
No debate over the right to self-defense that results in death, as the action taken is so severe to reject the fundamental tenet of libertarianism
And yet, people DO debate over these things, because people DO have differing opinions on what the "self" of "self-ownership" means.
You lose again, Ben. Nice try. Good bird, pretty bird. No cracker, however, because you aren't saying what you mean.
The Free Talk Live BBS
Poll
7 (19.4%)
Author
Topic: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism (Read 15561 times)