Freedomain Radio

I had a discussion with a colleague today and wanted to find some common ground to start off from.

I opened up: Do you own your own arm ?

He replied: No, not completely, the government and his parents also owned his arm.

I handed him victory, since I was not prepared for that answer. 

pcrs:

I had a discussion with a colleague today and wanted to find some common ground to start off from.

I opened up: Do you own your own arm ?

He replied: No, not completely, the government and his parents also owned his arm.

I handed him victory, since I was not prepared for that answer. 

What justification does he give for the claim that his parents and his politicians "own" part of his arm? 

If we accept Stef's basic axiom, that "ownership" is tantamount to "control", then it's simply empirically not true that anyone but HE owns his arm. However, if we take "ownership" to mean some sort of moral claim, or declaration of "right" of control, then he has to justify that logically. Did he sign some sort of contract, granting partial control of his arm to his parents and his politicians? How does this contract work, in a practical sense? Does he go limp a few hours a day, so that they can manipulate his arm at their pleasure?

As you can see, the "partial ownership" argument is a little ridiculous....

James A Pyrich:

It's as plain as the nose on his face!

his face ? 

I know it is pointless discussing any further, but I can't stop myself. I just need to know if the different owners take turn owning his arm, or if they all own a certain part of it, and which part is owned by who ? What if one of the owners (the government) require him to pull a trigger ? Do the other owners take a vote on that ? What are the percentages of ownership ? Is there a certain hierarchy ?

fascinating, but frustrating at the same time 

Greg Gauthier:

What justification does he give for the claim that his parents and his politicians "own" part of his arm? 

His parent's ownership was because he came from his parents. His flesh was produced from their  biological material.

The politicians partly owned his arm because we all agreed with each other  that we partly worked for the government.

The last answer was clearly because he realized this answer was required to make taxes legal. I do assume ownership will tend to moral claim and not to physical control. A good question might be if his free will is also owned by other entities. I did ask if it meant that if I came back as a civil servant, I had the right to control his arm ? This was not the case, because the government should be viewed independent from the persons in it. Very much like a God so to speak.
 

pcrs:

James A Pyrich:

It's as plain as the nose on his face!

his face ?

It's an idiom, and a pun!   

pcrs:

Greg Gauthier:

What justification does he give for the claim that his parents and his politicians "own" part of his arm? 

His parent's ownership was because he came from his parents. His flesh was produced from their  biological material.

The politicians partly owned his arm because we all agreed with each other  that we partly worked for the government.

The last answer was clearly because he realized this answer was required to make taxes legal. I do assume ownership will tend to moral claim and not to physical control. A good question might be if his free will is also owned by other entities. I did ask if it meant that if I came back as a civil servant, I had the right to control his arm ? This was not the case, because the government should be viewed independent from the persons in it. Very much like a God so to speak.
 

On his parent's ownership: can he explain why his parents are then, not responsible for him killing someone, but he is?

One the polititions ownership: can he show some paperwork that demonstrates this agreement? I don't recall signing anything. And, don't let him get away with the argument that "because we don't riot in the streets, we've agreed". Submission is not the same thing as agreement.

That last point is EXACTLY the problem with concepts like "government" and "state". A concept is MEANINGLESS, unless it refers directly to the individual components it is meant to represent. So, the idea of a "forest" is kind of empty and pointless, unless it means "aggregation of individual trees". The desire to separate "government" from the individuals that make it up, is the desire to find a justification for putting the concept in a moral category where it's referents cannot go. THAT is why it's EXACTLY like the concept of "God".

But, all that aside, I'm VERY curious as to why you feel compelled to keep debating people like this. What sort of emotional benefit do you get from it?

Greg Gauthier:

But, all that aside, I'm VERY curious as to why you feel compelled to keep debating people like this. What sort of emotional benefit do you get from it?

It always seems like a shot for an open goal. When someone says he does not own his arm, it seems a no brainer. But you indeed run into the attempts to disconnect real people (that can be bad and should not own a armed monopoly) from the state they function in. Anyway, it is good for my debating skills and there were some bystanders that I managed to give a good laugh (even though it most were against me). At one point he claimed the government had been there from the beginning (also some God escape in that). I claimed there was no such thing in the beginning and told the following story (I intend to spin out into an article one day)

In the beginning we were hunter/gatherers, but we got tired of running after prey and domesticated animals and grain. We put the animals inside a fenced area so we did not need to chase them if we were hungry. Some villains spotted this technique and decided to do the same thing with the farmers as the farmers did to the cows. The villains put a fence around the farmers, called it a country and started to exploit the farmers.

One colleague almost rolled of his chair laughing, but he did guess the end of the story from 'called it a country' onwards. It did not come as a complete surprise to him apparently.
 

Haha, tell him you vote, so you own a small part of his hand.

Then, tell him you're horny...
 

So, what happens if there is a disagreement about what to do with his arm?

If it is only right for him to do what the government says instead of what he wants then the government owns his arm and he does not.

.

Stefan Molyneux:

Haha, tell him you vote, so you own a small part of his hand.

Then, tell him you're horny...
 

I already told him I don't vote I'm afraid. The fun in debating my colleagues is that they work with digital logic and true and false all day, so they do try to keep a story consistent. But that brings them in weird places sometimes. I do wonder if someone goes home and gives it a second thought. He claims to be interested in the idea you can have logical consistent rules of behavior, but thinks it is impossible.

Nathan Miller:

So, what happens if there is a disagreement about what to do with his arm?

If it is only right for him to do what the government says instead of what he wants then the government owns his arm and he does not.

Pure speculation from here one, but I would guess it would follow the hierarchy of power that already exists. So

1.government

2.parents

3.himself 

I don't know if there is a god in there also