[Zamuel]

Well, one can say the same thing about gravitational theory. Nonetheless, gravity appears to exist as a natural phenomenon.

Yes, it appears to … And glass appears to be a solid …

The existence of objective morality or Natural Law protects us from the whim of man-made law.

No it doesn't. It sways in the wind of consensus. The only protection it offers is tradition.

Humankind will be ruled by tyrants If we're unable to get a consensus going for the existence of objective morality. We have countless examples of ruthless dictators that arbitrarily deny the existence of objective morality.

As is and always shall be, I rest my case. If there is a "Natural order," this is it.

Pick one, and ask yourself, is that the kind of society you'd like to live in?

So you appeal that I join your consensus? As a captive of my senses, I already have … that doesn't mean I "believe it."

Zam

[RhetoricThug]

Forgive me, I'm in a hurry...

No it doesn't. It sways in the wind of consensus. The only protection it offers is tradition.

Will glass appear to be a solid tomorrow? Physical states of matter can change, but the composition remains the same. And as far as you're concerned, when you're using glass as a cup, it's a solid.

I will say this, human thought can be like an electric current decomposing water. Meaning to say, human thought can create chemical changes, but not all chemical changes benefit human thought.

I once read somewhere that "to select is to distort." Call it noospheric chemistry.

Yes, it appears to … And glass appears to be a solid …

Technological magnification or intellectual abstraction of a thing or phenomenon doesn't nullify the fact that your senses have adapted to the glass appearing as a solid thing when you interact with it. The way in which we interface with 'things' in our environment produces the appearance of objective qualities, and that's why we can use math to measure material and the motion of material bodies.

The nuance (contrast) of phenomena or observable things grants our mind wiggle room for intelligent selection (meaning is a relationship) and we possess the ability to reshape the material world in our image. While it's true that our image or human bias is fundamentally subjective and reasoned through consensus, and we may not be able to fully comprehend a thing-in-itself, there's an objective or statistically repeatable appearance of reality that allows us to organize reality in our image. Common-sense is just that, a common-sense. By virtue of a common experience we can establish a utilitarian meaning and state that objective morality exists.

As is and always shall be, I rest my case. If there is a "Natural order," this is it.

Natural Law is not necessarily a physical description of the way things are. Natural Law is an eternal principle that creates boundaries for the way things are. This is why the Babylonians created a code of conduct. Humans must organize the way things are, otherwise we wouldn't have civilization. Human civilization grants us the ability to be where we are right now. Without civilization and a code of conduct, we wouldn't be typing anything on this forum, we wouldn't be able to have a discussion. Therefore Natural Law governs human nature, not natural affairs.

So you appeal that I join your consensus? As a captive of my senses, I already have … that doesn't mean I "believe it."

It doesn't matter what you believe, the human mind will always be imprisoned by the mind/matter interface. That's not the point. My point is, I don't want to be killed by some lunatic, and that is the foundation for the existence of objective morality. The existence of objective morality correlates positively with the survival of the human race.

-RT

[Zamuel]

Forgive me, I'm in a hurry...

Sure, forgive me if I misunderstand your hurried communication …

Technological magnification or intellectual abstraction of a thing or phenomenon doesn't nullify the fact that your senses have adapted to the glass appearing as a solid thing when you interact with it. The way we interface with 'things' in our environment appear to have objective qualities, and that's why we can use math to measure material and the motion of material bodies.

Yes, the brain is involuntarily adaptive (aren't we talented.) But no, we do not use math to "measure." We may use it to estimate or speculate, it may be more accurate than "Kentucky Windage," but it is not a reliable system of measurement as it involves no observation, it is an abstraction.

there's an objective or statistically repeatable appearance of reality that allows us to organize reality in our image. Common-sense is just that, a common-sense. By virtue of a common experience, we can say that objective morality exists.

Sure you can say that, and I can say that it doesn't, there is no such thing as a common experience. Your experiences and mine are equivocal. Your self image and mine differ. Your perceptions and mine cannot be -assumed- to be consistent, in fact it can be proven that they are not.

Will glass appear to be a solid tomorrow? Physical states of matter can change, but the composition remains the same.

As consensually defined, sure. I'll readily admit that we are slaves to our perceptions, and the interpretations of them that were engraved as brain patterns in our infancy. Interestingly, I recently became aware of a trauma victim that upon recovery from fairly extensive brain damage began to illustrate things as fractals … Now, years later, he works in theatrical design developing Sci-fi / horror settings and effects. He's sold a lot of hand drawn fractal art … His brain patterns have been scrambled and rearranged.

I will say this, human thought can be like an electric current decomposing water. Meaning to say, human thought can create chemical changes, but not all chemical changes benefit human thought.

In your conventional sense of value judgement and "normal behavior" anyway. You know very few people are ever aware of their actual thought process, beyond the boundary of abstract language. But, even without drugs, you can peek though the curtain and glimpse raw perception being processed. (see "The Burning Of The Brain" by Cordwainer Smith).

Natural Law is not necessarily a physical description of the way things are. Natural Law is an eternal principle that creates boundaries for the way things are.

Sorry, but we again confront perception. As humans we are limited by "time sense" we are unable to view the entirety of the universe as a whole and limited to experiencing transitory momenta. "Eternal principles" are but a momentary convergence of patterns. Our limitations prevent us from seeing their beginnings and endings.

Without civilization and a code of conduct, we wouldn't be typing anything on this forum, we wouldn't be able to have a discussion.

Sure, as I said a convergence of patterns, predictable, but as varied as the eddies at the bend in a river. Enjoy it while it lasts (Hail Atlantis!).

It doesn't matter what you believe, the human mind will always be imprisoned by the mind/matter interface.

Perhaps, or perhaps few of us truly comprehend the extent of the mind (at which point we become metaphysical rather than consensual, and I'm not sure you wish to go there.)

That's not the point. My point is, I don't want to get killed by some lunatic, and that is the foundation for the existence of objective morality.

Ah … it's your security blanket. Your fear illustrates the weakness of your postulation. Objective morality is no defense against an active shooter, is it ?

The existence of objective morality correlates positively with the survival of the human race.

That may be, but it's a consensus, not an "Eternal Principle."

Zam

[RhetoricThug]

(soundtrack)

Sure, forgive me if I misunderstand your hurried communication …

As if meaning wasn't a dialectical relationship. Let's say I am rushed... Would misunderstanding depend on me? Or would it equally depend upon your interpretation? See, Zam, thought I gave up. I'm back, brother. That's the human spirit in action!

Yes, the brain is involuntarily adaptive (aren't we talented.)

Half true, we can intelligently adapt to the playing field. When I play GO or Chess, the board will curtail my free will. Free will is limited by the environment and our faculties. However, I can voluntarily adapt to the situation on the board. My genetic disposition is exactly like a tool-set, where shall I move my knight, my bishop, etc. So the brain involuntarily adapts to the board, but voluntarily adapts to the situation on the board.

But no, we do not use math to "measure." We may use it to estimate or speculate, it may be more accurate than "Kentucky Windage," but it is not a reliable system of measurement as it involves no observation, it is an abstraction.

What?

Sure you can say that, and I can say that it doesn't, there is no such thing as a common experience. Your experiences and mine are equivocal.

Says the guy using a language he (or she?) didn't create. Tell me, is a compressed symbol unresolved? Given that we're experiencing consciousness through human language, I think you're ignoring the self-evident.

Your self image and mine differ.

As they should, you need more than one note to make beautiful music.

Your perceptions and mine cannot be -assumed- to be consistent, in fact it can be proven that they are not.

Thank God! After-all, we live through one another. How can humankind evolve if each individual perception abstracted the same perception? Ah, but you see Zam, the contrast of our minds will create the synergistic collaboration of our minds or information. Hence why I said meaning is a relationship. How can I be an individual if you're not an individual? We define each other, we’re all backs and fronts to each other.


This is why I say "the other end of intelligence"

As consensually defined, sure. I'll readily admit that we are slaves to our perceptions, and the interpretations of them that were engraved as brain patterns in our infancy.

Point and case. The medium is the message, Feral children.

Interestingly, I recently became aware of a trauma victim that upon recovery from fairly extensive brain damage began to illustrate things as fractals … Now, years later, he works in theatrical design developing Sci-fi / horror settings and effects. He's sold a lot of hand drawn fractal art … His brain patterns have been scrambled and rearranged.

Yes, I'm studying memory, and this doesn't surprise me. In similar cases, people with brain tumors show changes in intelligence.

In your conventional sense of value judgement and "normal behavior" anyway. You know very few people are ever aware of their actual thought process, beyond the boundary of abstract language.

I'm aware of IT.

But, even without drugs, you can peek though the curtain and glimpse raw perception being processed. (see "The Burning Of The Brain" by Cordwainer Smith).

Yes, we're fundamentally unified and artificially divided. Like some of your divisive commentary above^^^ I know that we co-generate our perception of reality, so we need your divisive remarks in order for us to recognize that we're one consciousness having a human experience. Division becomes collaboration. If the universe is the SOURCE, we can take a one to many mapping and apply it the unidirectional interpretation of sensate experience. The mind filters the rest. Raw perception is the interplay or interval occurring right NOW. I know that my preconceived notions of phenomena will act as thought programs for experience. But I also understand that my experience is an inter-related happening and therefore my perception of reality is not an isolated system of awareness. My perception of reality, and your perception of reality, co-generate the appearance of reality. Hence why I love ya, Zam.

Sorry, but we again confront perception.

We're born classified.

As humans we are limited by "time sense" we are unable to view the entirety of the universe as a whole and limited to experiencing transitory momenta.

"We drive into the future using only our rearview mirror." Because visual space is the past, light has to travel to the retina before it can be processed. I've been saying for a couple years now, that most Pofo posters offer fixed perspectives due to their limited awareness.

"Eternal principles" are but a momentary convergence of patterns. Our limitations prevent us from seeing their beginnings and endings.

What's wrong with this? Why does man wish to become immortal? Why is man obsessed with God? Why do we, as human beings, pretend that we deserve to live forever? We will always and all ways be a convergence of perceptual patterns... Songs of perception. We do not come into this universe, we come out of it. Where were you before you were born? Where will you go after you die? What's the problem?

Sure, as I said a convergence of patterns, predictable, but as varied as the eddies at the bend in a river. Enjoy it while it lasts (Hail Atlantis!).

You should watch my video, Born Classified, Smothered in Subliminal Love.

Perhaps, or perhaps few of us truly comprehend the extent of the mind (at which point we become metaphysical rather than consensual, and I'm not sure you wish to go there.)

You're not familiar with my work.

Ah … it's your security blanket.

Your fear illustrates the weakness of your postulation. Objective morality is no defense against an active shooter, is it ?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Objective morality is not a physical form of self-defense.

That may be, but it's a consensus, not an "Eternal Principle."

Zam

Language is a from of consensus. See what I just did to your whole argument?

[Zamuel]

I called this thread a dense realm.

Because it concentrates energy?

You're not familair with my work.

Evidently not, and I may not have a chance to …

Zam

[Victoribus Spolia]

I'm not waiting anymore, @Potemkin, I am posting my first debate post just so I can say that I did it and left the ball in your court to fulfill your end of accepting the challenge.

The Case for Theonomic Anarcho-Capitalism As An Objective Moral System

[VS- Debate Post One]

In therefore laying out my general purposes and definitions, I shall now give my first official post (1/8).

PART I: The Establishment of Anarcho-Capitalism From Plain Reason.


1. The Corollary-Axiom of Human Argumentation and The Presupposition of Self-Ownership

Since my primary objective in this debate is to establish the existence of an objective morality as rationally and logically demonstrable and since I cannot stop merely there, but also wish to establish this objective morality as specifically anarcho-capitalist which is likewise theonomic, it is important in such a complex debate to lay down my first principle in the proof(s) that now follows.

I am going to posit now, for the purpose of this debate, an axiom, which is itself a corollary to another axiom.

A. The Axiom of Human Argumentation.

The axiom of human action is the basic proposition that all humans (acting as agents in any meaningful sense) purposefully utilize means over a period of time in order to achieve desired ends.

The axiomatic quality of this proposition is established in that it cannot be denied without engaging in action (the content of the axiom).

That being said, the corollary to this axiom, being itself a form of it, is that human argumentation is itself axiomatic in like manner to human action.

The axiom of argumentation, as a corollary to the axiom of human action, is the proposition that any truth claim, a claim connected with any proposition that is true, objective or valid, is and must be raised and settled in the course of an argumentation.

The axiomatic quality of this proposition is established in that it cannot be disputed, for one cannot communicate and argue that one cannot communicate and argue; furthermore, one cannot deny this statement without claiming its negation to be true.

B. The Presupposition of Self-Ownership.

Argumentation is a non-violent (conflict free) form of human interaction. By being “conflict-free” it is ONLY meant that as long as argumentation is in progress it is always possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement about the validity of what has been said. This is to say nothing else than that a mutual recognition of each person's exclusive control over his own body must be presupposed as long as there is argumentation. Indeed, it is impossible to deny this and claim this denial to be true without implicitly having to admit its truth, the contrary yielding only the disqualification of one’s own argument [you no longer claim to be making any argument].

Thus, we have from the corollary-axiom of human argumentation, the necessary presupposition of self-ownership.

2. The Establishment of Original Appropriation, Non-Aggression, and Private Property.


In proceeding in this compounding case, given what has been said in section one, the establishment of non-aggression and the right of original appropriation shall be demonstrated via an argumentum a contrario.

A. The Presupposition of Private Ownership by Original Appropriation.

If no one had the right to acquire and control (own) anything except his own body (the self-ownership of which has been demonstrated above); then all actual persons would cease to exist and the problem of human morality simply would not exist (as no legitimate acquisition could be made). Thus, the inherent right to control/own resources outside oneself via appropriation must be presumed. Thus, given this argument to the contrary, private ownership and what might be called original appropriation is directly inferred from the corollary-axiom of human argumentation.

B. The Inferred Principle of Non-Aggression.

That original appropriation is a right inferred from the axiom of argumentation; likewise implies that the aggressive interference in such a right was immoral, thus the NAP is confirmed, for aggression in violation of these rights (appropriation and private-ownership) would be an implicit denial of the logically required presumption of self-ownership which is itself inferred from the axiom of human argumentation (and human action).

Indeed, the existence of this problem is only possible because actual persons exist, and this existence is due to the fact that the right of appropriation of property and scarce goods next to and in addition to that of one's own self-ownership must be assumed to exist.

Thus, given the axiom of human argumentation (as being a corollary of human action) and the presumption of self-ownership; the right of original appropriation and the ownership of such (private property) is directly inferable; furthermore, arbitrary aggression would be seen as objectively irrational given the inferable nature of these rights from plain reason; hence, we have established the rational right of original appropriation and its corollary of private property and have inferred from this directly the principle of non-aggression as the contrary would be a violation of universal objective rights.

3. The Anti-Statist Implications of The Thesis Considered.

A state is a third-person monopolist of coercion which takes upon itself the authority to confiscate money from people for use to enforce its own laws, etc. Any entity that does this, violates the principle of non-aggression by denying the direct implication of self-ownership which is that of appropriation and private property.

Furthermore, any social contract further contradicts this notion as well, for if no specific consent is given by an individual, it is still enforced necessarily by aggression, indeed for this reason the social contract is a misnomer, as contracts imply voluntarism.

Likewise, by publicly owning any resources, social contracts deny the potential right of appropriation implicit in acting/arguing agents.

Hence, no definition of a state made thus far, is rational.

Given the conclusions made thus far, Anarcho-Capitalism is the only system that fulfills what reason requires, morally speaking.


PART II: The Secular Case for Divine Law.


1. The Pro-Natalist Master Argument Against Anti-Procreative Sexuality.

Under this heading the adjoined ethical system of theonomy shall be argued from plain reason, hence why it is intentionally and paradoxically (for purposes of rhetorical irony) called the secular case for divine law.

This argument however, does not claim to prove the entire corpus of theonomic law from a secular standard, indeed, the use of a secular standard precludes me from arguing certain religious aspects of this divine law, thus the scope of this argument is to demonstrate what reason allows me to do and to show that what reason demands correlates to a particular system of theonomic law. Given what might be called the “big three” of theonomic systems; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, my only goal here is to show that the system demanded by plain reason most approximates one of these three as compared to the other two and that this is shown by a single disqualifying dis-junction between the argument made and the other two systems which fail to approximate reason’s demands.

[Note: If one is interested in a more exclusively theological case, then they are free to consider this argument in connection to my case for Trinitarian Phenomenal Idealism in my other debate thread].

For purposes of the debate, the most controversial and indeed the most “defining” aspects of divine law shall be the ones argued for, namely that the penology of old testament law for certain forms of human sexuality are not disproportionate to the severity of the legal infraction. Thus, for instance, murder is worthy of death, but so homosexuality, bestiality, child sacrifice, contraception, abortion, and adultery. It shall be argued that this hierarchy of moral gravity is consistent with the demands of reason (irrespective of whether one believes such a penal code ought to be enforced, this argument is only about moral-gravity.)

Further it shall be shown, in contrast to orthodox and historic interpretations of Judaism and Islam, that the orthodox Christian interpretation of Biblical law via the New Testament by the Fathers of the church, as prohibiting polygamy, is most consistent with what reason demands, thus implying that the ethical system demanded by reason most approximates Christian Law over-and-against Judaism and Islam.

The Pronatalist Master Argument

Syllogism One

Premise One. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying).[All X is Y]

Premise Two. All Non-Potentials Are Non-Actuals.

Corollary To P2: All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]

Conclusion. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All X is B]

Premise One Explanation:

1- All intentionally procreative sexual acts are transitional acts of a potential person (who’s existence is implicit in procreative or “natural” sexual relations) being made into an actual person. This is given by (1) The natural course of events, and (2) all things being equal.

2- All intentionally non-procreative sexual acts are purposefully disruptive acts of stopping a potential person from transitioning into an actual person through procreative or “natural” sexual relations. This is given because to purposefully engage in such acts is to stop the natural consequence of procreation which is transitioning a potential person into an actual person.

3- The definition of destroying is an adequate descriptor of the effect in #2 above.

Premise Two Explanation (With Corollary):

1- For every potential-person there is a corresponding actual person. All actual persons were once potential persons who, through intentional or unintentional procreative sexuality, were transitioned (actualized) into actual persons.

2- If there is no potential person in a given situation, then there can be no, and is no, corresponding actual person. That is, if there never was a potential person, then there could never be an actual person, for all actual persons originate from being a potential person.

3- Therefore, to make a potential person become a non-potential person (see definition of “destroying” above) is to make the corresponding actual person to become a non-actual person. This is because, without a potential person, no actual person can come into existence by the natural order of events (see premise one explanation #1).

Conclusion:

This conclusion follows given (P1) and (P2). If X is Y, and Y is B, then X is B.


2. The Specifically Theonomic Implications of The Thesis Considered.

A. From NAP, to Theonomic Morality.

That aspect of the non-aggression principle that disqualified all statism as irrational (and therefore immoral) was established in PART I; however, this is only true for actual-persons who act and argue. Thus, the argument cannot be stretched beyond this from the axiom itself; furthermore, if a state is non-existent, morality must be determined from elsewhere, including a basis for its penology (note: penology can exist without a state through voluntary contracts and proprietorships, which are still consistent with the NAP just like self-defense and retaliation).

But this questions arises, does the NAP extend to beyond actual persons themselves, given the syllogism above, the answer is in the affirmative as potential-persons are logically the same as actual persons.

To be clear;

Pregnancy prevention is not: the elimination of circumstances by which procreation and conception could take place, but the use of semen for non-procreative purposes when procreation was not only possible but the circumstances also permitted it.

Thus, homosexuality and bestiality are anti-procreative as they are a volitional deviation from natural sexuality, they are a wasting of semen that could be used for procreation (no circumstance would make this permissible, except the possible non-existence of all women in the universe).

Similarly, contraception is a wasting of semen within the bounds of marriage wherein a heterosexual couple could produce offspring but instead deviates from that practice (contrastly sex acts which occur when conception was not possible would be exempt). Contraception, homosexuality, and bestiality must, therefore, all be regarded as anti-procreative on these aforementioned grounds.

If they are anti-procreative, then they are potential-person destroying, and if they are potential person destroying, they are acts of aggression that violate the NAP and must be regarded as immoral.

Hence, homosexuality, beastiality, pedophilia, abortion, contraception, and infanticide are equally murderous violations of the NAP and therefore liable to violent rectification on a universal and objective logical grounds.

In the context of Anarcho-Capitalism, the enforcement of such a morality is grounded not in a state, but either in a contract or proprietorship rooted in voluntarism, but either way, the moral principle is objective, universal, and logically based and everyone should therefore believe it anyway.

B. The Specifically Christian Character of This Theonomic System.

Now, it shall be shown that this system of morality is distinct from OT Judaism and Islam which both permit polygamy.

This ethic shall be demonstrated as consistent with historic catholic and orthodox interpretation which sees polygamy as immoral on certain grounds:

Namely, the rational case in conjunction with the pronatalist master argument simply rests on the general human sex ratio of 1:1, which shows forth the ratio of men to women in any given to society is always, roughly, a 50/50 split.

Given this reality, the permitting of polygamy (and thereby permitting it universally as a potential) would always threaten this proportion and thereby create conditions of increased anti-procreative sexuality which could not be corrected without likewise violating the NAP (state coercion); hence, monogamy is the only rational contract for heterosexual relations and the particulars of which are themselves governed by the same principles of appropriate sexuality; hence, adultery is always a violation of the NAP in potential for the same reason as polygamy, but is additionally a breach of contract; further, certain sex acts are only permitted during times when procreation was not ordinarily possible.

For instance, if a couple is unable (by the observable laws of nature) to produce offspring (I.e. during pregnancy, menstruation, or post-menopause) then non-procreative sex acts between them would not be ipso facto immoral because such acts would not be anti-procreative or an act of pregnancy prevention (no circumstance of actualization exists and therefore the semen may be used but is not "wasted"). [Hence, getting your dick sucked when your wife is on the rag, is pregnant, is breastfeeding (for most women) or is post-menopausal, would not be an anti-procreative sex act under the above definitions, no matter whether she spits or swallows.]

These qualifications being made, given that the inferred laws match Christian, Jewish, and Islamic theonomies, the fact that only monogomy is rational only matches the strict monogamous interpretation of Christianity (as Judaism is theoretically pro-polygamy, atleast until the 11th century A.D., wherein it changed only due to political reasons in some branches; whereas, Islam clearly permits it even still), it can be said that Christian theonomy most closely approximates that which is demanded by reason of the three systems discussed which together have compelled the largest % of human beings.

This now concludes my argument.

[RhetoricThug]

I'm not waiting anymore, @Potemkin, I am posting my first debate post just so I can say that I did it and left the ball in your court to fulfill your end of accepting the challenge.

This now concludes my argument.

“In conlusion, there is no conclusion. Things will go on as they always have, getting weirder all the time.”

See, forum image Victoribus Spolia is an amalgamation of human thought (past and present, projecting a future). The reader is observing consciousness collide with itself. A debate isn't taking place here. Debate doesn't exist in nature. The Universe doesn't produce conclusions.

Debate is a linguistic sport and mathematical expression of human thought unfolding as interference patterns through the sensorium or mind/matter interface. The participants/observers co-generate the perceptual box (in this case, this thread) called a debate, and may offer a fragment or interpretation of reality as it appears presently. However, Reality itself can never produce a conclusion, because Reality is a kaleidoscopic happening with no observable beginning or end.

Thought is a fragmentary reflection of Reality and therefore thought is enfolded in the unfolding of Reality. Being present constitutes an information bias. Thought (and its argument) is incapable of comprehending the nature of Reality. Hence why thought constructs and nurtures a conclusion, it must communicate its finite interpretation of Reality so the other end of intelligence can participate in and facilitate (co-generate) a happening greater than the conceptual I or identity that is being abstracted from the whole of Reality.


In other words, debate is a waste of human energy. Collaboration will take place anyway, because MEANING is a dialectical relationship.

Options for humankind
For tribal man, competition drives evolution
For cosmic man, collaboration drives evolution

We're one mind. We can collectively guide human evolution. We built this world separate, imagine what we can do together.

One Love,

-A human being

[ingliz]

The Pronatalist Master Argument

You lost that argument months ago, and you will lose again.

contract or proprietorship rooted in voluntarism

You lost that argument a scant few hours ago.

Why flog a dead horse?

[Victoribus Spolia]

You lost that argument months ago and you will lose again.

You lost that argument a scant few hours ago and you will lose again.

You have an interesting definition of losing.

Would you define surrender as victory per chance?

[Victoribus Spolia]

@SolarCross

My first debate post above gives my version of the Argumentation Ethic, I think you will find it a bit different than the one you critiqued before which was based on praxeology.

mine is superior and the way it was intended.

[SolarCross]

A. The Axiom of Human Argumentation.

The axiom of human action is the basic proposition that all humans (acting as agents in any meaningful sense) purposefully utilize means over a period of time in order to achieve desired ends.

The axiomatic quality of this proposition is established in that it cannot be denied without engaging in action (the content of the axiom).

That being said, the corollary to this axiom, being itself a form of it, is that human argumentation is itself axiomatic in like manner to human action.

The axiom of argumentation, as a corollary to the axiom of human action, is the proposition that any truth claim, a claim connected with any proposition that is true, objective or valid, is and must be raised and settled in the course of an argumentation.

The axiomatic quality of this proposition is established in that it cannot be disputed, for one cannot communicate and argue that one cannot communicate and argue; furthermore, one cannot deny this statement without claiming its negation to be true.

Your axiom of human action is sufficient for proposing self-ownership and is more general. Hermits and mutes demonstrate human action but don't demonstrate human argument.

General self-ownership is specifically compromised in the case of slavery, if a slave is coerced by his owner into stating "I am a slave, and I may not speak for myself". In this case the slave is arguing that he may not argue for himself, literally using the words of another, his master. Self ownership is not being demonstrated here. Since this is a situation that may happen and has happened then we can take free argument by an individual to be evidence only of that individual's self-ownership not that all individual humans enjoy the same condition.

B. The Presupposition of Self-Ownership.

Argumentation is a non-violent (conflict free) form of human interaction. By being “conflict-free” it is ONLY meant that as long as argumentation is in progress it is always possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement about the validity of what has been said. This is to say nothing else than that a mutual recognition of each person's exclusive control over his own body must be presupposed as long as there is argumentation. Indeed, it is impossible to deny this and claim this denial to be true without implicitly having to admit its truth, the contrary yielding only the disqualification of one’s own argument [you no longer claim to be making any argument].

Thus, we have from the corollary-axiom of human argumentation, the necessary presupposition of self-ownership.

Have you never had a conversation with a sociopath or a communist? Argument is very often an attempt to psychologically subdue a person, to confuse, decieve, harm self-esteem and to pressure the surrender of self-will. That is to say argument may be deployed to destroy the actuality of self-ownership. This is sometimes known as brainwashing. Argument is equivalent then to physical action, it may be hostile or peaceful. It is no less arguement for being hostile and actively denying the self-ownership of the target, no more than an attempt to physically subdue a person is a negation of the actor's self-ownership. The denial of self-ownership is specific not general.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I didn't expect you to attack my position on this thread, I was just showing you my alternative version of the case, after all, i am having this debate with Potemkin; however, since you wanted to critique it, I will respond because I am not even sure if @Potemkin is coming back to debate this.

Hermits and mutes demonstrate human action but don't demonstrate human argument.

They are capable of communication though, which is all that is required. You can argue in sign-language.

General self-ownership is specifically compromised in the case of slavery, if a slave is coerced by his owner into stating "I am a slave, and I may not speak for myself". In this case the slave is arguing that he may not argue for himself, literally using the words of another, his master. Self ownership is not being demonstrated here. Since this is a situation that may happen and has happened then we can take free argument by an individual to be evidence only of that individual's self-ownership not that all individual humans enjoy the same condition.

If a person is capable of argument, even by representing another, they are still acting as an agent, presupposing self-ownership over their words, even if representing the argument of another.

This position is therefore not negated by slavery, if anything, non-voluntarist forms of slavery are negated by this position.

Argument is equivalent then to physical action, it may be hostile or peaceful.

You think speech is violent? That is a neo-marxist claim, but also, that understanding of violence is not the same as what is understood by aggression under the NAP.

Have you never had a conversation with a sociopath or a communist? Argument is very often an attempt to psychologically subdue a person, to confuse, decieve and harm self esteem and to pressure the surrender of self-will.

.

This is kinda irrelevant, what it is often attempted to be used for doesn't change what it actually is, necessarily.

So even in the case where someone wants to use arguments to subdue a weaker person, that is not the same as aggression, argument still involves settling a dispute without actual physical violence, someone consenting to the point of subjugating themselves to someone else does not negate this fact.

For instance, if I argue with you that you should be my slave, I am still assuming your agency and self-ownership over your own reasoning in the course of the debate even if I manage to manipulate you into subjugating yourself to me as my slave. The nature of argumentation itself presumed self-ownership even when you (contradictorily) conceded it to me.

That is to say argument may be deployed to destroy the actuality of self-ownership.

In that case its only an attempt to destroy what it actually assumes, axiomatically; hence, it is a contradictory attempt.

An argument cannot destroy what it assumes, which is why an argument cannot destroy logic either and several other propositions that may be regarded as axiomatic or transcendental to arguments themselves.

It is no less arguement for being hostile and actively denying the self-ownership of the target, no more than an attempt to physically subdue a person is a negation of the actor's self-ownership.

An argument being hostile is irrelevant because it does not violate the principle of non-aggression. Arguments are usually hostile, in all truth, but they are not acts of aggression as defrauding someone of their life, liberty, and property through violent force. Indeed, no matter how hostile an argument is, if it does not rise to physical aggression (and possibly a threat of such), it still presumes, and must presume, self-ownership to take place, otherwise argumentation is impossible and self-contradictory as discussed in my post.

[SolarCross]

I didn't expect you to attack my position on this thread, I was just showing you my alternative version of the case, after all, i am having this debate with Potemkin; however, since you wanted to critique it, I will respond because I am not even sure if @Potemkin is coming back to debate this.

Why else would you draw this to my attention? @Potemkin is a lightweight, you outclass him, so he will stay away.

They are capable of communication though, which is all that is required. You can argue in sign-language.

Perhaps, however my statement that human action alone is sufficient to demonstrate self-ownership remains true, thus human arguement is redundant. We can generalise human action further and say that animal action is a demonstration of self-ownership. Humans are very chatty but many other animals are not, yet still they demonstrate self-will which is the central essence of self-ownership.

If a person is capable of argument, even by representing another, they are still acting as an agent, presupposing self-ownership over their words, even if representing the argument of another.

A person may do so as part of an elaborate trade such as a salesmen may do however my example was not of a trader but of a slave.

This is position is therefore not negated by slavery, if anything, non-voluntarist forms of slavery are negated by this position.

non-voluntarist slavery is an oxymoron. Slavery is by definition a non-voluntary condition.

You think speech is violent? That is a neo-marxist claim, but also, that understanding of violence is not the same as what is understood by aggression under the NAP.

Speech may be used to initiate harm yes. The basis of coercion is to impose a harm upon a subject for the purpose of manipulating their behaviour as they attempt to avoid the harm and this may be done entirely with speech rather than physical force. As a practical matter of fact most attempts to coerce do not involve actual physical violence but only the threat of it. Saying "I'm going to kill you unless you do x, y, z" is speech not physical violence, yet it is no less coercive. Other forms work on degrading self esteem, "you are not a real man unless you do x, y, z". Speech may be used to induce fear, cause pain, damage self-worth and to degrade a person's understanding of the world. These are simply factual observations.

This is kinda irrelevant, what it is often attempted to be used for doesn't change what it actually is, necessarily.

In that case its only an attempt to destroy what it actually assumes, axiomatically; hence, it is a contradictory attempt.

The point is only an argument made against general self-ownership is negation of itself. If I argue that you don't own yourself, that you are my "bitch", that is not a performative contradiction, because I am not making that claim upon myself.

an argument being hostile is irrelevant, because it does not violate the principle of non-aggression. Arguments are usually hostile, in all truth, but they are not acts of aggression as defrauding someone of their life, liberty, and property through violent force. Indeed, no matter how hostile an argument is, if it does not rise to physical aggression (and possibly a threat of such), it still presumes, and must presume, self-ownership to take place, otherwise argumentation is impossible and self-contradictory as discussed in my post.

You have yet to demonstrate the non-aggression principle at this point you are trying to demonstrate self-ownership. However I do wonder about this:

What is the significance of a difference in the means if the intentions and ends are the same? If I kill you by stabbing you how is that different or worse than using words to exploit the weakneses in your psychology and thus persuade you to stab yourself to death? Is not an imam who tells a stupid young man he will get 72 virgins in heaven if he sets off a bomb in a market place not as much an aggressor as someone who places the bomb himself?

[B0ycey]

Don't worry @SolarCross, Potemkin is like Lazarus. He will return. Especially now this thread has reactivated itself.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Why else would you draw this to my attention?

I guess I just figured you would appreciate the version I presented as an-cap sympathizer

@Potemkin is a lightweight, you outclass him, so he will stay away.

I appreciate the note of confidence.

Perhaps, however my statement that human action alone is sufficient to demonstrate self-ownership remains true, thus human arguement is redundant.

Don't get me wrong, I would argue that human action is axiomatic, my syllogism actually states the axiom of argumentation as a corollary to this (as far as humans are concerned). The need for the corollary axiom is to infer self-ownership directly, I don't think you can infer self-ownership from action alone and I have not seen such argued, so I don't think its redundant.

In fact, Rothbard only could infer praxeology from his axiom of human action, but he could not establish natural rights.

I don't think you can infer self-will and therefore self-ownership from animal action, I can only infer that they act towards certain ends, I can say that about computers too and even bacteria. the axiom of argumentation is different, it demonstrates that self-ownership is presupposed by the very act of arguing itself, not merely in the observing of others engaging in such (which are very different claims).

Likewise, if the natural rights of NAP and private property, and appropriation, could be inferred by the fact that animals "are doing stuff" we would be obligated to honor animal property claims (which most beasts cannot communicate) and they would have a right to not be aggressively attacked in deprivation of life, liberty, and property (hence we'd all have to be vegans and likely worse implications that border-line the absurd could also be inferred).

A person may do so as part of an elaborate trade such as a salesmen may do however my example was not of a trader but of a slave.

It would still be true of slaves, which is my point. That is not an argument against my position, but against such a form of slavery.

non-voluntarist slavery is an oxymoron. Slavery is by definition a non-voluntary condition.

You can sell yourself into slavery, and in the Old Testament, slaves could choose to stay perpetual slaves under condition of a contract (they were to be released after seven years)

Keep in mind, the position of voluntarism, that serves as the basis of Ancap thought, was developed by an abolitionist for that very reason as an argument against both slavery and representative government.

Contractual slavery is not contrary to voluntarism.

Speech may be used to initiate harm yes.

Sure, but we are specifically talking about arguments (not merely threats), which I have defined very specifically in my post. Plus, there is a difference between initiating harm and being an act of harm.


Also, in my last response to you, I allowed for a threat to be considered a violation of the NAP, but threats are not the same as argumentation, argumentation as defined in my post is specifically the settling of a dispute over a propositional claim of truth. A threat of immanent aggression may be regarded as aggression, but an argument as defined is not. Which is all that matters for my case.

The point is only an argument made against general self-ownership is negation of itself. If I argue that you don't own yourself, that you are my "bitch", that is not a performative contradiction, because I am not making that claim upon myself.

No, by debating a position I am presenting (that I am not your bitch), you are presupposing that it is me making the argument, that assumption is what is meant by self-ownership for you acknowledge in contending my claims that I am in fact in control and responsible for the case I am making (and you are opposing). The very act is an admission of my self-ownership.

Whether I am your property, contractually, is a separate matter altogether.

You have yet to demonstrate the non-aggression principle at this point you are trying to demonstrate self-ownership. However I do wonder about this:

I would say you brought it up before me in discussing the violent nature of speech. I was simply following your own argument as I understood it.

What is the significance of a difference in the means if the intentions and ends are the same? If I kill you by stabbing you how is that different or worse than using words to exploit the weakneses in your psychology and thus persuade you to stab yourself to death?

Because I consented to the act in the latter, not the former. Convincing me assumes and respects my self-ownership necessarily in spite of what you might claim; whereas, killing me directly is an act of denying my self-ownership and the inferred rights of life, liberty, and property. They are substantially different.

Hopefully the above satisfies your concerns with the argument, if not, let me know.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Don't worry @SolarCross, Potemkin is like Lazarus. He will return. Especially now this thread has reactivated itself.

I hope so.

[SolarCross]

Don't get me wrong, I would argue that human action is axiomatic, my syllogism actually states the axiom of argumentation as a corollary to this (as far as humans are concerned). The need for the corollary axiom is to infer self-ownership directly, I don't think you can infer self-ownership from action alone and I have not seen such argued, so I don't think its redundant.

Could you infer self-ownership in a entity which made an argument in a language you did not understand? Couldn't it just be meaningless noise? Actions speak louder than words it is said. The components of self-ownership are self-will and self-power, if both are present in an entity then self-ownership is demonstrated. An action which is an exercise of self-power in accordance with self-will will serve as a demonstration of self-ownership as well as an argument which is only a subset of potential actions anyway.

In fact, Rothbard only could infer praxeology from his axiom of human action, but he could not establish natural rights.

This is because there are no natural rights beyond the right of might.

I don't think you can infer self-will and therefore self-ownership from animal action, I can only infer that they act towards certain ends, I can say that about computers too and even bacteria. the axiom of argumentation is different, it demonstrates that self-ownership is presupposed by the very act of arguing itself, not merely in the observing of others engaging in such (which are very different claims).

If observing wilful behaviour in another is insufficient for demonstrating self-ownership then observing another make an argument will be insufficient too. Thus we would be reduced to simply paraphrasing Descartes's "I think therefore I am"; I can say that since I can make arguments I must self-own but I could not say that about your arguments, maybe you are just a computer sophisticated enough to pass a Turing test. We will be stuck believing only one's own self can self-own.

Likewise, if the natural rights of NAP and private property, and appropriation, could be inferred by the fact that animals "are doing stuff" we would be obligated to honor animal property claims (which most beasts cannot communicate) and they would have a right to not be aggressively attacked in deprivation of life, liberty, and property (hence we'd all have to be vegans and likely worse implications that border-line the absurd could also be inferred).

No, because the reason any entity respects another's property is because they either recognise them as belonging to an in-group or because they are considered too dangerous to interfere with or because they have no use for the property. Nobody of any species cares about self-ownership when deciding whether to respect a property claim or not.

You can sell yourself into slavery, and in the Old Testament, slaves could choose to stay perpetual slaves under condition of a contract (they were to be released after seven years)

Keep in mind, the position of voluntarism, that serves as the basis of Ancap thought, was developed by an abolitionist for that very reason as an argument against both slavery and representative government.

Contractual slavery is not contrary to voluntarism.

Contractual slavery is a performative contradiction. If you choose to be a "slave" in return for a positive reward then you are a hired servant not a slave. The word slave for clarity should be reserved for involuntary servitude.

Sure, but we are specifically talking about arguments (not merely threats), which I have defined very specifically in my post. Plus, there is a difference between initiating harm and being an act of harm.


Also, in my last response to you, I allowed for a threat to be considered a violation of the NAP, but threats are not the same as argumentation, argumentation as defined in my post is specifically the settling of a dispute over a propositional claim of truth. A threat of immanent aggression may be regarded as aggression, but an argument as defined is not. Which is all that matters for my case.

A threat is a subset of argument. If a propositional claim of truth is an argument then to say "I am a nice guy" is an argument. If I say "I am going to kill you" then I am also making a propositional claim of truth which is therefore also an argument, it is an argument deployed for the purpose of making a threat. The former argument "I am a nice guy" might be for the purpose of lulling you into a false sense of security.

No, by debating a position I am presenting (that I am not your bitch), you are presupposing that it is me making the argument, that assumption is what is meant by self-ownership for you acknowledge in contending my claims that I am in fact in control and responsible for the case I am making (and you are opposing). The very act is an admission of my self-ownership.

Yes I can see that as an acknowledgement of the fact of your self-ownership at that time but not that I should care about respecting it, that you have a right to it or that I couldn't take it from you.

Because I consented to the act in the latter, not the former. Convincing me assumes and respects my self-ownership necessarily in spite of what you might claim; whereas, killing me directly is an act of denying my self-ownership and the inferred rights of life, liberty, and property. They are substantially different.

Hopefully the above satisfies your concerns with the argument, if not, let me know.

No it doesn't because by convincing you to kill yourself I have exactly demonstrated complete contempt for your self-ownership as much as if I had stabbed you myself. The ends and intentions demonstrate this not the means. The reason why I might try convincing instead of physically stabbing will come down to a completely tactical analysis: I might be physically weak but devious while you are strong but emotionally vulnerable, thus persuasion is simply offers a better risk/reward ratio. I may have a better chance of escaping legal complications too.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No it doesn't

Indeed, and it does not seem you are interested in merely analyzing my argument for purposes of constructive criticism, but instead to toss your hat into the ring, eh ol' chap? If its a debate you want, a debate you shall get.

Could you infer self-ownership in a entity which made an argument in a language you did not understand?

This would not be an argument, as the truth of a proposition was not being settled via dispute, but this example is quite besides the point, as the issue is whether or not self-ownership can be inferred from argumentation as an axiom and a synthetic a priori proposition. Which manifestly has nothing to do with this hypothetical of yours.

The components of self-ownership are self-will and self-power, if both are present in an entity then self-ownership is demonstrated.

This is your own definition, and to impute to my argument is to commit the fallacy of equivocation, in my debate post I used self-ownership only to mean control of one's own self in regards to making the argument. Your definitions are your own and as the one making the argument I reserve the right to determine my own definitions. Your definitions may indeed be descriptive aspects of my own, but they are ambiguous and not my own nonetheless.

This is because there are no natural rights beyond the right of might.

This is a positive claim that goes beyond an analysis of the argument I gave, rather it is an assertion that requires proof.

Furthermore, let it be noted that if you are serious about this claim, then you forfeit any right to criticize gulags and mass graves, blood for the blood god, and skulls for the skull throne. If might makes right, then you have lost all basis for critique of the very moral systems your propose to critique, which is why I am having this debate against Potemkin the communist in the first place.

If observing wilful behaviour in another is insufficient for demonstrating self-ownership then observing another make an argument will be insufficient too.

False, your mistake here is assuming that my claim is grounded in observation, its not.

I am making an axiomatic claim; argumentation occurs.

The demonstration of that axiom is instantly proven the moment it is challenged.

Period.

I am not "observing people having arguments" and then "inferring" from that observation that there must be self-ownership. Like I said in my last post; "those are very different claims."

I said this because the former is an assertion of an axiom, the latter is an attempt to infer rights from observed activity. The former is a deductive argument, the latter would necessarily be inductive or naturalistic. Thus, my arguing that inferring agency from the observation of animal behavior is fallacious is true, but this same argument does not apply to my claim that the axiom of argumentation presupposes, logically, self-ownership. They are radically different claims.

Contractual slavery is a performative contradiction.

Note the remark in bold, "performative contradictions" are very specific types of contradictions in philosophy, they only occur when the argument being made assumes what is being argued against. Thus, your claim that slavery is inconsistent with the notion of contractual agreement, if true, cannot be a performative contradiction, its just a plain contradiction.

A performative contradiction is more fundamental, like if you were to say; "logic is false."

That is a performative contradiction because the performance of the argument is self-refuting as any claim made against logic, assumes the validity of logic in the performance of the argument.

Now that I got that out of the way.....

If you choose to be a "slave" in return for a positive reward then you are a hired servant not a slave.

Depends on what you mean by "positive reward", for being allowed to live is technically a positive reward; however, if we were to assume your argument it would be impossible to sell yourself into slavery, and since all societies that practiced actual slavery comprehended such a practice, its pretty safe to assume your definition is far too narrow. Likewise, such a definition would not comprehend certain biblical definitions of slavery, nor would it comprehend serfdom, which is also considered a form of slavery (even the word serf means slave); likewise, it would not comprehend debt-slaves.

The word slave for clarity should be reserved for involuntary servitude.

If slavery is entirely involuntary, then it is inconsistent with the argument I am making and Anarcho-Capitalism, with the possible exception of slavery in the form of retribution (war captives) taken in response to aggression and loss. That qualification aside, I have stated this in one of the libertarian threads as well. Chattel slavery is inconsistent with Anarcho-Capitalist principles, but not all slavery is chattel slavery.

A threat is a subset of argument. If a propositional claim of truth is an argument then to say "I am a nice guy" is an argument. If I say "I am going to kill you" then I am also making a propositional claim of truth which is therefore also an argument, it is an argument deployed for the purpose of making a threat

A proposition must either be true or false and can be determined via argument, a threat does not meet this criteria as it cannot be established as either true or false via argument; hence a threat is not an argument and I don't know what you mean when you call it a "subset."

A declaration of intent is different than a declaration of truth or falsity. I cannot assess a declaration of intent as being either true or false in the course of argument. Hence, it does not meet the criteria of argument as I had defined it.

Thus threats do not support your attempted response against my position.

Yes I can see that as an acknowledgement of the fact of your self-ownership

This is an admission which is sufficient for the establishing of my claims.

but not that I should care about respecting it, that you have a right to it or that I couldn't take it from you.

Which is a seperate and irrelevant matter to the point of my argument and its validity.

That you intend to kill me, subjugate me, or disrespect the reality of my self-ownership, does not negate that such is necessarily presupposed in argumentation itself. Self-ownership follows from the undeniable-axiom-of-human-argumentation, and is therefore itself irrational to deny as a necessary presuppositional inference. Period.

because by convincing you to kill yourself I have exactly demonstrated complete contempt for your self-ownership as much as if I had stabbed you myself.

Non-Sequitur. Contempt is NOT negation.

You can have contempt for my self-ownership, but you cannot logically deny it, for even in the process of you arguing your denial, you are presuming its validity.

Like I already stated, such self-ownership is a necessarily inferred presupposition of the axiom of human argumentation, which itself cannot be denied without a performative contradiction (a REAL performative contradiction mind you).

The reason why I might try convincing instead of physically stabbing will come down to a completely tactical analysis: I might be physically weak but devious while you are strong but emotionally vulnerable, thus persuasion is simply offers a better risk/reward ratio. I may have a better chance of escaping legal complications too.

This may all be valid, but it is irrelevant to the claim I am making.

Whether convincing me to kill myself accomplishes "your end goal" the same as killing me yourself is entirely irrelevant to the matter of whether convincing me through argument to kill myself constitutes an act of aggression.

Otherwise, there would be no ostensive difference between forcing someone to believe something at gunpoint, and them believing it voluntarily.

The distinction would evaporate, which is clearly nonsense. There is a difference between conversion by assent and conversion by coercion, there is a difference between being convinced of an argument for communism, and being forced to be a communist under threat of termination. Your argument is saying that there is no difference.

Thus, if you convince someone to commit suicide, even if it accomplishes the same end as you simply killing them, the difference is still significant because you assumed their self-ownership in the very act of convincing them necessarily (whether you actually believe it or not is irrelevant); you did NOT violate their natural rights in "convincing them" to kill themselves, this would not be the case if you aggressed directly.

Otherwise, would you really say there is no difference between me attempting to get you to convert to Christianity by making an appeal to your reason and forcing you to convert by the sword, even if the ends were the same (your conversion)?

Its the same argument and its clearly absurd.

[SolarCross]

Indeed, and it does not seem you are interested in merely analyzing my argument for purposes of constructive criticism, but instead to toss your hat into the ring, eh ol' chap? If its a debate you want, a debate you shall get.

I aim to give it a stress test to see if it is solid, I don't care about winning.

This would not be an argument, as the truth of a proposition was not being settled via dispute, but this example is quite besides the point, as the issue is whether or not self-ownership can be inferred from argumentation as an axiom and a synthetic a priori proposition. Which manifestly has nothing to do with this hypothetical of yours.

I suppose, but we don't live in platonic space, at least I don't, if I want to determine if an entity is self-owning (basically a near synonym of alive to my mind) or not then stating that an abstracted universal human is self-owning because if he can make an argument and if another abstracted universal human replies then that confirms self ownership doesn't really help. Is a fetus self-owning? Somehow I think a lot of critters in this world won't be covered as the implication is only philosophy students are self-owning.

This is your own definition, and to impute to my argument is to commit the fallacy of equivocation, in my debate post I used self-ownership only to mean control of one's own self in regards to making the argument. Your definitions are your own and as the one making the argument I reserve the right to determine my own definitions. Your definitions may indeed be descriptive aspects of my own, but they are ambiguous and not my own nonetheless.

I am not imputing to your argument, I am making a counter assertion. Let me re-iterate that my counter assertion is that the components of self ownership are self-will and self-power and that this may be demonstrated by broader actions than just making arguments.

This is a positive claim that goes beyond an analysis of the argument I gave, rather it is an assertion that requires proof.

Furthermore, let it be noted that if you are serious about this claim, then you forfeit any right to criticize gulags and mass graves, blood for the blood god, and skulls for the skull throne. If might makes right, then you have lost all basis for critique of the very moral systems your propose to critique, which is why I am having this debate against Potemkin the communist in the first place.

I'll make that proof elsewhere I won't derail your thread with it. Your note is incorrect. The right of might allows me to make the criticism because I choose to make it and I have to power to make it, this in itself is an exercise of might is right.

False, your mistake here is assuming that my claim is grounded in observation, its not.

I am making an axiomatic claim; argumentation occurs.

The demonstration of that axiom is instantly proven the moment it is challenged.

Period.

I am not "observing people having arguments" and then "inferring" from that observation that there must be self-ownership. Like I said in my last post; "those are very different claims."

I said this because the former is an assertion of an axiom, the latter is an attempt to infer rights from observed activity. The former is a deductive argument, the latter would necessarily be inductive or naturalistic. Thus, my arguing that inferring agency from the observation of animal behavior is fallacious is true, but this same argument does not apply to my claim that the axiom of argumentation presupposes, logically, self-ownership. They are radically different claims.

Is this hair-splitting? An axiom is a self-evident statement, "evident" as in observable. You are starting with a claim based on a common, even trivial, observation and inferring a conclusion from it. This is not a radically different claim.

Depends on what you mean by "positive reward", for being allowed to live is technically a positive reward; however, if we were to assume your argument it would be impossible to sell yourself into slavery, and since all societies that practised actual slavery comprehended such a practice, its pretty safe to assume your definition is far too narrow. Likewise, such a definition would not comprehend certain biblical definitions of slavery, nor would it comprehend serfdom, which is also considered a form of slavery (even the word serf means slave); likewise, it would not comprehend debt-slaves.

I would say being allowed to live is a negative reward, depending on the circumstances, by which I mean if being alive is a property I already possess then being offered the opportunity to not have my life taken from me is a negative reward not a positive one. A positive reward, as I define it, is a reward of property I do not already possess or have an existing right to. In other circumstances for the reward of being allowed to live to be a positive reward could be where, in some sense, I had lost the right to my life, perhaps as a convicted murderer, so thus I would be receiving something that I did not have already have a right to though I did currently possess it.

Serfdom could be either slavery or not depending on the exact circumstances. It was a condition invented by would-be slave owners as means of disguising slavery in semi-contractual clothing after overt slavery was condemned as sin by the church. The church eventually caught on to the ruse and condemned serfdom too. If a serf was permitted to leave service by his free will I do not see it as slavery as his remaining is evidence of choosing to serve.

In modern common language we use the word "slave" in figurative or metaphorical uses because almost no one in the west is a true slave: eg one will say a person in paid employment which he freely took up and is free to leave is a wage slave or say that a person is slave to fashion or a love slave etc. However I submit that in more rigorous debate we should not confuse metaphor, hyperbole and poetic licence for literal meaning. Slave means an involuntary servant.

If slavery is entirely involuntary, then it is inconsistent with the argument I am making and Anarcho-Capitalism, with the possible exception of slavery in the form of retribution (war captives) taken in response to aggression and loss. That qualification aside, I have stated this in one of the libertarian threads as well. Chattel slavery is inconsistent with Anarcho-Capitalist principles, but not all slavery is chattel slavery.

My question is in what way does a voluntary "slave" differ from a voluntary servant?

That you intend to kill me, subjugate me, or disrespect the reality of my self-ownership, does not negate that such is necessarily presupposed in argumentation itself. Self-ownership follows from the undeniable-axiom-of-human-argumentation, and is therefore itself irrational to deny as a necessary presuppositional inference. Period.

If I succeed in these intentions then I have negated the reality of your self-ownership no matter what arguments you made. If I break your will or break your personal power your self-ownership is negated and no amount of "presuppositional inferences" or "undeniable axioms" can save you. As they say in Westeros "Words are wind".

Non-Sequitur. Contempt is NOT negation.

You can have contempt for my self-ownership, but you cannot logically deny it, for even in the process of you arguing your denial, you are presuming its validity.

Like I already stated, such self-ownership is a necessarily inferred presupposition of the axiom of human argumentation, which itself cannot be denied without a performative contradiction (a REAL performative contradiction mind you).

You've never had your will broken so you don't know. In reality self-ownership is alienable, by violence, by torture and by psychological manipulation. Some axioms floating about in platonic space have done nothing to prevent actual slavery, actual negation of self-ownership, in the real world.

I think ultimately what the an-caps are fundamentally getting wrong with their NAP and their self-ownership is an "Is / Ought" fallacy. They want the NAP and self-ownership to be natural rights, to be something really fundamental to the way the universe works, but what they are, if anything at all, is just how things ought to be, for a nice civilised society. They are not natural they are artificial.

Whether convincing me to kill myself accomplishes "your end goal" the same as killing me yourself is entirely irrelevant to the matter of whether convincing me through argument to kill myself constitutes an act of aggression.

So the imam who persuades, by means of heavenly sex bait, a stupid young man to do a martyr bombing is completely guiltless?

Otherwise, there would be no ostensive difference between forcing someone to believe something at gunpoint, and them believing it voluntarily.

The distinction would evaporate, which is clearly nonsense. There is a difference between conversion by assent and conversion by coercion, there is a difference between being convinced of an argument for communism, and being forced to be a communist under threat of termination. Your argument is saying that there is no difference.

Thus, if you convince someone to commit suicide, even if it accomplishes the same end as you simply killing them, the difference is still significant because you assumed their self-ownership in the very act of convincing them necessarily (whether you actually believe it or not is irrelevant); you did NOT violate their natural rights in "convincing them" to kill themselves, this would not be the case if you aggressed directly.

Otherwise, would you really say there is no difference between me attempting to get you to convert to Christianity by making an appeal to your reason and forcing you to convert by the sword, even if the ends were the same (your conversion)?

Its the same argument and its clearly absurd.

This is basically a strawman. I was saying that words can be used to cause harm. All this is simply irrelevant.

[ingliz]

Objective Morality

It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and Goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things.

- Gottfried Leibniz

Are some actions right or wrong in themselves, independent of God's commands?