The contradiction of self-ownership

[NoDeity]

Who's the final arbiter?

The idea is that it would work like this: if you and I have a dispute which we are unable to successfully solve on our own, we find a way to come to an agreement on a means of resolving it. If it's arbitration that we've chosen, then the final arbiter is the person or persons that we have both agreed to trust with that responsibility.

[Atheist Statist]

the final arbiter is the person or persons that we have both agreed to trust with that responsibility

And if we cannot agree on such an arbiter (having perhaps both paid for various arbiters to agree with us) then...

Who's the final arbiter?

[NoDeity]

If we cannot agree on such an arbiter then we fail to resolve the matter. We both lose.

[Dadalama]

the final arbiter is the person or persons that we have both agreed to trust with that responsibility

And if we cannot agree on such an arbiter (having perhaps both paid for various arbiters to agree with us) then...

Who's the final arbiter?

why do we need an arbiter. I simply deny what I do not find right and condone what I do. I am my only arbiter.

[Atheist Statist]

If we cannot agree on such an arbiter then we fail to resolve the matter. We both lose.

The childlike naivety of the anarchist never ceases to amuse.

The correct answer is - in the absence of an alternative final arbiter, the final arbiter becomes violence. The side with the greater coercive capacity gets to enforce its version of property rules.

[Atheist Statist]

why do we need an arbiter. I simply deny what I do not find right and condone what I do. I am my only arbiter.

The standard of anarchism defense here has declined significantly of late. I miss Charles.

[NoDeity]

If we cannot agree on such an arbiter then we fail to resolve the matter. We both lose.

The childlike naivety of the anarchist never ceases to amuse.

The correct answer is - in the absence of an alternative final arbiter, the final arbiter becomes violence. The side with the greater coercive capacity gets to enforce its version of property rules.

[shrug] That sounds exactly like what we have now.

[tism]

If we cannot agree on such an arbiter then we fail to resolve the matter. We both lose.

Brilliantly put.

The childlike naivety of the anarchist never ceases to amuse.

The correct answer is - in the absence of an alternative final arbiter, the final arbiter becomes violence. The side with the greater coercive capacity gets to enforce its version of property rules.

If it is able, can't it do that, anyway?

Besides, what gives an arbiter legitimacy, if not the agreement between the people that hire it? You've already assumed that people don't agree to it, so what is left to legitimize it? Think carefully.

Who's the final arbiter?

It's arbiters all the way up.

[imhefé]

It's arbiters all the way up.

[Francois Tremblay]

The childlike naivety of the anarchist never ceases to amuse.

Laugh is on you, idiot... most anarchists are not market anarchists.

[Slave]

The childlike naivety of the anarchist never ceases to amuse.

Laugh is on you, idiot... most anarchists are not market anarchists.

http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=9251&start=45#p168359

Be nice, Francois Tremblay.

[Francois Tremblay]

Easy for you to say.

[tism]

Apologies if this was already mentioned. I've only just skimmed over the thread.

Someone mentioned to me that self-ownership is absolute and non-transferable. But this seems to me to be a contradiction. If I absolutely own something, say, a car or a house, then that would imply that I could freely trade the object. If I absolutely owned myself, then I could sell myself as well.

However, if I sold myself, I wouldn't own myself anymore, so my self-ownership would not be valid anymore. On the other hand, if I'm prevented from selling myself, then I don't fully own myself in the first place.

[Francois Tremblay]

Isn't that idea rather strange? Capitalist ownership is predicated on the right to trade and rent. Without it, there is no capitalism! But self-ownership under capitalism somehow works differently than all other forms of ownership? Why? Once again, another arbitrary distinction which is ultimately self-defeating.