Freedomain Radio

Most of UPB makes sense to me but I'm confused about how it validates property ownership. If I give the performative contradiction (vocal chord) argument, won't I get the reply "what if person A uses a pen and paper to write a note to you, does this validate Person A's ownership of the pen and paper?"

Rodzilla!:

When I used to get hung up on this same question, I changed tack slightly by trying to validate the opposite of property rights.  When I tried to prove to myself that property rights were invalid, I quickly discovered that the notion was self-contradictory to the point of absurdity...

Except it's ownership of your hands (to take Stefan's example) that is the absurd self-contradiction. You can't sell your hands; therefore you don't own them.

You can't define self-contradictions into existence. You can't define "non-transferable ownership" into existence.

If you could do that, then you could define God into existence. This isn't even philosophy 101, it's philosophy 001.

who owns your hands?

why do you have to be able to sell something to have ownership over it? 

mr evil:

who owns your hands?

why do you have to be able to sell something to have ownership over it?

who owns your thoughts?

whos definition?

Websters: 

actually ill stop now because no one is typing messages onto this forum and posting them for you. 

unless you also claim no one owns your thoughts cause then no one is typing the thoughts of nobody else.

Thefreedictionary. 

Noun 1. Ownership - possession with the right of transfer to others.

So ownership has a precise meaning and if it is a fact that people cannot transfer ownership over their own bodies, which it is, then it follows by implacable logic that claiming a person's relation to their body is FALSE.

1.ownership - the relation of an owner to the thing possessed; possession with the right to transfer

2.ownership - the act of having and controlling property

you're only stating the section of the one def that suites your needs

also having possession is a form of ownership per one definition on the free dictionary

2.possession - anything owned or possessed

"the relation of an owner to the thing possessed"

This part supports my position, since a relation implies TWO different things--the owned and the owner. Your body is only ONE thing.   

The second and third definitions do not contradict my position.

also having possession is a form of ownership per one definition on the free dictionary

2.possession - anything owned or possessed

But that doesn't at all imply that you own your body.

ewen:

Rodzilla!:

When I used to get hung up on this same question, I changed tack slightly by trying to validate the opposite of property rights.  When I tried to prove to myself that property rights were invalid, I quickly discovered that the notion was self-contradictory to the point of absurdity...

Except it's ownership of your hands (to take Stefan's example) that is the absurd self-contradiction. You can't sell your hands; therefore you don't own them.

You can sell your hand, like you can sell your kidney. I'm not sure if there are many takers, though. 

I can see how UPB might be volatile for people (because of how it detonates all of the relationships based on imposed obligations), and I can see how concepts like anarchy are frightening and anxiety-provoking for people (because the absence of aggressive authority). 

But why should an idea as bland and patently obvious as self-ownership cause people so much anger and anxiety? 

That's confusing.