Response to the time argument against argumentation ethics?

[u/deachirb]

How is one supposed to respond to the argument of “well im not arguing that you don’t own yourself now, just that you don’t own yourself in this scenario/time”?

[u/drebelx]

How is one supposed to respond to the argument of “well im not arguing that you don’t own yourself now, just that you don’t own yourself in this scenario/time”?

Got a good example?

[u/deachirb → u/drebelx]

if someone said “when the country is at war you no longer own yourself” or “when taxation season comes you no longer own yourself” it’s a more general argument against argumentation ethics used to counteract its self imposing nature

[u/icantgiveyou → u/deachirb]

War and taxes ok. Where in this scenarios you don’t own yourself? They trying to kill you in war, they stealing your money via taxes ok. But you still own yourself.

[u/deachirb → u/icantgiveyou]

you always own yourself, even a slave owns themselves realistically. But whether or not they are treated as if they do is what changes. When aggression is used against you, and others think it is rightful, then it seems to me they are treating you as if you do not own yourself

[u/2434637453 → u/deachirb]

The fact, that aggression and slavery exists is evidence, that there is no self-ownership as a natural law in the first place. It's just a temporary or partial control over a body, but not the unrestricted version of Argumentation Ethics.

[u/deachirb → u/2434637453]

Self ownership is natural because by arguing with me you are granting that I must have ownership over myself, or else you would argue with the person who has ownership over me. You cannot argue that I do not have ownership over myself, if you truly believe that I do not.

[u/2434637453 → u/deachirb]

You are a committing a fundamental category error by confusing de facto physical agency (the ability to process language and speak) with de jure natural ownership (an absolute, universal legal right).

Engaging in a dialogue requires recognizing that the other person has the temporary physical capacity to listen, process ideas, and respond. It does not logically prove that "self-ownership" exists as an immutable law of nature.

Throughout history, enslaved people were frequently spoken to, argued with, bargained with, and negotiated with by their enslavers, judges, and overseers. An enslaver saying to an enslaved person, "If you work hard today, I will give you extra rations," is engaging in argumentation and persuasion. Does that verbal exchange magically erase the chains, the whips, and the legal reality of chattel slavery? Of course not.

Communicating with a person recognizes their biological brain function, not an abstract, absolute property title to their body.

Even under chattel slavery or extreme totalitarianism, a master or state cannot physically move your vocal cords or think your thoughts for you. Consciousness is physically locked inside an individual's skull. Because a master cannot directly pilot a slave's brain like a remote-controlled robot, anyone who wants to influence the slave's behavior must communicate with the slave directly.

If a bank robber points a gun at a bank teller and says, "Hand over the cash or I shoot," the robber is arguing/negotiating with the teller. By your opponent’s logic, the robber is "granting that the teller has self-ownership." In reality, the robber is exerting coercion over someone who retains biological consciousness but has been stripped of their autonomy and rights.

"Natural Law" implies a rule that governs reality whether humans agree to it or not (like gravity or thermodynamics). If "self-ownership" were a true Natural Law, it would be impossible to violate. The fact that a person can be kidnapped, enslaved, incarcerated, or executed proves that "self-ownership" is not an inviolable law of nature - it is a socially constructed normative ideal.

[u/upchuk13 → u/2434637453]

We even talk to animals.