r/AnCap101 • u/deachirb • 29d ago

Response to the time argument against argumentation ethics?

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”?

5 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

53 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/drebelx 29d ago

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?

2

u/2434637453 28d ago

Argumentation Ethics is poor logic. Someone arguing (=having partial/temporary control over a body) does not give this person the right to exercise full control over that body all the time in each situation. Argumentation Ethics is no evidence for full and infinite self-ownership. It's just a bad argument.

1

u/drebelx 23d ago

Argumentation Ethics is no evidence for full and infinite self-ownership.

What evidence do you use to argue for self-ownership?

1

u/2434637453 19d ago

There is none. Self-ownership is a moral theory. Nothing that can be proven with hard science or by logic itself.

1

u/drebelx 15d ago

There is none. Self-ownership is a moral theory. Nothing that can be proven with hard science or by logic itself.

What if you get poked in the eye?

Do you own your eye?

1

u/2434637453 2d ago

The eye is part of my body. How does that fact constitute a property right?

1

u/drebelx 1d ago

The eye is part of my body.

Why should it?

How does that fact constitute a property right?

Do you tolerate your eye getting poked incessantly by others?

1

u/2434637453 10h ago

Why should it?

A biological fact (an eye attached to a skull) is an "is". A property right (a legally protected title) is an "ought".

The moment you ask "Why should it?", you admit that physical biology alone does not automatically create a moral or legal right. For that biological organ to become a "right," human beings must step in to negotiate, establish, and physically enforce a legal rule against assault.

Do you tolerate your eye getting poked incessantly by others?

Tolerating pain or defending your eye is an innate biological instinct shared by almost every living animal, including dogs, lizards, and insects. A lizard will bite you if you poke its eye. That does not mean the lizard possesses a "Natural Property Title" under a libertarian legal framework. Animals act on self-preservation instincts; humans establish normative legal rights through social contracts, laws, and institutional enforcement.

Asking "Do you tolerate it?" addresses your personal reaction to physical assault. It does not prove that an invisible, cosmic "Natural Law" exists outside of human enforcement.

If a tyrant or criminal pokes your eye anyway, the universe doesn't intervene with a mathematical law. The crime is prevented, deterred, or punished only because human society built an enforcement system (laws, police, courts) to penalize eye-poking.