He doesn't really mean "binary" either here (and certainly not "digital") or at least he doesn't reason with it that way. Binary would mean yes-or-no. Whatever we want to call it, he *seems* to be assuming that everything (including people) has exactly one owner. SomeONE owns the sandwich. "Either I own me, or someone else does."
But that's a false premise. Ownership doesn't work that way. Not everything has an owner, and things can have multiple owners. The house I'm in isn't owned by any one person, my wife and I own it jointly. An asset owned by a corporation has shared ownership. The two guys in the story might have pooled their money to buy the sandwich, or one might have brought the bread and the other the meat.
And his argument hinges on the "either I own me, or someone else does" point. He also takes a lot for granted in the notion of "ownership" applied to persons. When you play fast and loose with the argument it's not really very persuasive.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of t