Comment: Hmm.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: If you don't own you, someone will. (see in situ)

Hmm.

"If you don't own you, someone will."

So the notion that I am property is taken for granted and you don't need to validate it?

You mention a gold coin, which I will agree can be property, but how is a human being anything like a gold coin?

"A life has worth... Much more than the gold coin."

Worth in terms of what? Human assignment of value, the same as a coin? As in, "I'll trade you those two humans for five camels and a wagon," or something along those lines? Even if humans do decide to place a value on something, that doesn't mean they own it. I can say that the sky is worth 500 trillion dollars and Bob will inherit it from Frank when he dies, but that doesn't actually make it property. That's just me saying some shit that I made up.

You go further, "If for no other reason that the vast fruit of your efforts over your lifetime."
Wouldn't that just be the value of the fruit of someone's labor, not the worth of their life? Otherwise wouldn't that mean that perpetually jobless people are worthless people? Does it mean that wealthy people's lives are worth more? That's a pretty silly elitist model if so. If human beings are "worth" anything, it's in the sense that they are worth what any other human is worth because we're all equal.

"If you don't claim yourself, there are nearly infinite people out there that would like to do so."

Again, so what?
I claim ownership of all of our solar system! The sun and the Kuiper belt and everything in between belong to me!
Did me wanting it or saying that change anything? Would writing up a bill of sale change anything? You can't own human beings because they aren't property just like you can't own the sun because it isn't property.

"They all want to use you for something or some things that benefits them, as if your were a shared slave between them.
Sometimes we're ok with this form of slavery, usually it upsets us, rarely we can't take it... But all forms of it point to there being a need for self-ownership."

Well now you're just conflating someone being manipulative with ownership. If someone tries to deceive me, even if they are successful that doesn't mean that they now own me. Surely you can't believe that, otherwise you're just using the most malleable version of the word that you can possibly muster just to make it elusive in debate.

You should clearly define your terms if there is some definitive proof. In what way are humans property? How are they similar to other property? Why can't you transfer a human property to a different controller if they are property? If I give my friend a robot, he can become the owner of that robot in every respect - he can control it to the extent that its so-called original owner could. If I give my 'self property' to someone else, they aren't able to control my actions in the way that I do, with their mind.

Try to leave out the, "Well someone's just gonna make you a slave if you don't accept that you own yourself." That's just a cop out. The answer isn't only heads or tails when there's no need to even flip the coin. See, if I don't flip the coin I can't become a slave either. You would have to consent to be owned. A person who says, "I am property, but I'm the owner of me." Is accepting the first principle necessary to become a slave - they agree that they can be owned. A person who says, "I am not property." Is one step further away, not closer, to being a slave. Do you see why? If I don't accept that I am property, and if I can't even own myself, how could I possibly be owned by anyone else? We arrive at the same conclusion but I don't have to imagine that I am property.

-------------

I posit that humans and other animate beings are DISTINCT and opposite entirely from inanimate objects. Inanimate objects are capable of being property, but animate beings are not. Animate beings may possess property, but inanimate objects may not.

Therefor another huge problem with this is that it requires two states to work. For example, a rock can't 'own itself.' That's because a rock can't be both the owner and the owned. It has only one state, as an inanimate object that is incapable of owning anything.

If I 'own myself' then that means there are two states in play, the owner and the owned, they can't be the same. As in, my physical properties are owned by my mental properties. My mental properties 'control' my physical properties therefor they 'own' them by a twist of language. But if that were actually ownership, then I could transfer that ownership and another being's mental properties would be able to take over, but we know that's absolute nonsense. Not only that, there are degrees to which any given individual might actually have their mental properties in control of their physical properties, either due to some disorder, reduced brain function, etc.

And this brings another issue to light: mental properties are dependent on physical properties. I would say that really, mental properties aren't any more in ownership of physical properties within a human than the reverse. If someone's brain becomes damaged they can be rendered incapable of controlling their body. Let alone other stigmas like seizures or psychological disorders due to chemical imbalances - the mind obeys the body just as much as the body obeys the mind. Which part is property though? All of it? Which part of it can we give away, and what are we giving it to?