Owning the Rights to Own a penny!

There are two basic views on the ownership of living beings within the minds of people.

is that living beings are just an opportunity for production and must be profit, to be maximized and harnessed at the most potential possible.

Living beings are not an object, they are irrational to a price, and were placed on Earth not to be owned, but free.

In history, which opinion seems to emanate the most from human beings; with and without power.

There is nothing, that I can see, inherently 'wrong' or 'right' about 'slavery'. It 'is'.

We might have what appears to be 'temporary possession', but 'ownership'? I'd have to see a real good definition of 'ownership' that is not based on egoic imaginings.

Ahh, the basics of a 'false dilemna'; declaring (with 'basic' as a possible escape clause) an 'either/or' when there might well be more.

We see this all over, we call it 'jobs'. At lease the slaves of plantation times fared better in many ways; health care and food and shelter are guaranteed for the workers 'and family' (more workers).
It seems to be historical 'fact'. Not 'options'.

This one goes around the bush a bit; it presupposes a 'creator god' who 'places' people for 'reasons' that, somehow, you know, and that you have a 'belief' in 'freedom' (of any sort).

Much depends on Perspective; the society in question, the context...
There is nothing, that I can see, inherently 'wrong' or 'right' about 'slavery'. It 'is'.

Right, how about an empathic exercise.

You are my slave. You pick coffee without pay. You are allowed to own only whatever allows you to attain the purpose I have assigned to you. You are no different from my chisel, if it needs to be sharpened I will sharpen it.

How is this for inherently wrong ?

>Is this a discussion then about slavery?

>> maximised by who? themselves or others?

>>>what has rationality to do with it? placed by whom and owned by whom?

>>> Might it not be that one's survival is better guaranteed by slavery than freedom?

Right, how about an empathic exercise.

You are my slave. You pick coffee without pay. You are allowed to own only whatever allows you to attain the purpose I have assigned to you. You are no different from my chisel, if it needs to be sharpened I will sharpen it.

How is this for inherently wrong ?

nameless wrote:

We might have what appears to be 'temporary possession', but 'ownership'? I'd have to see a real good definition of 'ownership' that is not based on egoic imaginings.

Yes but legally possessing something means that the legal essence is held for as long as the living being or object is alive,

so it is really about the ownership of the potential,

therefore it is not temporary possession, just conditional.

Quote:

Ahh, the basics of a 'false dilemna'; declaring (with 'basic' as a possible escape clause) an 'either/or' when there might well be more.

yeah in science you get taught to write like that, sorry, but in debates it helps.

Quote:

We see this all over, we call it 'jobs'. At lease the slaves of plantation times fared better in many ways; health care and food and shelter are guaranteed for the workers 'and family' (more workers).
It seems to be historical 'fact'. Not 'options'.

Where did 'options' come from?

Quote:

This one goes around the bush a bit; it presupposes a 'creator god' who 'places' people for 'reasons' that, somehow, you know, and that you have a 'belief' in 'freedom' (of any sort).

No, it suggests that the reason for living is not to be a possession.

Quote:

Much depends on Perspective; the society in question, the context...
There is nothing, that I can see, inherently 'wrong' or 'right' about 'slavery'. It 'is'.

If you were a slave would you think being so to be wrong, and should be changed.

There is yes, a difference between fairness and equality and slavery doesn't equate to the best of any of the two, for the individual at least.

All is One! The notion of 'owning' anything is a manifestation of the insubstantial 'images' of ego. We can only 'feel' that we own. Any vaguerie of fate will end that feeling with a burglary, loss, deterioration of the 'owned' until there is nothing that makes you feel that you acan 'own' anything. It is an egoic term, a 'legal' term (based on ego), a 'belief' that exposes all the horrors/symptoms therefrom (we kill and die for our 'beliefs'...).
We might have what appears to be 'temporary possession', but 'ownership'? I'd have to see a real good definition of 'ownership' that is not based on egoic imaginings.

There are some views on the temporary possession of living beings within the minds of people.

1. is that living beings are just an opportunity for production and must be profit, to be maximized and harnessed at the most potential possible.
   
2. Living beings are not an object, they are irrational to a price, and were placed on Earth not to be owned, but free.
   

Ownership and property rights are better understood as a set of obligations, freedoms, and forebearances between people concerning an object, not between people and the object itself.

(The illusion of) 'Owning' anything is "better understood as a set of obligations, freedoms (if you are a believer in such), and forebearances between people concerning an object, not between people and the object itself."
There are no 'isolated people' and 'objects' ("itself").
(Your 'ownership' of the car is dependent on the 'forebearance' (allowance) of the car thief, among other 'varuiables' involved.)
All fine and dandy, but,
I'm not seeing how or that your definition of 'ownership' changes or refutes anything that I have thus far said, in context of the OP.
It does speak to (and help clarify) the OP though.

I just wanted to provide a definition that is not based on "egoic imaginings".

My definition does not involve some imaginary link between person and object.

Someone could theoretically have ownership without any idea that the thing he/she owns even exists (the justice of such an arrangement can be battled over of course).

I just wanted to provide a definition that is not based on "egoic imaginings". My definition does not involve some imaginary link between person and object. Someone could theoretically have ownership without any idea that the thing he/she owns even exists (the justice of such an arrangement can be battled over of course).

Are you insinuating that the 'Oneness' is imaginary? Funny, I am saying that all 'differences' are 'imaginary'.
Which goes to prove the 'First law of Soul Dynamics' -"For every perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
And your attempt to discredit anything that i have said by your dismissiveness in calling it 'imaginary', fails.
An argument can be made in support of either Perspective. Evaluate the data as you must.
Science, though, is supporting, more and more, that which I am presenting, making the classical Aristotalien fallacies that you propose, 'obsolete'.
Still waiting...

There must be Conscious Perspective/awareness, for something to exist.
The tree makes no sound if there are none to hear (perceive) it fall. It doesn't even fall if there are none to perceive it.
No Conscious awareness = no existence, much less, 'ownership', which is still an egoic construct.

nameless wrote:

Are you insinuating that the 'Oneness' is imaginary? Funny, I am saying that all 'differences' are 'imaginary'.
Which goes to prove the 'First law of Soul Dynamics' -"For every perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
And your attempt to discredit anything that i have said by your dismissiveness in calling it 'imaginary', fails.
An argument can be made in support of either Perspective. Evaluate the data as you must.
Science, though, is supporting, more and more, that which I am presenting, making the classical Aristotalien fallacies that you propose, 'obsolete'.
Still waiting...

Cool your jets.

I am not opposing the idea of oneness, in fact I am quite fond of it.

The thing is, in terms of human understanding and action, this subject, like that of determinism and free will, is quite impossible to deal with.

One thing we can work with is the fact that only people deal with property rights, and pretty much all people within our culture, pretty much all people period, have a common concept of identity (although some are more individualistic than others).

I guess this idea of identity between people is a little egoistic

(and all of this is a little silly since I tend to wear the title of egoist

since I follow Stirner and Tucker),

but we can define property and ownership in the context of these identities,

and not in the context of egoistic identity and thing.

Therefore property can be defined as thus:

"A bundle of rights, being a set of obligations and duties placed on others, that assures control and disposition over some resource."

NOTE: Khethil, your definition was a good one.

This allows for one to possess ownership without even being aware of the existence of what one owns.

Perhaps this is egoistic, but can you seriously draw NO division between yourself and the things you control?

nameless wrote:

There must be Conscious Perspective/awareness, for something to exist.
The tree makes no sound if there are none to hear (perceive) it fall. It doesn't even fall if there are none to perceive it.
No Conscious awareness = no existence, much less, 'ownership', which is still an egoic construct.

So our senses cause existence?
What caused our senses to exist? Are they self-causing?

Deal with? Like in a discussion? Like now? I think that 'ownership' is a great subject to 'deal with', lots of Perspectives, lots of potential depth...

Do you mean that in all possible imagined identities, all possible features of everyPerspective, that there is at least one (amongst the multitude) feature common to all humans? I might be tempted to agree with that, but see no relevence to the topic at hand, that we are 'dealing with'.

Every moment of your existence?
So, ego calls itself ego, from an egoic Perspective (that never changes?).
You seem to be a tentatively titled tautology! *__-

"Unless you're the lead dog, the scenery never changes!"

Of course! One ego can certainly come to consensus with another ego to 'define' anything they like.

Doesn't work for me. Lets take the "obligations and duties placed on others" and extend it to it's extreme. Lets not just place 'fetters' on others (for your protection) lets just give you a real feeling of 'security and stability' and kill off everyone else that is not 'you'. Now, you don't 'need' your 'rights', which translate as the 'fettering' of 'others' for your feelings of security.
Now, there is no one else around to take your toys away. Oops, not yet..
There is 'time' and the natural processes that will remove whatever it might be that you are clinging to so, eventually.
Ultimately, so too, will 'life' be taken from you.
Perhaps the notion of 'control/ownership' is a flailing at the dark night?

Was the question for Khethil or me?
If for me, I assume no 'control'.

There is no 'causing'.
The moment arises complete with you and your senses and thoughts and ego and Mars and hamburgers half eaten...
Your perception is the manifestation of existence (omniverse), at the moment, as you know it.
There is a synchronous arisal of all moments of existence. Nothing 'before, nothing 'after', no 'cause', no 'effect'; all is at once, is Now!
There must be Perspective to 'differentiate' the 'undifferentiated potential' (quantum possibility wave field) of Mind, which is perfectly symmetrical and thus 'featureless' to Conscious awareness.
The natural limitations of 'Perspective' can Now! manifest (to Consciousness) that which did not 'exist', turning (for a 'moment') the 'monality' of Mind into the 'duality' of existence by ourPerspectives.
Definition of universe; the sum total of all Perspectives at any single moment. The universes thus presented/manifested are unique every moment.
The notion of a single one-size-fits-all "the" universe (as is commonly used), is absurd. Our 'universe' is all that of which we are aware, at any single moment. Rather like the 'Truman Show', so much is assumed. And, like 'Truman', we imagine ourselves to be in 'control', in 'posession' of our own lives and thoughts and behaviors and desires and dreams... Ego so desperately needs (the illusion of) control and stability from it's imagined dangling isolation from the rest of existence...