Do you believe in self-ownership?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
BrianBlackwell
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 9:37 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Do you believe in self-ownership?

Post by BrianBlackwell » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:22 am

Do you believe that you own yourself? By extension, do you believe that others also own themselves? It seems that the vegan ideal is founded on this very premise. To say that is is wrong to murder an unwilling animal is to say that the animal has a right to its own body -- that he owns himself -- and to act upon him against his will is a violation of that right.

However, every few years, millions of vegans step into a voting booth and push a button that says, "I grant this person the right to cast down dictates upon the 300,000,000 people within the arbitrary border called the United States, be they willing or not. Furthermore, I grant this person the right to do bodily harm to anyone who does not comply with these demands, denying that person his freedom by throwing him in a cage, and even killing him should he forcibly resist." Oddly enough, the people who push this button feel completely justified in doing so, and even claim that it's the responsible thing to do.

I do not understand how these mutually-exclusive ideas can reside within the same mind. If someone would like to shed some light on this, I would be interested to hear the rationale.

User avatar
AMP3083
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by AMP3083 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:32 am

Yes.

"Government is always about one person forcibly subjugating somebody else." - Larken Rose (Source: YouTube - Tragedy And Hope Interview)

User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1002
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Post by NonZeroSum » Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:32 pm

BrianBlackwell wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:22 am
Do you believe that you own yourself? By extension, do you believe that others also own themselves? It seems that the vegan ideal is founded on this very premise. To say that is is wrong to murder an unwilling animal is to say that the animal has a right to its own body -- that he owns himself -- and to act upon him against his will is a violation of that right.

However, every few years, millions of vegans step into a voting booth and push a button that says, "I grant this person the right to cast down dictates upon the 300,000,000 people within the arbitrary border called the United States, be they willing or not. Furthermore, I grant this person the right to do bodily harm to anyone who does not comply with these demands, denying that person his freedom by throwing him in a cage, and even killing him should he forcibly resist." Oddly enough, the people who push this button feel completely justified in doing so, and even claim that it's the responsible thing to do.

I do not understand how these mutually-exclusive ideas can reside within the same mind. If someone would like to shed some light on this, I would be interested to hear the rationale.
You think staying home is more ethical than picking between two very different logical inevitabilities and you couch it in egoist philosophy where your last egoist intuition was to vote Bush, yeah not a stellar sales pitch.

My comments to a friend on facebook the last election:

Wow Rufus you provoked a lot of conversation, good for you, I'd just ask that you think seriously about what is best for your common man dying because of the cuts and the propping up of dictatorships across the world and bombings, it does seem you are sympathetic to that, but you don't know if voting will change anything, let me give you my take on that problem:

The anarchist critique of voting between two almost identical candidates is a sound one, often even if you vote for the candidate who is slightly better they are able to push through a whole raft of bad legislation that we'd be able to rally popular support against if it was the worse candidate. Only to have them pass the baton of party power back to the worse candidate in 5 years anyway. In that case it is better to spoil your ballot or abstain and wake people up to this reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQY-wMdtGHU

In France 9% just went to the polls and spoilt their ballot after saying they would in polling Melanchon conducted, which reached major news and is great movement solidarity. You can see in this picture that Marine Le Pen (Fascism) and Macron (American Libertarianism) are equal distance from the Libertarian Socialism quadrant that is real freedom and mutual aid:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/france2017.png

But saying all that there are many examples in history of anarchists calling on people to head to the polls, when it is abundently clear the working class have something to gain. And there is a real lesser of two evils option that wont just fizzle out at the next election if power changes hands again.

In 1936 Spain, the CNT an anarchist union encouraged it's members to vote for the left alliance because it would free political prisoners. It had the allegiance of many peasant farmers who would usually abstain from party politics.

Corbyn is that today for people dying having their welfare cut, refugee children dying in Calais and all those people abroad suffering under dictatorship that Corbyn has put the spotlight on and will change Britains relationship to.

If you are in the bottom left quadrant of that political compass and there is a clear choice between someone on the opposite side and half way in between, you take that choice between the lesser of two evils because you have your voice heard and you change the conversation.

----

The problem your suffering from is an all or nothing mentality, you have to way your actions up as to how it will move the needle from the status quo.

Ethical scale:

Voting Conservatives - Guaranteed to increase the chances of people dying.
Staying home - Guaranteed to do nothing.
Spoiling your ballot - Guaranteed to do little but symbolic.
Voting Labour - Guaranteed to increase the chances of saving people from dying.

-----

Forgetting about boundary changes and campaign spending for a second, and just thinking about the vote counting, if you could be convinced that there was no foul play in the counting of ballots, would you agree that everyone voting for the candidate they most agreed with would be a good thing in the example I provided where there is a legitimate choice between two vastly different mandates? Because it would save lives.

This happened just a few months ago in Gambia where the population decided to take an increasingly insane dictator (who thought he could cure AIDS with his bare hands and reading of the Quran) serious about a free and fair election monitored by international observers. And many times in history:
"The "People Power" moment of 1989, when whole populations brought down their absurd rulers by an exercise of arm-folding and sarcasm, had its origins partly in the Philippines in 1985, when the dictator Marcos called a "snap election" and the voters decided to take him seriously. They acted "as if" the vote were free and fair, and they made it so.

...He therefore proposed living "as if" he were a citizen of a free society, "as if" lying and cowardice were not mandatory patriotic duties, "as if" his government had signed (which it actually had) the various treaties and agreements that enshrine universal human rights. He called this tactic the "power of the powerless" because, even when disagreement is almost forbidden, a state that insists on actually compelling assent can be relatively easily made to look stupid. At around the same time, and alarmed in a different way by many of the same things (the morbid relationship of the cold war to the nuclear arms race), Professor EP Thompson proposed that we live "as if" a free and independent Europe already existed"
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movements, video and writing culture.

PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Activist Journeys YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/y9vwdcj3

User avatar
AMP3083
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by AMP3083 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:31 pm

That doesn't answer the question. Can ya' respond without making what looks to be an essay? I almost thought you were Brim.

User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1002
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Post by NonZeroSum » Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:22 pm

AMP3083 wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:31 pm
That doesn't answer the question. Can ya' respond without making what looks to be an essay? I almost thought you were Brim.
It's BS word games already dealt with by Brim, I want maximum autonomy to the individual to come to the best social and organizational relationships, we can find any narratives of shakily legitimate authority distasteful, but asserting axioms as if they demand immediate lawlessness and no imperative against race war is idiotic. I'm in favour of building popular consciousness to replace a representative voting system with a voluntary communitarian spokes delegation one, I don't think sitting on your ass on polling day when there is a legitimate choice between two philosophies, one closer to total liberation than the other holds any merit.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movements, video and writing culture.

PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Activist Journeys YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/y9vwdcj3

BrianBlackwell
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 9:37 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Post by BrianBlackwell » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:36 pm

NonZeroSum wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:22 pm
I don't think sitting on your ass on polling day when there is a legitimate choice between two philosophies, one closer to total liberation than the other holds any merit.
No candidate represents "closer" to total liberation, since the very existence of a candidate is inherently opposite to the goal. Even if a guy ran on the platform "I will make everyone free" I wouldn't vote for him, because to do so would indicate a belief that we need someone else's permission to be free, which we do not. We are born free, and any institution that suggests otherwise is a fallacious aggressor in purposeful denial of reality. Why do I have to tell you this, I thought you were an anarchist???

Here's the main point: voting is a census taken by the government to determine how many people still believe that government has the right to rule. I will not support this belief.

I do not recognize their authority. If two homeless maniacs came up to me on the street and said "pick one of us to rule you!" I would likewise dismiss them for the same reason. If I allowed the inevitability of the Pub or Dem candidate becoming president to affect my judgement (the "throwing your vote away" argument), then I would BE the problem I'm trying to solve, and would not be living in accord with my principals.

If everyone just turned their back on government, including police and military, they would simply disappear. I have to BE the change I want to see in the world, or I become the one others can point to to prove that it's impossible to ever get everyone to turn away. You should understand this -- do you drop veganism simply because the prospect of a vegan world is overwhelmingly unlikely at this time?

You don't understand the anarchist argument being offered, which is clearly evidenced by the fact that you think Brim satisfactorily addressed it. Now, do you honestly care to understand it so you can accurately evaluate where you stand, or is your mind already made up? I don't want to waste both our time.

User avatar
AMP3083
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by AMP3083 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:49 pm

I highly suggest watching a video on YT called 'The Jones Plantation' -- it's about slaves getting duped into voting for a nicer slave master. If you seen it already then I'd be pretty disappointed considering your current position on voting. Take it from Carlin, vote if you want, but if the person you voted for fucks up the country in any way, then you have no right to complain.
Larken Rose wrote:Voting is an act of aggression, and loving “democracy” amounts to loving widespread violence and constant conflict. Political elections are not about togetherness, unity or tolerance; they are about arguing over how everyone should be forced to behave and what everyone should be forced to financially support, via the control machine called “government.” The abundance of campaign signs littering lawns prior to every election are not the sign of an enlightened, free society; they are the sign of a mentally and physically enslaved society, bickering over which slave master they want holding the whip. Every single person who votes (Democrat, Republican, or third party) is attempting to put people into power who will carry out large-scale extortion (”taxation”) to fund various “government” programs. Any candidate who suggested doing away with all such robbery entirely – repealing all “taxes” – would be ridiculed as an extremist kook. All voters attempt to empower a gang that they know will commit mass robbery, yet none of those voters accept any responsibility for doing so. They know what their candidates will do if put into power, they know what the consequences will be to any who then disobey the commands of those politicians, but the belief in “authority” makes the voters psychologically incapable of recognizing that what they are doing is advocating widespread violence.
The World's Most Dangerous Superstition, pg. 104
Larken Rose wrote: But doing exactly the same things via “government,” advocating mass extortion and thuggery, is accepted by most as something that normal, civilized people should do. In fact, they sometimes refer to voting as a duty, as if it is actually immoral to not advocate the coercive controlling of one’s neighbors. Amazingly, and ironically, the only people who do not advocate constant widespread violence and coercion via “government” – anarchists and voluntaryists – are usually viewed by the majority as being weird, uncivilized and dangerous.
(pg. 113)

User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1002
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Post by NonZeroSum » Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:46 am

BrianBlackwell wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:22 am
Do you believe that you own yourself? By extension, do you believe that others also own themselves?
I believe people should be able to decide for themselves what they do with their own mind and body, try their hand at anything in life that isn't unnecessarily harmful. I believe workers should be able to group together to collectively bargain for a fair share of the fruits of their labour and even take direct collective control where operations are being managed poorly. I believe in order to maximize universal good we need to co-operate so hard working people don't get left behind, that necessarily means supporting areas of the world which aren't as industrialized, this involves a lot of jobs which don't have a profit incentive, people becoming skilled in knowing how to build infrastructure from the ground up, the money comes from communities of people being well informed by these spokespersons and entrusting organizational authority in them.

This is one aspect of what I'm doing when I vote, parties draw up policies based on popularity of constituents they want to win, we have a national health service, and a lot of people think we should train more doctors and nurses and pay them a decent salary so we have security in the trade and good patient service, the other party doesn't want to respond to those calls by the unions, so that is the purpose of the vote as litmus test, under anarchism maybe the doctors syndicate wouldn't be able to deploy as much resources to the areas that weren't willing to trade for training hospitals, I think those conservatives would suddenly find a deep appreciation for them at that point aha.

Either way there is often a clear choice about what kind of society you want to live in when you go to the ballot, on the long journey we've been on since feudalism, there is a place for spoiling your vote when both candidates are almost identical and equally bad, and there is good critique to be had of expecting all your results to be had from working within an antiquated system, but if you know not enough people were awake enough to fundamentally restructure systems of organisation from the workplace to aid cases in the last 4 years such that government remained and a vote was coming up in which great swaths of people were lining up to vote for something terrible by statistical certainty, you add your vote to the other side, it's that bloody simple.
It seems that the vegan ideal is founded on this very premise.
No, you have a philosophy which is staunchly egoist and solipsistic and project that onto everyone else, until you take the time to properly understand other peoples systems of philosophy, discussion with you isn't going to be worth anyone's time.

See this thread for the universalist schools for veganism - http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=968#p9764
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:36 pm
If everyone just turned their back on government, including police and military, they would simply disappear. I have to BE the change I want to see in the world, or I become the one others can point to to prove that it's impossible to ever get everyone to turn away. You should understand this -- do you drop veganism simply because the prospect of a vegan world is overwhelmingly unlikely at this time?
It's called being pragmatic, the only reason not to vote would be if you had over 50% of every area in the entire country totally dedicated to self-organizing and ignoring the upcoming elections because they were totally sure in their collectives of the result, that they needent worry about a reactionairy army putting down their self-management because they had sufficiently educated the masses to allay any fears of gangs taking over, that there was already a carefully co-ordinated network of resource management such that everyone would be continued to be cared for and flourish even better than before.

I do point to you as a flagbearer of proof that the country isn't ready yet, because you solipsistically don't vote to allay evil, don't give to charity, believe in wackjob conspiracies, carry on paying for the slaughter of animals, and because your intuition about what system of organisation/governance would benefit the country when you did chose between Al Gore and Bush was a complete imbecile who couldn't get enough of bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last edited by NonZeroSum on Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movements, video and writing culture.

PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Activist Journeys YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/y9vwdcj3

User avatar
AMP3083
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by AMP3083 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:14 am

NonZeroSum wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:46 am
I believe people should be able to decide for themselves what they do with their own mind and body, try their hand at anything in life that isn't unnecessarily harmful.
I agree, only if it means without the interference of government. So, does that count for anything if I want to build a house on a piece of land (that I know for sure is not occupied by anyone) without having to acquire a permit and ultimately keeping government agents off my back?
I do point to you as a flagbearer of proof that the country isn't ready yet, because you solipsistically don't vote to alley evil, don't give to charity, believe in wackjob conspiracies, carry on paying for the slaughter of animals
Don't you think people would willingly give to charities even if taxes were optional? And what do you think your tax dollars are paying for, besides building roads? War, perhaps? Weapons of mass destruction? Slaughterhouses?

User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1002
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Post by NonZeroSum » Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:40 am

AMP3083 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:14 am
NonZeroSum wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:46 am
I believe people should be able to decide for themselves what they do with their own mind and body, try their hand at anything in life that isn't unnecessarily harmful.
I agree, only if it means without the interference of government. So, does that count for anything if I want to build a house on a piece of land (that I know for sure is not occupied by anyone) without having to acquire a permit and ultimately keeping government agents off my back?
Does your belief in your right mean anything, yes if you have the determination to follow it to it's end, if your passion is making the system of house aquesition work for more people:

You can squat houses and land and put the results in internet to show how you're renovating them and fostering caring community - http://takebacktheland.org/
You can build a charity structure with documented evidence of capability and expenditure, take it to government and ask them to give up properties to you for pennies to renovate and give previously homeless people skills - http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/leeds-housing-focus-renovating-empty-homes-for-those-in-need-in-community-1-8733150
You can specialise in green architecture and petition parties and government to let any biodegradable structures be built without planning permission for the environment. Alternatively build in secret or confidence of a small village of people who approve and claim ownership after time has run up on the law, gain public media fame and hope to sway opinion and policy.
http://www.stewardwood.org/index.ghtml
AMP3083 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:14 am
Don't you think people would willingly give to charities even if taxes were optional?
I don't assume so no.
And what do you think your tax dollars are paying for, besides building roads? War, perhaps? Weapons of mass destruction? Slaughterhouses?
Something I can't avoid if I want to work to support my family & friends, something I can limit by allaying the most evil when there is a clear middle ground between what I want and what's on offer.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movements, video and writing culture.

PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Activist Journeys YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/y9vwdcj3

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests