axioms and definition are the foundations of knowledge and understanding. the limits of knowledge manifest itself in the axioms (in particular, with respect to the people who adopt a set of axioms), as it is impossible to be certain about anything.
while ultimately the choice of axioms is arbitrary, their usefulness is not (just like solving a system of equations). once a well-defined objective is set (like seeking the truth), the value of your axioms becomes determined. if your intent is to make sense of rights, then your goal is not intellectually honest (not seeking the truth, since it assumes rights are consistent). since the true purpose of adopting a set of axioms should not be to validate a conclusion that makes you feel better but instead to better explain the world. Egoutism makes a point to always be careful not to project your emotional meta-self onto a general rule like morality. one could just as easily adopt an axiom that says no one owns themselves (which is equally preposterous) if they were out to prove your concept of “rights” ridiculous.
since all logical deduction is conditional on the set of axioms chosen it is incumbent upon the person (who has a sincere desire to find truth and not to validate the silly idea of rights/entitlements)to choose a set of axioms that meet the following minimum requirements
- be sure that each axiom does not have a counterexample that DISPROVES the axiom. the axiom of “Everyone owns themselves” clearly fails this most important test. (also there should be no proof of the axiom since it would not longer be called an axiom)
- minimize the number (or scope) of the axioms. since axioms should be assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven but are consistent with all physical evidence (statistical or empirical)
- choose the set of axioms so that they are consistent with eachother. (minimize the number of contradictions generated by deductive logic).
- resolve as perceptual paradoxes, and makes the best sense of reality, make the most accurate predictions
- cover the ground not touched upon by axiom, theorem and law of math and science, remain mutually exclusive of any other axiom (to avoid inconsistencies).
here are some of axioms of ego-utilitarianism that satisfy the rules above:
- axiom: all math axioms and theorems, and all laws of science (and to a lesser extent economics) are compulsory axioms
- deduction: therefore evolution exists and is the mechanism that determines existence at anyone one point in space/time.
- axiom: concepts exist by default
- axiom: only well defined statements have a true or false value (can be proven or disproven)
it would be unfair and intellectually dishonest of me to adopt the axiom “im always right” just because from my perspective its true and it proves you wrong
now the self ownership axiom already blows up when you consider 1. the logical negation of statement “everyone owns themselves” is the statement “there exists a person who doesnt own himself” (throughout time). since there are explicit counterexamples of past, modern, and future slavery. this is sufficient to PROVE that the self ownership statement is UNEQUIVOCALLY FALSE. also murder is a form or removing one’s self-ownership of one’s body. and i think there exist clear cases of murder…
if you claim that the self-ownership axiom proves rights, then you have to explain the fact that rights have no value when no one provides them. and on a two man island rights seem to vanishm showing rights are a statist/religious concept
the fallacy that if i reject the self-ownership axiom then i necessarily say its moral for you to beat me up and take my stuff.
brainwashing wasnt my counterexample
at any point in time people can take over self-ownership of another, simply by murdering them or imprisoning them.
right to defend yourself is meaningless. your ability to defend your self is not necessarily sufficent to fend off someone elses ability to violate your “rights”. i doubt jews had this “self-ownership right” back in nazi germany, or black people back in the american slavery days. why did their rights just vanish?
eagleeye1975 is just projecting his self-interest on morality which just shows he feels he should be able to keep his stuff. a bias toward wanting to own onesself. also he fails to transcend all the statist and religious bullshit that was inculcated into him and truly pursue truth.
if you want feel good axioms i can just adopt axioms like “i am the best”, ” i never lose an argument”, “value is subjective”
the reason i referenced hoppe is because he made the most compelling logical case for self-ownership (and still failed miserably since trying to prove a clearly false claim is quixotic)
didnt even listen to my property ethic: the exculsion criterion of property
as far as intellectual integrity is concerned, you lose that argument as well since you admit youre out to prove the concept of rights, to justify them. youre not set out to know truth.
also as a determinist, one can make a compelling case you dont even control your own thoughts. i dont even have to envoke this since my previous arguments are more than sufficient to transform the self-ownership “axiom” into a bonafide self-ownership FALLACY