logic is at the very least a subset of mathematics. they are very arguably the same thing. writing proofs is the ultimate and purest form of logic. logic is merely deductive reasoning. philosophy is a loose form of “logic” with ambiguous language.
for every axiom that exists in math, philosophy will have tried to adopt it. and for every consistent axiom in philosophy, math will have an equivalent. any extra philosophical axioms that may or may not exist are dubious at best. and the self-ownership axiom isnt even that. its a genuine fallacy.
adding axioms is a very serious thing if youre going to project them as some general morality. apparently you dont give it the respect that is required from any intellectually honest and logically capable mind
philosophy without mathematics and science is obsolete. modern philosophy is not needed since mathematics, science, and economics have clearly replaced the role of philosophy in analysis and knowledge.
as far as axioms are concerned (as i said in my other video which you didnt even watch), they must be true throughout time. if your self-ownership can be taken from you, either by slavery or murder, then it cannot be an axiom since your “axiom” CAN be falsified for you and IS falsified for somebody throughout time (counterexample past slavery, contemporary slavery, future slavery)
and again, your statement “i own myself” really is “everyone owns themselves” unless your are only arguing for your own self-ownership. and its apparent you meant this for all points in time therefore your “axiom” must be “all people, at all times, own themselves.” and again this statement can is falsified when someone has the will and ability to overcome the “owner’s” ability to defend it. if you actually watched my video, not only does an axiom have to be seemingly true at all times, BUT IT MUST NEVER BE ABLE TO BE FALSIFIED.
when it comes to any property including one’s self…
owning your __________ is violatable (meaning all it takes is someone with the will and ability to do so and all your “axioms” become bonafide fallacy)
also if owning yourself is always true, then there is no argument against enslaving or killing you. then your whole goal of showing why slavery is wrong becomes moot.
please learn to distinguish between the terms can, is, and ought. ability statements, descriptive statements, prescriptive statements . prescriptive statements are a subset of ability statements , and ability statements are a subset of descriptive statements.
amateur logicians and modern philosophers that arent logicians tend to conflate by using ambiguous poorly defined terms. that is sophistry. with proper math training, you learn to differentiate by adopting a well-defined definition set, which obviously you have not done.
what you are trying to establish as an axiom is “a person should own himself”. but this is perspectiveless and does not evolutionarily make sense with egoutist analysis.
egoutism says that well-defined terms must be a type of well-defined function. if a term is well defined, it will classify any object in reality as either an element of that definition set (meta-self) or its complement.
you didnt select the best axioms that make sense of the world. you picked the best set of axioms that make sense of rights.
telling a slave he has the right to defend himself when there is no sufficent ability to allow him to do so makes no sense in reality.
just like saying someone has the right to jump to the moon as long as he doesnt violate others right to do so makes no sense.
where is the logical deduction from you own your body to you own everything you produce?that is just other axioms!. therefore i own everything i look at. also another counterexample is laboring a piece of property that you stole. do you own it? obviously you need to instill a first to labor rule. and also by this silly reasoning you own all intellectual property that your mind “produces”
cost of defending rights has been so diluted you dont even see it. two man island and costs of rights.