Notices by sofia ☮️🏴 (sofia@chaos.social), page 4

@lain @jlou okay, that's kinda fucked up. paying restitution for things done to my property that i haven't asked for.

that doesn't sound like something Rothbardians/neo-Lockeans would support, but i guess i'm quite sure if Ellerman would 🤔.

@lain @jlou yeah that's why i said it's not sure how much you can really infer from from "people cannot be rented". he says he's fine with people acting as if they were slaves, as long as there is no legal basis behind it. i'm not sure that any benign wage labour situation would need to legally treat people as rented.

the chair example is interesting. i guess you could argue that the result isn't actually the same, but i can't really see the harm.

@lain @jlou but that doesn't give him any property claim over the house, does it?

@jlou i think, actually, property law should be based on contract. and the basic principle is just "i respect yours because you respect mine". so it is not an extension of "self-ownership" and instead bodily autonomy is basic right while property just a collective arrangement. that seems to mesh with Ellerman's points somehow.

@jlou putting bodily autonomy over property seems to address the encirclement problem of strong propertarianism (when the people owning the land around yours would decide not to let you leave anymore). but i think it would also prevent excesses of propertylessness. like if someone steals a wheelchair, i think that can be considered a violation of bodily autonomy, not just theft.

of course in the middle there is still a lot of ambiguity and room for negotiation.

@jlou it seems another case against "labour theory of property" is just that it's arbitrary to limit it to unowned thing. surely i could "mix my labour" in other people's property and spread my owner-juice in it. what labour metaphysics would prevent that? all i can think of is that it's inconvenient and magnifies the "labour is subjective" problem.

@jlou does he assume that democracy is automatically consensual?

some, like David Graeber, seem to like to redefine democracy to basically mean anarchy, and that James Buchanan quote on the beginning seems to suggest a similar thining.

though i think it makes more sense to characterize anarchy by the autonomy of all and souvereignty of none, rather than the souvereignty of all. there'd be noone to to be reigned over, after all.

@jlou but do you think any modern democratic states have a basis in consent?

it seems that people are given no choice to reject being a subject of the state they are in.

elections don't give you that choice either. and they don't let you choose who sits at the top of the ruling class, either. you only get a minuscule nudge into the mechanism that decides it.

having a vote is not the same as having a choice.

@jlou i also like the point that Crispin Sartwell makes here: https://soundcloud.com/nonserviammedia/non-serviam-podcast-11-crispin

given how powerful the state is, it is not clear that people could meaningfully consent to it. if group of highly armed mercenaries asks if they can come in your house to have tea, can we know you genuinely consented to their visit? now multiply the lethal force commanded by 10000, and assume the group also has taken over key social institutions like the legal and monetary system.

@jlou ah, it seems like we agree on quite a bit already 😃.

i haven't really read it yet. such large texts are pretty overwhelming to me. i hope soon i can just throw all those PDFs into an audio converter…

as for wage labour, i think horizontal, cooperative arrangements are preferable bosses and would probably be predominant in a free society. but i do think there are valid reasons to not co-own things you are involved with, especially for temporary involvements.

also: https://chaos.social/@sofia/110007231571662583

@jlou he does make quike a compelling case with the respsonsibility thing, i like it! i'm not quote sure yet how much that really gets you. but i'll have to think about that more.

one thing it seems that i disagree with Ellerman (and most ancaps) is the whole "labour theory of property" thing, which i came up myself as a derogatory term.

basically what you do to an unowned thing has subjective value, and there can be legitimate disagreement on whether you "mixed in your labour" or ruined it.

@kaia

@kaia "hey, grüner wirds nicht! aber es wird dann noch orange… und dann… weiß…??"

@lain to be fair, it's not like the non-"for men" version is ungendered, exactly.

also i'd kinda avoid "for men" products, but i'm allowed because i'm special 😛. also i got a safety razor OF STEEL.

i just found out that Veet also makes hair removal cream "for men". the main difference seem to be that instead of being "pure" it is "total pro" 😆. it also has a photo hairless muscley man tits on the packaging instead of pale outlines of smooth legs.

i'm not even mad, but it's still silly 😛.

@kaia fact: you're not a real gamer if this never happened to you 🧐.

@kaia probably because the're so hot 🤔.

@benni

it's so fitting that Hume's "is-ought problem" is also called "Hume's guillotine", because it kills philosophy by dividing it into two futile efforts: perception without action, and decision without knowledge.

the first part seems particularly neglected: in reality, you can't get any "is" without "oughts". not only because you need to know what observations and experiments give you the best knowledge, but sense organs and cognitive processes themselves "ought" to work in certain ways to be useful to gain knowledge.

the distinction is one of grammar, not physics.