Self-possession is one's ownership of oneself, nothing more, nothing less. Your above scenario violates Bill's ownership of himself. Bob's degree of need is no good measure of Bill's ownership of himself.
It is not clear to me what that means. It's not a matter of you adding or subtracting from the concept, I want you to explain what it means. Yes, it violates Bill's ownership of himself, but not doing it violates Bob's ownership of himself. Arguably, the latter is worse for people's ownership of themselves, since Bill would be hard pressed to even notice $100, whereas to Bob, it can have a large impact.
Until 1776, almost everyone who ever lived was owned by someone else. Most women who ever lived were owned by their fathers and/or their husbands. When the idea of self-possession first entered public discourse, in Europe, in the 1600s, it was mocked as, "everyone is a king thinking". The phrase, 'every man's home is his castle', was a punch line to a joke about self-possession. The idea of self-possession extends from the idea that one's ownership of them self comes directly from their Creator. From one's ownership of them self extend inalienable rights, among them are: life, liberty and private property.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear. I do not understand what you mean by the phrase. I don't care about where it comes from, who used it first or what propaganda people in the 1600s were making about it, I'm wondering what it is. What are the principles that I can use to identify it, beyond the obvious? Like, I understand that a person who is in slavery and has been purchased by someone does not have self-possession, but I'm wondering how far the concept stretches. Does it include anyone who fails to impact their surroundings to their wishes?
I think I understand where we're getting crossed up. I am referring to relationships between equals. I am not necessarily talking about individuals' relationships between themselves and their subordinates or their relationships between themselves and inanimates. Everyone loses self-possession upon death. Subordinates (fauna & flora) and inanimates (stones, etc.), as well as atmosphere or temperature can deprive individuals of their self-possession by infringing upon their lives, liberties and property.
Looking at it from one perspective, that could best be fit into the economic paradigms of access to capital and economies of scale. You are right though.
An economic is a trade off. Economics allocate scarce resources that have alternative uses. Free Market Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals act according to their own self interests, to the benefit of others. More specifically, in a free market, individuals are free from infringement upon acting in their own self interests, as long as they do not infringe upon their equals by force. In a free market, products and services are worth whatever someone will pay for them, and they cost whatever someone else will pay for them. Socialism is an economic system in which individuals act according to the interests of others ultimately to their own benefit. In a socialistic economy, products and services are worth whatever someone else says it's worth and it costs whatever someone else says it's costs By definition. ,all economic systems are replete with trade offs. Indeed, all life is a trade off. There are only so many hours in a day and days in a life. It's all a trade off. I could be making money or love right now. It's all a bunch of trade offs.
This fits with...... Was Moses - Moshe a brilliant economist? Is the following statement one of the most accurate ideas regarding what we human beings are actually capable of IF..............we can actually agree on the need for a particular project? "And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." (Genesis 11)
Please use the quote function, otherwise I don't get a notification. You haven't said anything at all about self possession being about relationship between any people other than the person and their own self (or maybe you did before, but not to the point where I understood how that feeds into the concept). Ok, so are we justified in taking self-possession from one person to alleviate deprivation of self-possession of another? For instance, if a person Bob is dying from a treatable disease, and thus risking all of their self-possession, are we justified in taking a little self-possession from Bill Gates in order to avoid Bob losing a larger amount of self-possession?
Some make their own goods for their own well being. Store offered products are luxuries often times. But in older days, such as the Pioneers, they didn't purchase their homes, or their food, or their toiletries. They made them all by hand and with the help of their family members. But then again, as your statement of Economics is put into the equation, they didn't really have economic regulations to abide by either; as in 100 cents make 1 dollar.
Self-possession is the individual's ownership of them self. Withholding what I possess, or even taking what you possess has no bearing upon the self-possession. Violations, affirmations and defenses of self-possession have no bearing upon what self-possession is and is not. Self-possession is nothing more or less than one's ownership of them self. Now, we can discuss whether or not any of your above scenarios violate your proverbial characters' self-possession; as long as we are clear about what exactly self-possession is.
Sorry for the long response time, I've been on vacation. I agree that for the moment, the discussion is about what self-possession means. My examples are not meant to argue anything about violation or defending self-possession, they're merely examples that I understand, and if I can link them correctly to the concept of self-possession, then I will understand more about what you call self-possession. Ok, if I understand the concept well enough, then it seems to me that it is rather arbitrary. You say (correct me if I'm wrong) that the government should only be involved in maintaining this self-possession. What is the reasoning behind that? I'm not sure whether you count yourself among those who argue that taxes are slavery by extension, but it seems to me that if taxes are slavery by extension, then falling ill is murder by extension. Or you could say that neither of those are true, in which case, this entire line of argument says very little about how we should run a society.
My belief that government (the legal use of force) should be constrained to the defense of self possession extends from my belief that the only justification individuals have to use force against their equals is in defense of self possession. In my opinion, the least worst way to "run a society", that includes a government, is to constrain that government to the consent of the governed. A government of the people, by the people and for the people cannot have authority that exceeds the authority of the individuals it governs. Where did they get that authority? They didn't get it from us; we never had it to give them. The authority of government should not exceed the authority we, as individuals, have to give it, nor should its authority grow with its majority. Government is the legal use of force. There is a time to kill. Government may well be a good way to go about that, but 'that' is not what many are talking about anymore in our current society. In our current society, very few recognize government for what it is - the legal use of force. The have a best-intentions view of government. Very few consider having their very best intentions, for others, imposed upon them, by force of law, to be a usurpation of other people's best intentions for themselves. Too many consider it the only reasonable alternative to chaos or having their counterpart's best intentions imposed upon them by force, or by mere exposure. They equate other people having authority over themselves with chaos; but most of all, they fear having responsibility for themselves. Liberty extends from self-possession. Liberty is the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self. A nation of individuals cannot long retain for themselves more individual liberty that they have tolerance for what others do, or don't do, with their liberty. We must choose between maximizing human well being or minimizing inequities between them. If history, especially the history of the twentieth century, teaches us anything, it teaches us that the use of force, legal or otherwise, in pursuit of equality of outcome, can only suppress the top; it cannot lift the bottom. I recommend a balance, but a balancing act it will be between equity and prosperity. Welcome home!
They did not trade. They did not receive charity. They did not steal. Their economy was simple. They were industrious, or they died. That was their trade-off. That was their economy.
Thanks! I mean, if we truly were concerned with authority, then where does the government get the authority to defend self-possession, whatever that might mean? We never gave the state that either, did we? Where do even individuals get that authority? I do agree that they do have that authority, but I don't see why such a logic would draw the line exactly where you draw it. A night watch man state will protect me from dying at the hands of a murderer but not dying at the hands of cancer. Those seem to me equal losses of self-possession, so arguments from self-possession can't be the source of that difference. On another angle, if we are really concerned with authority, why does, let's say starvation, have authority over our lives? Most people didn't consent to starvation. You want to intervene when a murderer violates our consent, but not when starvation does. It seems to me that the idea you present looks at governmental authority in a vacuum. I would like to take a broader approach which makes this decision in the context of other consent being violated and maximising our authority in that broader context. I agree that in practice the solution is a balance, this is more an academic discussion, I would say.
Not dying of cancer does not justify you taking from one's equals by force, not even by force of law. One's need is no good measure of another's responsibility. The use of force against our equals is, at times, regretfully necessary on occasion. There is a time to kill. That said, force should not be used against one's equals except when those others infringe upon our ownership of our selves, our self-possession. I have no problem using force against cancer. I have no problem fighting crime or fire with force. I am referring specifically to force between equals. I am a stone mason. I survive via the use of force against inanimate objects for my entire adult life. I have staved off starvation via the use of force against inanimate objects not my equals. My needs are no good measure of your obligations.
Why not? Isn't it in defence of their self-possession? So then you're of the opinion that military and police also shouldn't be funded? They see to a need, do they not? It seems again you're just repeating your arguments. I have identified what I think is an inconsistency, and I would like you to comment on that inconsistency, not just say the same things you've already said. You're dodging the point. This isn't about whether you're allowed to use force against cancer, it is about whether we are justified in using public money to do so. On a separate point, let's say person A has an apple, and person B steals the apple. Person B now owns the apple, albeit illegitimately. Let's then say person B is caught by the police (or whoever else you think is allowed to interfere to defend self-possession) and the apple is returned to person A. In this interaction, does the process by which person A received the apple fall under industry, theft, trade or charity?
Defense of self possession is only justified against that which is infringing upon self possession. Therefore, if cancer infringes upon your self possession, use force against the cancer not your equals. On the other hand, if your equal unjustly infringes upon your self possession, use force against him, legal or otherwise. There is a time to defend one's self possession. There is a time to kill in defense of self possession. In the defense of self possession, it is sometimes necessary to use force against our equals, legal or otherwise. The legal use of force may well be a batter option; taxation is the price of the that option. But that is, of course, another topic altogether. The legal use of force should be constrained to use against our equals who unjustly infringe upon our self possession. Government should be constrained to defending individuals from each other not the cosmic unfairness of the universe or ourselves. Your hypothetical cannot be answered in regard to person A because you begin your hypothetical with person A simply having an apple, then you ask me how he acquired that apple. It is clear that person B acquired the apple by theft. Military and police, government - the legal use of force, may well be a better way to use force when force is necessary. Then again, it may not be. But that's another discussion. Government should definitely be constrained to using force against in response to the first users of force. Losing self possession to cancer does not justify you to use force, not even by proxy by the force of law, against your equals. Paul robbing you does not justify you taxing Peter. Cancer robbing you does not justify you taxing anyone.
You seem to have misunderstood the question. I'm not asking whether you're justified in using force against cancer, I'm asking whether you're justified in using public funds for it. I don't think that is another topic. The question revolves entirely around whether we are justified in using public funds to prevent infringement upon self possession. You say yay in one case, but not the other, yet the justification you present cannot tell the two cases apart. Why? If we are concerned with any feature of the citizen, how does the cause of the unfairness matter? The result is the same in both cases. The difference is the perpetrator, not the self possession. I don't see why that invalidates my question. We can postulate a specific way in which person A acquired his apple the first time, I don't think it will impact the resolution. Let's say Alice (person A) bought an apple. She is now in possession of the apple. Bob (person B) steals the apple. Now, he is in possession of the apple. Grace (the police) apprehends Bob and forces him to restore the apple to Alice. In the last step, possession of the apple goes from Bob to Alice, so Alice gains possession of the apple (but it is not the same process as the purchase in which Alice originally gained possession of the apple). That seems to me to have happened through neither trade, industry, theft nor charity. If the question cannot be answered, then it seems to me it is incorrect to say that possession can only be gained through those processes. So by that logic, government is not justified in using taxes to enforce the law, or protect ones self-possession either. "Paul robbing you does not justify you taxing Peter" seems to me to be at odds with "The legal use of force should be constrained to use against our equals who unjustly infringe upon our self possession".
I can only repeat myself now. I have answered all of your queries above. No. Force, not even the legal use of force, should be used against one's equals to pay for another's cancer treatment. Force can be used on anything other than one's equals unless they are unjustly infringing upon the self possession of another. I no where above wrote anything you attribute to me in regards to the legitimacy of taxes, police, courts or military. You arrived to this thread with those prejudices, and I wrote nothing to dispel them. I began this conversation with the intention of establishing some basics. You keep wanting to skip past those basics and address how those basics affirm your prejudices. Please, just address what I write and not what you think I'm skipping around. The things I write are quite basic, but that's where I think our divergences begin. That written, I will endeavor to reiterate. There is a time to kill. There is a time to defend self possession from our equals with force. The right to do so emanates from individuals not governments. However, the use of force against one's equals should be constrained to the defense of self possession from the those unjustly infringing upon one's self possession. We should not use force against our equals to defend self possession from the cosmic injustices inherent to individuality. From each according to their will. To each according to their ability.
I don't think you have. Is Alice being given her apple back an example of industry, theft, charity or trade? Or is it not an instance of someone gaining possession of something? Or is your theory of the ways in which people can gain possession of something incomplete? That seems to me a direct question which I have not received an answer to. I think there are scenarios in which the obtaining of goods, in particular good which can be readily found, which can be obtained from nature without ingenuity, such as a caveman finding clean water by accident. Is that industry, theft, charity or trade, or is it not gaining possession, or is your theory of the ways in which people can gain possession of something incomplete? That too seems to me a direct question which I don't think I know your answer to. And if you have answered everything, just repeating it is still not a good solution. If I don't understand it, you should help me understand it by explaining how it applies. When you say "The legal use of force should be constrained to use against our equals who unjustly infringe upon our self possession", it seems to me you deliberately left a window for the justification of police and courts etc., or at least, I think I could be excused for drawing that conclusion. Do you in addition believe that police, courts etc. are not justified? That is going to affect which arguments I choose to present, so I feel like that's an important cog in this discussion. The things I don't address, I either already agree with, or my way of addressing them starts with establishing how you interpret your statements. I'm not trying to address how the "basics" affirm my prejudices, I am critiquing your suggested basics by seeing if the conclusions which arise from those basics are reasonable. If the police returning an apple to its rightful owner does not fall into any of the categories, then your basics must be wrong. I think that's a valid critique (or at least, line of inquiry). Why reiterate? That in no way addresses my arguments. I need you to string your argument together with the concerns I have.
Alice acted in defense of her private property, and therefore her self possession, albeit by proxy. The cave man's find of clean safe water must be recognized, by him, as such for such a series of such finds to sustain him. That type of recognition requires ingenuity. Human beings do not have sufficient instinct to sustain themselves. We must learn, practice and be industrious. Unless someone else brought the water to his mouth as an act of charity, the cave man had to be industrious enough to recognize the water, go to the water and drink the water. Human instincts are insufficient. Human beings must be industrious to survive. Human beings must combine ingenuity with material to survive. Falling face first into a clean, safe pool of water when thirsty just isn't the sort of thing that will keep human beings alive. Individuals can lend to government rights they have as individuals; however, the rights that are loaned to government should not be allowed to accumulate beyond the rights that the individuals governed have to give them. If I have a right to do something, I can loan that to a government. Governments should not have the rights that individuals never had to give them in the first place. I don't have a problem with people exercising their right to defend their self possession by proxy. I do have a problem with governments that have more authority than we ever had to give them in the first place. I, as an individual, have absolutely no right to impose upon you almost all of what is today 'law'. There are only a tiny fraction of a percentage of our laws that I would impose upon you by force, legal or otherwise, by proxy or otherwise. Those are the same exact impositions I would employ if there were no laws.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked whether it is theft/industry/trade/charity, or if that paradigm is unable to describe that gain of possession. The statement I take issue with in your OP is about acquiring goods, not about keeping someone alive or sustain oneself. It seems to me it is quite possible for someone to come into possession of clean water, by obtaining it through instinct. If we want to be picky about justifications, how and why do humans obtain those rights?
I do not know how "Alice " acquired the apple. Your scenario does not include that information. She defended her ownership of the apple by proxy in your scenario. My Op most certainly did include the qualifier, "four ways to acquire the products we need to SURVIVE". Rights cannot come from one's equals. We cannot be endowed by ourselves or each other with rights. If it comes from one's equals it is something else. It's an entitlement or something else, but it's not a right.
