Proving Morality

[moda0306]

It's not that I don't agree with you in a lot of respects, rick.... I just don't need to have that debate to dismantle Kshartle's logic around self-ownership, especially when we extend that to property.

Or to agree with it...

A more open-minded way of re-stating your last sentence is "The debate of the influence of society (other people) does not invalidate the premise that people ultimately choose their actions.

Ha. Yes. Touché K.  It may be debatable to discuss what those choices truly are when it comes to morality, but that's a discussion, like children and animals, for another day.

[rickb]

It's not that I don't agree with you in a lot of respects, rick.... I just don't need to have that debate to dismantle Kshartle's logic around self-ownership, especially when we extend that to property.

Or to agree with it...

A more open-minded way of re-stating your last sentence is "The debate of the influence of society (other people) does not invalidate the premise that people ultimately choose their actions.

I asked you to agree or argue with

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

And, instead, you're stating an opinion as if it's a fact.

Is #5 a fact?  Yes or no.  If not, why not?

[Pointedstick]

I asked you to agree or argue with

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

And, instead, you're stating an opinion as if it's a fact.

Is #5 a fact?  Yes or no.  If not, why not?

My own answer would be: yes, but it's not relevant to any of Kshartle's other stipulations so far. The fact that we all grew up in a society and have been influenced by the context surrounding us do not mean that we are incapable of choice or independent thoughts.

[Kshartle]

It's not that I don't agree with you in a lot of respects, rick.... I just don't need to have that debate to dismantle Kshartle's logic around self-ownership, especially when we extend that to property.

Or to agree with it...

A more open-minded way of re-stating your last sentence is "The debate of the influence of society (other people) does not invalidate the premise that people ultimately choose their actions.

I asked you to agree or argue with

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

And, instead, you're stating an opinion as if it's a fact.

Is #5 a fact?  Yes or no.  If not, why not?

No because society is just an opinion. It doesn't exist. Other people exist. Their actions and our ideas about their potential actions influence our choices but there is no such thing as society in actual reality, it's just an idea in our heads. It's a word we assign to a group of people and give it meaning.

If I say "Other people exist. Their actions and our ideas about their potential actions influence our choices". Does that satisfy your concern?

If not can you please answer my questions and we'll prove society isn't reality it's just an opinion.

[Kshartle]

And, instead, you're stating an opinion as if it's a fact.

ahahahah I knew this was coming!

We really need to understand the difference between opinion and fact.

An opinion is a belief about something that is subjective, personally held and if no one agreed with you they still couldn't prove you wrong.

Facts are objective statements about reality that can be proven false or true. (the Earth is round)

So rickb......if society exists can you touch it? Can you talk with it? Does it act? What did society have for breakfast yesterday? Is there a North Korean society? A Californian society? Is your family a society? If I say yes to all three and you disagree am I wrong?

BTW - I'm not laughing at you it's just that earlier I said it's vital we understand the difference between opinion and fact because when people disagree they call the others persons facts "opinions" and their own opinions suddenly are "facts".

[Kshartle]

I asked you to agree or argue with

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

And, instead, you're stating an opinion as if it's a fact.

Is #5 a fact?  Yes or no.  If not, why not?

My own answer would be: yes, but it's not relevant to any of Kshartle's other stipulations so far. The fact that we all grew up in a society and have been influenced by the context surrounding us do not mean that we are incapable of choice or independent thoughts.

Yes ultimately it doesn't matter at all. That's why I was ok moving on. On second thought....we do need to understand the differnce between reality and ideas. The individuals that make up the group we (individually and subjectively) call a society are what exist. Our opinion on what constitutes a society can't be proven false or correct. Dissagreements about what constitue a society can't be proven either way. That's because it's just an opinion about how many or what type of people this word/concept describes.

It's all in our individual heads, not objective reality.

[moda0306]

I asked you to agree or argue with

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

And, instead, you're stating an opinion as if it's a fact.

Is #5 a fact?  Yes or no.  If not, why not?

My own answer would be: yes, but it's not relevant to any of Kshartle's other stipulations so far. The fact that we all grew up in a society and have been influenced by the context surrounding us do not mean that we are incapable of choice or independent thoughts.

Yes ultimately it doesn't matter at all. That's why I was ok moving on. On second thought....we do need to understand the differnce between reality and ideas. The individuals that make up the group we (individually and subjectively) call a society are what exist. Our opinion on what constitutes a society can't be proven false or correct. Dissagreements about what constitue a society can't be proven either way. That's because it's just an opinion about how many or what type of people this word/concept describes.

It's all in our individual heads, not objective reality.

I actually agree with this quite a bit.

[Pointedstick]

I actually agree with this quite a bit.

Yes, me too.

[Kshartle]

Thanks guys.

It's really really difficult to parse out the difference between opinion and fact. So many of our opinions are based on facts (society exists because it's a fact that people exist). We have all kinds of opinions on what reality is and isn't....that's why I wanted to nail down that an opinion on a fact is not an really an opinion, it's a factual statement.

We can still use the word "society" for convenience but we shouldn't assign characteristics to it that belong to individuals. Society doesn't think, doesn't have opinions and can't act. Therefore, "society" can't force us to do anything, it can't control us in any way.

[rickb]

Or to agree with it...

A more open-minded way of re-stating your last sentence is "The debate of the influence of society (other people) does not invalidate the premise that people ultimately choose their actions.

I asked you to agree or argue with

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

And, instead, you're stating an opinion as if it's a fact.

Is #5 a fact?  Yes or no.  If not, why not?

No because society is just an opinion. It doesn't exist. Other people exist. Their actions and our ideas about their potential actions influence our choices but there is no such thing as society in actual reality, it's just an idea in our heads. It's a word we assign to a group of people and give it meaning.

If I say "Other people exist. Their actions and our ideas about their potential actions influence our choices". Does that satisfy your concern?

If not can you please answer my questions and we'll prove society isn't reality it's just an opinion.

I'm using "society" to mean other people in the same sense you are (it starts with family and extends outward from there).  Your suggestion is close.  How about "Other people exist.  Their actions and our ideas about their potential actions always influence our choices."

The point is any action you take is always within a context that includes other people ("society"). 

[Kshartle]

I asked you to agree or argue with

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

And, instead, you're stating an opinion as if it's a fact.

Is #5 a fact?  Yes or no.  If not, why not?

No because society is just an opinion. It doesn't exist. Other people exist. Their actions and our ideas about their potential actions influence our choices but there is no such thing as society in actual reality, it's just an idea in our heads. It's a word we assign to a group of people and give it meaning.

If I say "Other people exist. Their actions and our ideas about their potential actions influence our choices". Does that satisfy your concern?

If not can you please answer my questions and we'll prove society isn't reality it's just an opinion.

I'm using "society" to mean other people in the same sense you are (it starts with family and extends outward from there).  Your suggestion is close.  How about "Other people exist.  Their actions and our ideas about their potential actions always influence our choices."

The point is any action you take is always within a context that includes other people ("society").

Sure but I confess I don't understand the point. Couldn't I say any action is always within a context that includes other people, plants, animals air etc.

Trust me....I'm not trying to be nit picky or protective of my statements....I'm trying to keep them as simple as they need to be to move forward. I don't think there's any value in mentioning that other people exist because that's obvious. I mean....we're two people having a discussion so that's a pretty basic assumption.

What do you think adding that the existence of other people always influencing our actions adds to anything? Does it take away our ability to choose our actions in your opinion or as a matter of fact?

[moda0306]

I asked you to agree or argue with

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

And, instead, you're stating an opinion as if it's a fact.

Is #5 a fact?  Yes or no.  If not, why not?

No because society is just an opinion. It doesn't exist. Other people exist. Their actions and our ideas about their potential actions influence our choices but there is no such thing as society in actual reality, it's just an idea in our heads. It's a word we assign to a group of people and give it meaning.

If I say "Other people exist. Their actions and our ideas about their potential actions influence our choices". Does that satisfy your concern?

If not can you please answer my questions and we'll prove society isn't reality it's just an opinion.

I'm using "society" to mean other people in the same sense you are (it starts with family and extends outward from there).  Your suggestion is close.  How about "Other people exist.  Their actions and our ideas about their potential actions always influence our choices."

The point is any action you take is always within a context that includes other people ("society").

Rick, I couldn't agree more... but we are trying to stay (for now... trust me!) out of grey areas of family/children and concentrate on adults.  Not that adults aren't also affected by their society, but they have the choice whether to reject that society or not, or at least in a lot of ways.

A family friend of mine was an RN and had a "fainting" condition that left here with a severe brain injury at 33, unable to do her job or handle much mental stimulation at all.  She was still very intelligent (and a nice person to boot), but if any kind of undue stress, noise, light, etc entered her life she'd go half-crazy.

She fits right in that perfect middle space from where one stand point you should be able to say "you control yourself, so this outburst is unacceptable," but you could also tell she had a very serious brain injury.  It was the ultimate grey area of ethics for me... it begged so many questions about whether she was "responsible" for her actions.  Likewise, my dad with his recent stroke.  It begged similar questions.

So I totally understand what you're getting at.  For now, I see this as a bit of a "vacuum" experiment where we're assuming no children, no mentally-ill, no elderly with brain damage, no "society" coloring your decision framework for you.

We WILL get to this if Kshartle can prove self-ownership for consenting adults.

I promise.

Do you think we can just continue with those things assumed for now?  I'm quite positive we don't need "societal influence" to show that he hasn't proven self-ownership, or at the very least, that it efficiently extends to private property.

[Kshartle]

Moda do you believe that because other people exist you don't still make your own decisions? Who makes decisions for you?

If other people are making decisions for you then who's making decisions for them? Is everyone making decisions for everyone else?

Didn't we agree that society is just an idea and doesn't make decisions or take actions, only individuals do?

[moda0306]

Society is an idea, but multiple people can affect your decision options.  However, for the sake of discovering self-ownership, I'm willing to consider these influences to be nothing more than a series of suggestions given to adults, which we are adult enough to ignore if we wish.

[rickb]

What do you think adding that the existence of other people always influencing our actions adds to anything? Does it take away our ability to choose our actions in your opinion or as a matter of fact?

It makes our ability to choose our actions somewhat less absolute than you're making it out to be.  You've stated as fact #4:

4. No one else is us. We are unique individuals. No one else occupies the space that we are in. No one else has our mind, and no one can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed but this is external activity).

The effect others have on us is tantamount to everyone being brainwashed - i.e. you have the default state backwards.  The default is not that no one can enter our minds and control our bodies unless we're brainwashed, but rather other people have already entered our minds through the process of socialization, and what we think are our choices are the result of years and years of this socialization process. 

At least some "choices" we make are no longer choices at all but a direct result of the socialization we're received (e.g. the child drowning in the pool example).  The notion that your choices are yours and yours alone is simply not a fact.  Your choices reflect how you were socialized.  Different people socialized similarly will make similar choices.  Different people socialized differently may make choices completely different from each other.  Whether you're able to precisely quantify this or not (including being able to precisely identify which individuals are doing the influencing) does not make it any less of a fact - but precisely quantified or not it does mean your fact #4 is not true in an absolute sense.

What is a fact is that other people can and do have (significant) influence over one's ability to choose one's actions.

[Stewardship]

Woah!  And I thought this thread was about Argentina 

What's wrong with the NAP?  The biggest complaint I've seen about it is it's flawed because it doesn't work easilly with children, disadvantaged adults, and pollution.  Therefore we don't own ourselves?  Therefore a group of our neighbors can have a larger claim on us than we have on ourselves?

Throw the baby out with the bathwater much?

[moda0306]

Well Kshartle is trying to prove self-ownership, and therefore NAP, as well as private property, using logic. The problem with NAP isn't so much that it's an awful idea... It's that its proponents hold it as logically provable and perfect in ways that every other moral theory have failed, which (IMO) it is not. They then take that supposed logical certainty that we own ourselves and property, and that aggression, or lack thereof, is the only moral measuring stick, and make pretty ballsy assertions about how we should engage ourselves, call us murderers if we don't comply, but if any grey area of not just children, but elderly, property, pollution, mentally-ill, taking risk that could harm others, having any other moral measuring sticks (saving the drowning child is apparently morally neutral), and animals... If you bring up these areas, anarchocaps have a tendency to switch to consequentialism to tell us "of course people will take care of the elderly," or something like that. Rather than applying their supposed logical certainty, they either complain about the tests people try to apply to it (as all philosophers do to all logic), or simply deny the need to worry about it (which is irrelevant) because it'll just work.

So there's nothing wrong with NAP other than it's as flawed as many other theories, but its proponents make ridiculous assertions about its logical consistency, applicability, etc.

There's also nothing saying that your neighbors have a higher "claim" on you than you do. This presumes the moral right to lay a moral "claim" on something. Nobody has proven that (yet), so saying you don't "own yourself" doesn't mean someone else owns you. It's perhaps denying the moral measurement of "ownership" altogether.

But to be clear, there is no "Therefore: we don't own ourselves."  It is "Therefore: self-ownership has not been deductively proven."

[moda0306]

i may not be listening or reading in the right places but kshartle is the only NAP proponent i have heard claim moral/logical certainty.
personally i don't need logical certainty because i don't see it as operating in a vacuum, there are other moralities, social considerations that it works in parallel with and i don't see them as disproving or necessarily conflicting with NAP.  i am not sure where any of the grey areas would prove you are a slave and others do have a right to steal from you...  its not the only measuring stick but its a very strong and workable one, if other measuring sticks leads to theft, violence and contradictions they cant make that claim..

A huge amount of the anarcho-capitalists assert to have proven self-ownership. Many softer libertarians just like the way it feels, but if it can't be proven, then it exists on the same plane as other moral assertions, and then the anarcho-capitalist argument is just another opinion, not the One Moral Truth a good chunk of its proponents deem it to be.

We have tons of scenarios where other moral measuring sticks (if the exist) could conflict with the NAP.  We also have gray areas within the NAP regarding property, animals, pollution, risk and children.  Even the word "theft" implies legitimate ownership, and if ownership hasn't been proven, you can't prove theft has occurred. Also, if NAP has competition morally, and "ownership" in General is a moral right, is it sub-servant to other moral issues at times?

If NAP can't be proven, it can still be useful, but it begs the question of how it must now ride on the same bus with various other moral imperatives.

But we will see if we even need to have that argument.  Kshartle could prove us wrong and have worked out the perfect formula.

[rickb]

My overall point here is also not that NAP is a bad thing, but that when you're claiming to prove things details matter.

For example, here's a mathematical proof that 1=2, based on only the "self-evident" facts that

Fact 1) if you start with two numbers that are equal and add the same number to them the results are equal
Fact 2) if you start with two numbers that are equal and subtract the same number from them the results are equal
Fact 3) if you start with two numbers that are equal and multiply them by the same number the results are equal
Fact 4) if you start with two numbers that are equal and divide them by the same number the results are equal
Fact 5) for any numbers x, y, and z: x+x=2x. x-2x = -x, x(y-z) = xy - xz (I'm not even assuming the rest of arithmetic is valid, just this much)

Here's the proof:
    Step 1: Let a=b.
    Step 2: By Fact 3, a2 = ab
    Step 3: By Fact 1, a2 + a2 = a2 + ab
    Step 4: By Fact 5, 2a2 = a2 + ab
    Step 5: By Fact 2, 2a2- 2ab = a2 + ab - 2ab
    Step 6: By Fact 5, 2a2 - 2ab = a2 - ab
    Step 7: By Fact 5, 2(a2 - ab) = 1(a2 - ab)
    Step 8: By Fact 4 (divide both sides by (a2 - ab)), 1=2.

Given facts 1-5, this proof is absolutely correct.  However, there's a slight error in one of the facts - it's generally true but not absolutely true (hmm, somewhat like Kshartle's #4).  If you're going to use facts as the basis for proofs they have to be absolutely true.  If they aren't, then you can end up being able to "prove" virtually anything.  That these issues come up in a area where things are as precisely defined as math should give you tremendous pause about throwing around terms like "fact" and "proof" in areas where you're basing your notion of facts on informal descriptions of concepts.

You might be able to construct a logical sounding argument - but without precise definitions (of all the terms you're using) and a way to construct formal statements using these terms that have a true or false value, you're really just arguing.

[Pointedstick]

Given facts 1-5, this proof is absolutely correct.  However, there's a slight error in one of the facts - it's generally true but not absolutely true (hmm, somewhat like Kshartle's #4).  If you're going to use facts as the basis for proofs they have to be absolutely true.  If they aren't, then you can end up being able to "prove" virtually anything.  That these issues come up in a area where things are as precisely defined as math should give you tremendous pause about throwing around terms like "fact" and "proof" in areas where you're basing your notion of facts on informal descriptions of concepts.

You might be able to construct a logical sounding argument - but without precise definitions (of all the terms you're using) and a way to construct formal statements using these terms that have a true or false value, you're really just arguing.

I strongly agree with the above, and am going along with Kshartle's claims out of intellectual curiosity and open-mindedness. I will be surprised if he manages to do it, though I acknowledge the possibility.

[moda0306]

Given facts 1-5, this proof is absolutely correct.  However, there's a slight error in one of the facts - it's generally true but not absolutely true (hmm, somewhat like Kshartle's #4).  If you're going to use facts as the basis for proofs they have to be absolutely true.  If they aren't, then you can end up being able to "prove" virtually anything.  That these issues come up in a area where things are as precisely defined as math should give you tremendous pause about throwing around terms like "fact" and "proof" in areas where you're basing your notion of facts on informal descriptions of concepts.

You might be able to construct a logical sounding argument - but without precise definitions (of all the terms you're using) and a way to construct formal statements using these terms that have a true or false value, you're really just arguing.

I strongly agree with the above, and am going along with Kshartle's claims out of intellectual curiosity and open-mindedness. I will be surprised if he manages to do it, though I acknowledge the possibility.

Samesies.

There are some premises I'm ready to pounce on either their truth, or connection to a conclusion... for now this is just simply not one of them.  I'm trying to stay in this (albeit fictional) world where we're all intelligent adults with free and open access to information, and little real ability to claim that you're an "affect of your society."

I'm quite confident self-ownership will fail to be proven even if we can act like all people are truly individuals, and "society" should not enter into morality.

[moda0306]

A huge amount of the anarcho-capitalists assert to have proven self-ownership. Many softer libertarians just like the way it feels, but if it can't be proven, then it exists on the same plane as other moral assertions, and then the anarcho-capitalist argument is just another opinion, not the One Moral Truth a good chunk of its proponents deem it to be.

unlike khshartle i tend to be willing to argue from results and the results of any other moral opinion that says the stuff i think is mine is really somebody else's (because somebody else says so) has fundamentally failed from the get go, and is a vastly inferior opinion because it doesn't work, it creates contradictions with itself and requires a overlord of morality to make decisions about who gets the stuff and who can take the stuff away from those who have it, NAP may or may not be logically provable (go kshartle make it so) but it is a measuring stick that is both consistent and workable i have yet to see a theft based shared property based alternative that is even close 

 

We have tons of scenarios where other moral measuring sticks (if the exist) could conflict with the NAP.  We also have gray areas within the NAP regarding property, animals, pollution, risk and children.  Even the word "theft" implies legitimate ownership, and if ownership hasn't been proven, you can't prove theft has occurred. Also, if NAP has competition morally, and "ownership" in General is a moral right, is it sub-servant to other moral issues at times?

i don't see the conflicts but we can save this for later on ones the one moral truth issue is hashed out

If NAP can't be proven, it can still be useful, but it begs the question of how it must now ride on the same bus with various other moral imperatives.

But we will see if we even need to have that argument.  Kshartle could prove us wrong and have worked out the perfect formula.

i tend to think it rides very easy with other moral imperatives but i agree lets save it for later..

I agree with the latter part... let's keep it on the back burner.

Keep in mind, thogh, that there is absolutely no non-theft based sharing system in the world that I know of right now.  Kshartle would be right that this doesn't PROVE anything, but if we're arguing from affects here, we live in a world of various different mixed economies, many of the most successful of which (from a productivity standpoint) have a lot of these theft sharing systems in place.  This isn't to say there are hippie communes everywhere that are successful (there are certainly huge problems with the anarcho-commie movement, too), but we can't deny that there is pretty substantial state involvement in almost all countries that we would both probably consider worth even discussing as "good places to live."

If pure free-society, or even some kind of "negative-rights-protection-only" type of government, was as robust and productive/universally-desirable as you say, one would expect to see more of them.  They either must not be very productive/desirable, or not robust enough to show up for very long before they go away, which I would say,  surely doesn't lend itself to someone advocating a political system winning that argument from effects.

So if we're arguing from effects, I'd say that it looks like some kind of balance is probably ideal, and the ideal balance appears NOT to be a super decentralized one that just protects property and that's all. 

So if you want agreement that an anarcho-hippie commune system would fail, based on certain consequentialist priorities that we both likely share (peace, productivity, fairness, prosperity, relative freedom, etc), look no further .  I agree with you.

If you want agreement that this automatically means that the closer to the original Articles of Confederation we get, the better, you'll find huge disagreement from me.

i would agree that the idea we live in a world of mixed society is true but that those with more NAP/free-markets have done better because of those aspects and in-spite of the theft sharing systems, Humanity is (or should be) on an evolutionary course toward that pure free society or constantly aiming its self in that direction even if its an unobtainable ideal, it might be a endless round and round to argue "because of free markets / in-spite of government" but even if government helped create a better society - now we have one, government is no longer required we can move on to better ways of doing things . the pure free society hasn't existed (as far as i know) and i doubt we are fully ready to handle one yet. i do think when (if) we ever get there they will be exceptionally robust, and make most of what we do now look silly or primitive.

[Mountaineer]

I'm also OK to go with this for a while and let Kshartle attempt his proof but ultimately, I will have to be able to insert the Christian God (Father, Son, Spirit) into whatever we creatures come up with as I do agree with Kshartle's premise 1 - "Something is real, even if we don't understand it or see it."

... Mountaineer

[Xan]

unlike khshartle i tend to be willing to argue from results and the results of any other moral opinion that says the stuff i think is mine is really somebody else's (because somebody else says so) has fundamentally failed from the get go, and is a vastly inferior opinion because it doesn't work, it creates contradictions with itself and requires a overlord of morality to make decisions about who gets the stuff and who can take the stuff away from those who have it, NAP may or may not be logically provable (go kshartle make it so) but it is a measuring stick that is both consistent and workable i have yet to see a theft based shared property based alternative that is even close..  much less on the same plane

I think you're basically right, Simon.  And this is why I think Kshartle's claims are so damaging to freedom.  He's dramatically overreaching; his claims (so far, I'll still officially hold out hope for this thread) are easily refuted and dismissed; and he (amazingly!) makes the whole idea of limited government seem useless and stupid.  He'll attack people like you and Lowe who make reasonable arguments which are virtually identical to his, just not "pure" enough.

Here's the other thing about the NAP, though: you can't really say that it's not "theft based" either.  Because virtually all property and resources at some point or other were claimed via aggression of some kind.  If you just say "okay, it stops now" then you're legitimizing all the theft that came before.  Suppose somebody had just mugged me and stolen my wallet two seconds before the "it stops now" edict.  Is he now the rightful owner?

[moda0306]

unlike khshartle i tend to be willing to argue from results and the results of any other moral opinion that says the stuff i think is mine is really somebody else's (because somebody else says so) has fundamentally failed from the get go, and is a vastly inferior opinion because it doesn't work, it creates contradictions with itself and requires a overlord of morality to make decisions about who gets the stuff and who can take the stuff away from those who have it, NAP may or may not be logically provable (go kshartle make it so) but it is a measuring stick that is both consistent and workable i have yet to see a theft based shared property based alternative that is even close..  much less on the same plane

I think you're basically right, l82start.  And this is why I think Kshartle's claims are so damaging to freedom.  He's dramatically overreaching; his claims (so far, I'll still officially hold out hope for this thread) are easily refuted and dismissed; and he (amazingly!) makes the whole idea of limited government seem useless and stupid.  He'll attack people like you and Lowe who make reasonable arguments which are virtually identical to his, just not "pure" enough.

Here's the other thing about the NAP, though: you can't really say that it's not "theft based" either.  Because virtually all property and resources at some point or other were claimed via aggression of some kind.  If you just say "okay, it stops now" then you're legitimizing all the theft that came before.  Suppose somebody had just mugged me and stolen my wallet two seconds before the "it stops now" edict.  Is he now the rightful owner?

That's the big thing... even if I can PROVE self-ownership is the only moral measuring stick, the next step is to assert that connection to the world we affect around us (otherwise known as "property"), where things get into a VERY subjective arena.  What one person sees as their property, another person sees as theirs + decades of $ reparation for the "time-value-of-theft," if you will.

I give Kshartle a 5% chance of proving self-ownership, deductively, and about a .01% chance of linking that to the point of logical proof to the world around him.

But I'm extremely glad we're finally digging into the premises, and the connections of those premises to a logical conclusion.  Up to this point it's been a swarm of logic laid out in paragraph form, anecdotal evidence, logical fallacies and accusations thereof, getting angry, apologizing, ignored links to sources, consequentialist justifications, conflation of terms, etc.  And not that any of those apply more to him than me.  It's just been a mess.