Roger Ver keeps attention on Ross Ulbricht case

'Bitcoin Jesus' Preaches Libertarian Gospel of Crypto & Crack Cocaine - P.H. Madore, CCN:

May 11, 2019 - "Roger Ver took to YouTube to read another letter from Ross Ulbricht, creator of the first darknet market using Bitcoin. The libertarian idealist used the opportunity to rail against the war on drugs.... Ver – once nicknamed 'Bitcoin Jesus' for his rabid crypto evangelism –  is more recently best known as a major proponent of Bitcoin Cash, which he views as remaining more faithful to the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto than Bitcoin....

"Ulbricht ... is currently serving a [double] life sentence in federal prison for his role in providing a safe place for people to buy and sell drugs online. Some have argued that Silk Road created the first real demand for Bitcoin, which was the only currency used on the website....

"After reading the letter, Roger Ver unleashed an emotional monologue about the war on drugs, of which he believes Ross Ulbricht is an unfortunate victim. He presented a boilerplate libertarian stance that drugs should not be illegal, in any form....

And just because some people get together and write some words down on paper and call it a law, that doesn’t alter morality one bit. And if people have the right to drink alcohol, they have the right to smoke marijuana – they have the right to smoke crack. Because their lives and their bodies belong to them and their lives and their bodies don’t belong to the politicians or the police officers or any of these other people....

"Ulbricht never sold drugs himself. The most involvement in the drug trade Ulbricht had was trying to grow mushrooms. Even so, he received the harshest sentence out of anyone ever arrested related to darknet markets.

"Governments worldwide have gone the opposite route from what Roger Ver and libertarians might prefer. Recently, DeepDotWeb, a clear net site devoted to the underworld of the web, was shut down and its domain seized. At least two of its operators have so far been arrested. This follows the capture of the proprietors of Wall Street Market, which had recently exit scammed.

"A substantial darknet bust coincided with the closure of Dream Market, leading some to speculate the events were correlated.

"In theory, it’s challenging to track users on the dark web and transactions made using certain privacy-enhancing technologies like cryptocurrency. The reality is that law enforcement often gets a big boost when it compromises just one or two individuals."

Read more and watch video: https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-jesus-preaches-libertarian-gospel-of-crypto-crack-cocaine
'via Blog this'

A brief account of property

by George J. Dance

Property is a relation between some people ('owners'), some things ('goods' or 'resources'), and, by implication, other people. Property rights are either liberty or claim negative rights that include rights (1) to appropriate things, or acquire them as property, (2) to use them as goods (usus), and therefore (3) to use them as resources to create new goods, which are also the creator's property (fructus). They comprise both basic property rights (to acquire and use things at all), which look inalienable, and derivative ownership rights to specific things, which are fully alienable. Because ownership rights are alienable, they include rights (4) to get rid of the property, either by destroying it, including consuming it or using it up to make something else (abusus), or by giving ownership rights to it to someone else.

Everyone has the basic property rights needed to be an owner, but only owners have derivative ownership rights. Because the latter are rights of owners only, it follows that there is an owner's right to exclude non-owners from using those specific things if she wants to.

Back in 1689, John Locke theorized that "Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself."[1, 27] In other words, while basic rights to negative liberty were held by everyone, only one person had the derivative rights over her own person (which both explains and justifies the idea of asymmetrical ownership rights).

Since people have to eat to live, their rights must include a right to eat, and therefore a right to gather food to feed oneself: "And will any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him."[1, 28] Since a right to feed oneself is a right to consume specific goods (meaning both to acquire, use, and destroy them, and to exclude everyone else from using them), it is a property right, which shows the necessity of property rights to some goods.

Locke did place four conditions on appropriation of things. The first three were necessary: The thing had to be "in the common state nature provided it," in other words not already owned;[1, 27] the owner had to have "mixed his labour with" (used) it;[1, 27] and no one could appropriate more than she could use.[1, 33] Without satisfying those conditions with respect to appropriating any specific thing, one could not become its owner.

The fourth, when added to the above, looks instead like a sufficient condition: if one's appropriation of a good satisfied it, one would be unquestionably an owner; "for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."[1, 27]
 
Since people have been eating, and letting others eat, since the dawn of time, one can place the first implicit property rights that far back. However, the first explicit property rights were probably communal. Robert Lefevre theorizes that, in primitive tribes, the food "would have been for the use of the entire tribe."[2, 13.] Tribal ownership persisted when hunters became nomads: Tribes followed their herds, a property right they enforced against outsiders; kills were probably divided among the whole tribe by its patriarch.[3, 16] It probably was the first type of property during the agricultural revolution (10,000 B.C.) as well; but given evidence that recognizing individual rights to a crop leads to higher productivity,[4] and given the enormous increase in productivity during the revolution, it is reasonable to think that individual or family ownership began to catch on then.

The increasing prosperity attracted the notice of the nomads, who began raiding and plundering agricultural sentiments. Beginning around 5,000 BC, some got the idea of conquering agricultural lands and settling down as rulers, managing the inhabitants like a herd. Von Rustow calls this process "superstratification," and sees it as the emergence of the first states:

Superstratification produced, for the first time in history, human social groupings that, in their inner structure, were based on bloodshed and violence.... For the first time outer morality, the morality of violence, penetrates, domineeringly and determinedly, into the interior of a social body.... [As Nietzche wrote:] 'The state originates in the cruelest way, through conquest, through the production of a race of drones.'"[3, 35-36]  

Not surprisingly, violence and blooshed invaded the sphere of property rights as well. First, the conquerors took over existing property by force and became the new owners. Second, they established property laws backed by a police power.

This historical sequence shows that ownership rights do not necessarily imply a right to use violence and bloodshed (since the first has existed without the second). Before the coming of the state, as Lefevre notes, whatever enforcement of property rights there was, played little if any role in their protection: "as properties multiplied, opportunity for theft far exceeded the ability of physical defenders, both in time and numbers." Property rights were mainly supported by religions: "Non-trespass of private property became one of the earliest taboos, substituted for still earlier taboos against tribal trespass. Here is the early root of the Golden Rule, and even of the late development of the Decalogue."[2, 7].

Religions are still the major support for private property rights in some communities, the pacifist Amish communities being a good example. Even where the state does enforce property rights, as Lefevre also points out, its violence and bloodshed play but a minor role in protecting them:

What is not easily grasped is the fact that ownership of property and its retention in private hands are dependent on understanding and belief, and not upon force. The only real protection we have arises from the unwillingness of individuals to commit trespass, and not upon the willingness of certain men, hired as a constabulary, to pursue those who have violated property rights, in order to bring restitution, or to punish the offenders, or both.[2, 9]

Notes

[1] John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government (edited by C.B. McPherson). Indianapolis, IN, & Cambridge, UK: Hackett, 1980. Print.

[2] Robert Lefevre, The Philosophy of Ownership. Rampart College, 1974. Print.

[3] Alexander Rustow, Freedom and Domination (translated by Salvator Attanasio; edited by Dankwart A. Rustow). Princton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980. Print.

[4] Gary Galles, "Private Property and the first U.S. Thanksgiving," GD's Political Animal, November 27, 2016, Blogspot, Web, June 7, 2017. http://gdspoliticalanimal.blogspot.ca/2016/11/private-property-and-first-us.html

An argument for self-ownership

by George J. Dance

Last week I posted a column about three rather silly arguments against the concept of self-ownership that I had found on the interwebs. After writing that, I went on to write the best argument I could for the concept; which I didn't print because of length. Here is that argument; criticisms welcome.

An argument for self-ownership

My own conclusion from reading Aaron's arguments is that some people could profit from learning more about both self-ownership and logic. The best way I can see of doing both is to present an argument for self-ownership in logical form:

1. To own something is to have a just claim to control the use of that thing. (definition)
2. Either people are owned, or they are not owned. (Av~A)
3. If people are owned, they are either owned by themselves, or by other people. (Av~A)
4. For one person to claim ownership of another person is slavery. (definition)
5. Slavery is unjust. (premise)
6. Therefore, people cannot be not owned by other people. (1,4,5)
7. Therefore, either people own themselves, or they are not owned. (2,3,6)
8. Assume people are unowned. (Assumption)
9. Either it is wrong for people to use things no one owns, or it is not wrong. (Av~A)
10. Then either it is wrong for adults to use other adults' unowned bodies, or it is not wrong. (8,9)
11. Assume that it is not wrong for adults to use other adults' bodies. (Assumption)
12. Then it is not wrong for a man to use a woman's body for sex.
13. Then it is not wrong for a man to use a woman's body for sex, if the woman does not agree.
14. But it is wrong for a man to use a woman's body for sex, if the woman does not agree. (premise)
15. Then, if people's bodies are unowned, it must be wrong for adults to use other adults' bodies. (11-14; Assumption discharged)
16. Now assume that it is wrong for adults to use other adults' bodies. (Assumption)
17. Then it is wrong for a man to use a woman's body for sex.
18. Then it is wrong for a man to use a woman's body for sex, even if the woman agrees.
19. But it is not wrong for a man to use a woman's body for sex, if the woman agrees. (premise)
20. Then, if people's bodies are unowned, it must not be wrong for adults to use other adult's bodies. (16-19; Assumption discharged)
21. Then, if people's bodies are unowned, it must be both wrong and not wrong to use other adults' bodies for sex. (15,20)
22. Therefore, people are not unowned. (8-21; Assumption discharged)
23. Therefore, people own themselves. (7,22)

The validity of any step can be challenged. So can the truth of any of the 3 explicit premises: that slavery is unjust, that it is wrong for a man to use a woman's body for sex if the woman does not agree, and that it is not wrong for a man to use a woman's body for sex if the woman does agree.

We could stop right there - the above argument is complete as is - but it may be useful to see what the conclusion implies; so let me add a few more steps, purely for the sake of illustration:

24. It is wrong to use an owned resource if the owner does not agree. (1)
25. It is not wrong to use an owned resource if the owner does agree. (1)
26. It is wrong for a man to use a woman's body for sex, if the woman does not agree. (23,24)
27. It is not wrong for a man to use a woman's body for sex, if the woman does agree. (23,25)

The fact that these conclusions (#26 and #27) are the same as the earlier premises (#14 and #19) is not circular, since those conclusions are not deduced from those premises. My only reason for including these steps was to show that #26 and #27 did not contradict #14 and #19; if they did, then the conclusion that people are self-owners would be absurd, too. An argument by reductio ad absurdum  could prove a conclusion by showing that the other alternatives are absurd, but in practice that would be of little use if that conclusion were equally absurd.

Silly arguments against self-ownership

by George J. Dance:

May 10, 2017 - Libertarians often talk about "self-ownership." What is it? To quote an encyclopedia definition: "Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of her or his own body and life."

I am no fan of the term. "Ownership" over one's own body and life is different, in crucial ways, from "ownership" of external things, like a car, and using the same term for both blurs those differences. One has to act to acquire a car; while one has "self-ownership" simply by existing. One can sell a car to another person, meaning that the other person now owns it; but I cannot imagine how anyone could rightfully come to own another person. Finally, ownership, and possession and control, of oneself are indistinguishable – some libertarians even ground self-ownership on the metaphysical fact that people do possess and control their own bodies – while it is perfectly sensible to imagine a car being owned by one person, but possessed and controlled by someone else.

So I would prefer to use a different term, like the ones the encyclopedia offers: individual sovereignty or individual autonomy. However, I have no trouble with the concept as properly understood. Anti-propertarians, on the other hand, do seem to have trouble with the concept; perhaps because of the problems with the term noted above. In any case, on the web one often encounters people arguing against the very idea of self-ownership.

One popular argument that I often run into is "Three Refutations of Self-Ownership," published on an anarchist discussion forum years ago. It consists of three arguments meant to show that self-ownership is  (i) an oxymoron, (ii) immoral and unjust, and (iii) metaphysically impossible; posted with the invitation to "Please critique freely". Being a sucker for logical arguments, I had to respond to the invitation.

A Refutation of Self-Ownership #1 (With No Consideration of Cartesian Dualism)

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were the same – i.e. if one and one’s body were one and the same thing – then A and B would both own and be owned.
4. Ownership implies an ability to control, direct, dominate, dispose of, defend, manage, and rent a thing.
5. If A and B were the same, then A would be controlling B, and B would be controlling A, and so forth, ad absurdum, so that true ownership would not really exist.
6. Therefore, if A and B are the same, then self-ownership is an oxymoron.

The false premise here is 5. If A and B were two different people, then it would be absurd for A to control B and for B to control A at the same time (precisely what makes the democratic idea of the citizens controlling a government that controls them absurd). What would happen if A and B disagreed? A would have to give in to B, and B would have to give in to A; in what sense, then, would either of them be in control?

However, the assumption is that A and B are the same person. So let us make that identity clear, by using just the one symbol, and rewriting premise 5 as:
5. If A and A were the same thing, then A would be controlling A, and A would be controlling A, and so forth, ad absurdum, so that true ownership would not really exist.
No absurdity there. Since premise 5 is false, the argument is unsound.

A Refutation of Self-Ownership #2 (With Consideration of Cartesian Dualism)

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were not the same – i.e. if one’s mind/will and one’s body were not one and the same thing – then A would be a mind/will and B would be a living human body.
4. It is immoral and unjust to claim ownership of a living human body.
5. Therefore, self-ownership is immoral and unjust.

Premise 4 looks like the false one here. It might indeed always be "immoral or unjust to claim ownership of a living human body;" but why think it is? Perhaps the author was thinking about slavery, and reasoning implicity:
4a) Claiming ownership of a living human body is slavery.
4b) Slavery is immoral and unjust.
4c) Therefore, claiming ownership of a living human body is immoral and unjust.
But the definition of slavery in 4a) is misstated. Slavery is claimed ownership of someone else's living body. So all that this argument, if sound, would prove is that claiming ownership of someone else's living body is immoral and unjust; and of course claiming self-ownership is not claiming that. Since premise 4 is false, the argument is again unsound.

A Refutation of Self-Ownership #3 (With Consideration of Cartesian Dualism)

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were not the same – i.e. if one’s mind/will and one’s body were not one and the same thing – then A would be a mind/will and B would be a living human body.
4. If the mind exists outside of the living human body – i.e. if the mind is a separate, non-physical entity – then the mind is intangible, whereas the human body is tangible.
5. It is not possible for a thing without physical tangibility to act upon a thing with physical
tangibility.
6. Therefore, self-ownership is metaphysically impossible.

In this case, the premises are all true, but the conclusion is a non-sequitur. Premise 4 contains
an assumption – "If the mind exists outside of the living body" etc. – that is not discharged in the conclusion. So to be valid the conclusion would have to be stated as:
6'. "Therefore, if the mind exists outside of the living body – i.e. if the mind is a separate, non-physical entity – then self-ownership is metaphysically impossible."
 –  Which would refute any libertarians who do argue that their minds are non-physical things that exist outside their bodies. But what libertarians do that? Since the conclusion does not follow from the premises, the argument is invalid.

Also read: An argument for self-ownership