@topynate I see no fundamental problem with this. Certain ways of interpreting it I would refute, but not the construct itself
@Outsideness
-
-
Replying to @CTZN5
@topynate Presumably, just as a man owns himself, his labor, & the rightfully acquired products thereof (ie assets, $, etc) 1/@Outsideness1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CTZN5
@topynate and if we've agreed a man cannot be forcibly parted w/ those, then can one be compelled to accept a "slave's offer"?@Outsideness1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CTZN5
@topynate ...I suspect not. (3/3, sorry.) So the problem sorts itself out, w/out requiring exceptions to "self-ownership", yes?@Outsideness1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
@fnxTX@topynate ... It's a nice universalistic story, but its roots aren't very deep. The kind of agency it presupposes is rare and recent.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness
@Outsideness I am sorry. I do not understand either of those two tweets I'm afraid. What is it you are arguing?@topynate1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
@fnxTX@topynate ... For the vast bulk of 'humanity' they will never even be intelligible, let alone convincing.1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness
@fnxTX@topynate ... Most people want to be told what to do, and looked after. 'Self-ownership' doesn't even begin to come into it.2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness
@Outsideness These are not assumptions, these are ethical imperatives upon which to build a consistent, logical society.@topynate2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.