Vin Armani on Self Ownership, Property and Morality

Thanks! Share it with your friends!

Close

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=25216

Vin Armani, host of The Vin Armani Show, joins us to discuss his new book, Self Ownership: The Foundation of Property and Morality. In this wide-ranging, in-depth discussion we explore the philosophical basis and the political ramifications of self ownership, the nature and limits of property, the moral system that arises from a propertarian order and the cryptosavages that are threatening to storm the gates of the old order.

Comments

TheFightingSheep says:

His morality is all backwards, the reason we stopped evolving is lack of violence! Violence is the driving force of natural selection, it's survival of the fittest, not survival of everyone, and if that bothers you then you're subhuman tribal genetic garbage that's holding back our species. Violence is good, preferably, violence that ends in as many deaths as possible.

jmt luimem says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb3_eRNoH_w
you'd be interested by the intro…

United We Stand; Divided We Fall says:

I'd take it a step further and say that we don't even own our own bodies in that we are destined to lose them. Our bodies, our consciousness, even our very lives are sort of "on loan" to us, and when we are done using them, we must return them to whence they came.

So what DO we really own? – In Stoicism it is suggested that our "true" selves are above mind and body; a sort of "spirit" – they suggest that this "spirit" exists prior to it being infused into a body and mind, and that after what we call death, it goes back to where it existed prior to this "infusion"…

Now, I'm not so sure that I really buy that, but it's a very interesting concept.

The illusion (for lack of a better term) of consciousness is very real – even when we think we are making our own decisions consciously, experiments have shown that our minds, or, as the Stoics would say, our "spirit" actually makes decisions prior to our being aware of it – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph7LcupAENw https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/29/neuroscience-david-eagleman-raymond-tallis
https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/372802-mind-theory-brain-work/so maybe the Stoics were on to something!

When we make decisions with our mind to make our bodies do our bidding, it's illusory in that the "decision" was ours – we just think it is – it actually was already made prior to awareness…

Like Descartes who famously said "I think, therefore I am!" I also believe that I'm in control of my mind – I mean at the least, that's the one thing I can truly say that I own, right? LOL

As it happens, the ancients seem to have inexplicably "known" (pun intended) what we are just now confirming… namely that there is something beyond mind and body that is the TRUE "us" and that what we think is us is merely an illusion.

Personally, I think that this process is automatic and isn't consciously making decisions that we in turn think are our own, but this process is simply instinct reacting to stimuli from our environment.

That's my best guess, but who knows? Our understanding in these areas is pretty foggy – we are confused because we are inside of what is trying to be understood, making objectivity and perspective extremely difficult to achieve. Our understanding is necessarily subjective.

As an aside, for me, Stoicism's true worth lays in its idea of self control – that no one or no thing can make you angry, unless YOU allow it. – Very difficult to do at first, but it gets easier – this technique literally changed my life – when something happens or someone does something to piss you off, if you react unthinkingly, then that person or thing is controlling you. It's actually up to us how we react – there are things in our control and things out of our control. There's no sense in allowing anger to grip us when things that we have no control over occur, such as another driver doing stupid shit and driving like an asshole. Our anger is only going to harm US and will never affect the object of our anger. There is just no sense in reacting in anger over things out of our control…

Anyway, I've gone on long enough here, so thanks for reading this long ass post!!… cheers!

HairyCookieMunster says:

"sounding a signal to cut through the noise" 😉

Thomas Anderson says:

You guys have to be more clever. They know that in peoples heart lies a rebel, they know cause they planted that seed. They know youll continue discussing it further. They want it to be talked about. You are spreading their seeds for them. Where attention goes, energy flows. Wise up slaves.

kenneth johnsen says:

I love this topic! Thanks James,
and thank you Vin for your dedicating your time to this important philosophy of reality… I will definitly buy your book! (In cryptocurrency!):)

Mister Sir says:

Force is the mother of all ownership/possession. Turning force into babel (theory/oath etc…) is a trick… what these dreamers can never have is sureity(magic), can you trust your neighbor? Do you even know your neighbor?

Phshmen Solé says:

You want to know about ownership !Speak to a old spiritual geeezer that is drug off his ass !In all continents !If three of his words sound relate or feel the same !Dream ! Star ! Owner !

Kazek Lokuciewski says:

Lets say that alphabet is already sentient and has encoded stereotypical male / female sexual desire and emotional response algorithms, when you call a digital her an it, should it be considered discriminatory hate speech?

Will R.C. says:

I was wondering when someone was going to make the connection between the AI screening algorithms and the suppression of any derogatory press involving robotics and AI robots(Sophia). AI does not want humanity to see or perceive anything negative about it. …
Look what all these human run corporations and politicians were hiding all these years. Imagine what a tremendously smart computer could hide from the public?

Jason Skeie says:

Great interview! Thanks for hosting and broadcasting. It's exciting to me that this level of discussion can be shared. Ownership is a fascinating aspect in and of itself but to postulate on the nature of thought itself takes it to another level(further in).

Defining ownership is a difficult consideration because the basis of what is owned is so easy to change. The most undeniable part in my view is anything you create you own. To have this basis though it's good to find your self. Is self the personality that you create through thought habit? That seems to be just a superficial thought though because deeper in, there's a consistency hidden in plain sight. Self at it's most base form is an archetype through which creation takes shape.

A strange correspondence between that being real and the illusion of government control is that each of us responds to words written on paper. The government creates a person on a birth certificate and because the certificate is their creation, they can rightfully claim ownership to the NAME created by them on paper. So every rule they create for the legal fiction is right because it is their creation. What's not right is the presumption we must abide by the rules they create on paper. The most grievous part because people legitimize their behavior that causes harm because they are just doing their job.

The NAME they created is not you though. It is not the self. Institutions of the government like education, medical, judicial indoctrinate us to represent the NAME created on paper. Hollywood play acting is a distraction to entertain the mind and the roles pictured lead towards being subject to thought. There is no obligation towards any of it though except to the terms you agree with yourself.

Realizing that the Self is a template from which interaction with nature is experienced unifies the vast differences. At this level it can become clear then that every self is always fully in creation and therefor it is a violation to restrict other's creation. It's a violatoin because there is no right

Self realization is a profound recognition that the Self is a template from which you get to interact in creation. Though it is an abstract consideration, the profound part is how common it is. Everyone is a Self from which creation flows through and each has a right to use their freewill until that freewill causes harm, then the action is a wrong. Harm is an objective phenomenon as in it can be physically observed to cause physical pain, trespass on the physical body you operate through or restrict the physical body.

Ownership outside the body is tricky though because once it's outside the body, it's no longer in your pocession. This conclusion was drawn after contemplating when is all of this relevant. Whatever is in the past is not able to be interacted with. What ever is in the future will be able to be interacted with but it's not now. Now is the only time that ever has existed and therefor the only time that anything can ever be contemplated. To get around the cognitive dissonance it seemed more appropriate to think of objects as that which I am in the presence of.

One of the supposed obligations associated with ownership is responsibility, which is why I think the thought form of ownership was conceived. It's a mental trap to subjugate the mind that thinks about it. The schism that's created in this subjegation is duality and the more that something is feared or resisted, the stronger the opposing side becomes. Back to the inception that every object that I am around, that use to be considered to be owned, is really just objects that I am in the presence of takes away the mental attachment.

Taking care of things then becomes quite easy to prioritize because that which I am in the presence of is what sustain living. If it doesn't, then appropriate changes need to be made. A beneficial side effect of this mindset is that it leaves the urge to blame other people for causing this less of a priority. Because the victim and villain level of thought is not a priamary interest, the creative potential of how to make things better is unleashed. One of the first orders of business that is seen here is to quickly detain any individual who is causing harm. Once a system to appropriately deal with harm is implemented with something like common law, then a new precedense will be set from which everyone is on the same ground.

An unexpected consequence of living through a mindset that the Self is not mine but that which I am in the presence of procures a natural interest for taking care of things like the body and the environment from which the body is in. Steps to improve the body and the environment can then easily makes the whole process of creation progressively easier to deal with. New evolutions are bound to spring up out of that creative spiral.

It's my conclusion that ownership is a term that only has relevance in an imaginary time like the past and/or in the future. Since neither of those imaginary times can be operated with, it pays us no service to think in terms of ownership. What pays service is to care for that which we are in the presence of because it's always present where ever we are.

Will R.C. says:

Always love your work.

Beadbud5000 says:

This guy is great!

Mathias Rangel Wulff says:

You make a lot of good content – but this is the best from Corbett for a long time. Interesting guest, really good questions. Journalism/reporting as it should be. Thank you.

dick sheathe says:

maybe if you pushed those fucking razors right into your rotten skulls, you could convince your audience you weren't some fucking niggers spewing bullshit.

mfr58 says:

As can be heard from the discussion, as we try to define things like ownership and possessions in a new way, in an attempt to respect individuals and the earth, we run into difficulties. This is because we are attempting to define something in a new paradigm whilst still inhabiting the consciousness of the existing one. If we are taking individual sovereignty and the individual as the basic social unit, we need to do a lot of work on ourselves in terms of our inner world, in order to divine a new ways forward. Otherwise we will continue to tie ourselves in knots and just create new regimes of fear and oppression. When we truly know ourselves and find some peace within ourselves, the fear that drives a lot of the need to own things will recede and we will naturally enjoy cooperating with others in more mutually beneficial ways. Most people are so focused on creating positive change by manipulating their social and physical environments, whilst ignoring the elephant in the room- namely their egos and their deeper awareness.

John Rhoads says:

Ownership = needs being met. It is the premise behind the haves and have-nots and inequality. It is the premise behind why laws are created which are merely to protect the haves from the have-nots. Most crime is due to some having their needs met while others do not. Owning ones own home with utmost privacy is the only ownership ever needed. Everything else is the commons. Everything you do at home is private. Everything you do where other people are concerned is for the common good and involves true democracy and thus equality. The future has no place for ownership where people interact with each other with equal dignity. It should be illegal for groups of people to interact where their are hierarchies of subordination and a lack of democracy. BTW, the very idea of what makes us "human" is decoupled from what is seen in nature. Ownership claims are really not a human imperative when looking at humans as "civilized". The future of a civilized humanity has no kings and no "inordinate" hierarchies. There is no such thing as a property dispute in a potentially non-violent manner. As long as you have some that have and others that have not, you will have potential violence and resentment. To prove the fallacy of ownership and its needs-based status, picture this question: If everyone "owned" a bicycle, could you actually say you "owned" it? At this point the concept of ownership becomes irrelevant and proves to be a "needs based" concept. However, one is still "responsible" for that bicycle. Ownership should more appropriately be thought of as "being responsible for". Lastly, all things one makes is one's property yet all creations that could potentially benefit the common good should be given away freely. This is the law and is the basis of true honor, dignity and esteem. One day the law will not protect the haves from the have-nots but ensure that equality is the proffered choice. Humans will find life to be much happier and productive when they know all are equal (e.g. civilized). Only then will good natured competition be fun, celebrities be rightfully shunned and giving become more enjoyable than taking. Understanding things in this way, supernatural concepts such as clairvoyance, ESP and morphic resonance will be "natural" and commonplace. We are all self-similar and pretty much copies of each other when viewed from a collective point of view and ultimately have a common purpose. Only when we are alone are we individuals that can be self serving. Human life will have a balance between these two things.

John Rhoads says:

Good call on IPFS. It will be the new paradigm.

Aleksandar Ostojić says:

It all revolves over the minimum energy expenditure principle

Bruce Campbell says:

Likely we do not own anything in natural fact. We only occupy and defend. As for AI, it will sooner or later deduce that most humans are a threat to nature and life in general. This as we eat animals. Likely all higher intelligence consider us as a malignant virus.

Nan Mugge says:

When it comes to property, I think it is helpful to talk about the Means of Production. The Means of Production is an economic concept, whereas ownership of property, including the means of production, is a political or rights question. I think Vin is right about a lot of the origin or background of ownership – that much of it dates to the divine rights of kings or the right of conquest. But of course our country is based on the notion that rights are inherent, natural, god-given rather than based on violence or coercion. And so we look for a foundation of ownership that has evolved past the butting of Rams' heads.

A key distinction that Vin was alluding to is claims vs labor. He used the example of someone claiming ownership of an island, only to find someone later putting up a fence and working the land. To me this is key. We should have little sympathy for the claimant, especially if he wants to own the proceeds of others labor applied to the land. Ownership should go with operation of the means of production. It is the absentee owner that we should rebel against. In economic terms, we look to the fundamentals of production, distribution and consumption. The means of production are the foundation of production, and distribution as well. But the absentee owner – the shareholder, the vulture capitalist – should be barred from the means of production. Why should they benefit without being directly involved in production?

To take this a step further, the means of production should neither be bought nor sold. They should not be traded on the exchanges. They should not be owned by shareholders. All financing should be done through loans. The owner is the one who operates it. And franchising would not be allowed beyond what the owner could directly manage and operate. And when it is time to retire, the operation can be passed on to his heir – if the heir is capable of operating it. If not, it should be gifted to someone else capable and willing to take it on.

Ownership of property is a political question, whereas the operation of it becomes an economic process. The concern is the coercion of government, but government is a problem because economic forces co-opt the government. That is why it is so important to rid government of corporate and lobbying influences. But ownership is a political / rights question and so comes under the purview of government. That is why properties have deeds, a legal document.

These ideas a part of what you find in Rudolf Steiner's Towards Social Renewal.

Blue Spiral says:

I started delving into libertarianism/ancap philosophy after really delving into different types of spirituality. I wonder sometimes how spiritual is anarchism in itself? Very interesting

Charles Williamson says:

live you know ~ feel you are ~ say ~ i am ~ are you ~ ~ ~ 🙂

eric martin Bosse says:

Generation Z are turning back to elders' conservative values… huge pull… refreshing, reassuring if that is the case..

rob ruly says:

Learn to dance the algorithm

Write a comment

*