Comments on: Self-ownership and Teeth-ownership in Communist China: A Lesson for Confused Libertarians Property - Prosperity - Peace Sat, 09 May 2015 08:06:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Francois Tremblay Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:48:50 +0000 Rape is an assault against your REAL rights. You have the right to your own sexuality. How hard can it be to understand that you don’t need make-believe rights (like “self-ownership”) when you already have real rights?

By: Henry G Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:40:51 +0000 This is the type of insanity that the libertarian philosophy leads to and is the reason why I am not a libertarian. Ownership of bodies would learn to all sorts of bizarre conclusions like ability to sell or rent your spouse into slavery because they are “community property.” Ownership of live bodies simply does not apply, does not make sense, and would completely invalidate the whole idea/concept of ownership.

By: Daniel K Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:51:31 +0000 Forgive me if I sound ad hominem. I’m just trying to better understand how your logic would work in the real world.

Are you perfectly okay with someone raping you?

By: Francois Tremblay Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:06:36 +0000 Kinsella already posted the entries where I discuss this. Just go ahead and read them.

By: Daniel K Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:40:12 +0000 Tremblay. Please elaborate on how you think there’s no such thing as self-ownership. I guess what you’re implying is ownership doesn’t exist, therefore self-ownership does not exist. Would the term “self-possession” be a better word to use for you?

By: Francois Tremblay Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:13:01 +0000 “your response which does nothing to dispel it”
Entirely a matter of opinion. I think you ancaps are just blind to the facts because you have surrendered your moral compass in favor of voluntaryist childishness.

By: Slim934 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:41:45 +0000 ….Kinsella’s reasoned response as to why self-ownership is both true and obvious makes him look bad, while your response which does nothing to dispel it makes you look good?

A rather bizarre standard for rational inquiry.

By: Wes Bertrand Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:51:41 +0000 I appreciate all the work you’ve done over the years, Stephan, such as helping people better understand the unjust nature of IP laws. Here’s my take on this present topic. I came across the idea that we can’t/don’t “own” ourselves a couple years ago. It reminds me of the other ongoing libertarian debate about whether or not “rights” exist. As in all disputes of this nature, epistemological clarity is needed. Ad hominem fallacy definitely derails things.

As Stephan has articulated, to own is the right to control. Specifically, ownership denotes the right–i.e., freedom in a social context–to use and/or dispose of something. Now, following from this definition, what exactly can be owned? Pretty much everything, based on the principles of first possession/claim and voluntary transfer. Ownership enables utilization of finite resources to further human flourishing, as well as conflict resolution. (So-called intellectual “property” is a misapplication of the ownership principle, mainly because such information patterns can be duplicated without conflict (leaving originals intact).)

Regarding the concept of self-ownership, we face the philosophical question of whether it’s logically consistent that an owner can use and/or dispose of the very thing that is doing the owning–a reasoning mind. Can/does one’s faculties of reason and volition _own_ one’s faculties of reason and volition, i.e., higher level brain processes? Yes, and this is the most fundamental tautology of the axiomatic concept of consciousness. Recognition of this tautology fosters human flourishing in society: we want to respect people and their property, once we recognize the nature of self-ownership.

After all, does a person have the right to sell or give away his or her own various body parts, to the point of ending his or her own life (notice the concept “own” here too)? Libertarianism, acknowledging the truth of self-ownership, answers in the affirmative. As Rand noted, existence is identity, and consciousness is identification. The phrases “I am myself” and “I own myself” are as tautological as the phrases “Existence exists” and “A is A.” Both articulate the metaphysical nature of axiomatic concepts, which can’t be reduced to anything more fundamental (and upon which any and all proof is based).

In contrast, the phrases “I am not myself” and “I don’t own myself” (or “Another owns me”) are metaphysically (and politically) contradictory. They beg the question, because “to be” and “to own” entail a reasoning animal both being and owning (i.e., using and/or disposing of something, which necessarily includes itself). Ownership is an idea (and resulting behavior) that arises from a reasoning mind. Not to apply it to the very thing that grasps the concept, contradicts the whole purpose of the concept: autonomous functioning, individual flourishing, and respectful human interaction.

Thomas above wrote: >Is it really your position that my ownership of my body is not subject to alienation by me at will, but is subject to confiscation by others if, in their judgment, I have aggressed? If so, that’s a damn weird definition of “ownership.”<

A "contract" to enslave oneself is necessarily invalid. Being a slave to another entails not acting in accordance with one's will (i.e., volitional, reasoning mind), a will which is required in the ironic attempt to nullify itself via enslavement. Further, the principle of self-ownership entails restitution if it's violated. Obviously, restitution can be coerced (extrinsically motivated), yet true restorative justice entails remorsefully making peace with those harmed and repairing what's been damaged (intrinsically motivated). The latter scenario demonstrates an enlightened society that's abandoned domination structures of punishment.

By: Francois Tremblay Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:48:54 +0000 “Let’s say there was a sociopathic man that chopped off thumbs. All victims were left without a scratch, save missing thumbs. Since, as Francois Tremblay said, “No one owns their own body,” the people without thumbs aren’t victims of a crime.”
Wow. Because YOU see crime as merely an extension of property does not mean that everyone does. How sheltered do you have to be to say such a thing?

By: J Cortez Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:08:26 +0000 Francois Tremblay said: “No you doofus, my body is not a resource. My body is me.”

You can, presumably, walk, talk, eat, bathe, laugh, and defecate without help. With that in mind, I think someone like Stephen Hawking might disagree with you that your body isn’t a resource. Also, I wonder what he would also say about the question, what is “me?” Is his “me” the ravaged shell of his body, which you assert, or is his “me” his mind? In this scenario, the mind is the owner of the body, which I think is the correct answer.

Francois Tremblay said: “No one “decides” who gets to use it. My subconscious takes about 99.9% of all the decisions needed to run my body. ”

So then, as you say, the subconscious is controlling your body. If this was true for humans, then it would mean that the conscious mind is meaningless. I have trouble seeing how that could be true, but assuming it is, does it not tie into what I said before? The mind directs the body, and the mind is the owner.

Francois Tremblay said: “You know, this arrogant pretense of knowing what you’re talking about would work IF YOU KNEW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. Otherwise, you just look like a douche.”

I can agree Mr. Kinsella tends to have little patience and can be rude and insulting when debating others on the internet, but your posts here are no better.