Is self-ownership even true?

[LibertiORDeth]

First off this isn't one of those flame or devil's advocate post, I'm just trying to figure this out. Do we have any rights to... anything? Or is it really survival of the fittest? You only have a right to what you can protect, or convince other people to protect for you.

[South Park Fan]

This should explain self-ownership:
http://mises.org/etexts/hoppe5.pdf

[BillyDkid]

I have encountered people who openly don't believe in self ownership and believe that we are owned by society. I find this appalling. You don't own yourself - a real tangible thing - but are owned by "society" - a complete abstraction and fabrication.

[torchbearer]

if you don't own yourself, who does?

[kahless]

I have encountered people who openly don't believe in self ownership and believe that we are owned by society. I find this appalling. You don't own yourself - a real tangible thing - but are owned by "society" - a complete abstraction and fabrication.

These people are the reason why we are in this mess and the fight for freedom is an up hill battle. If there is a revolution in this country in the fight to regain our freedoms these are the people that will be a thorn in our side before and after.

[brandon]

You only have a right to what you can protect, or convince other people to protect for you.

^^^this is what I believe

[satchelmcqueen]

not in this country

[jsu718]

If you owned yourself, suicide wouldn't be illegal.

[torchbearer]

If you owned yourself, suicide wouldn't be illegal.

Suicide is a right. It is illegal because people feel the obligation to legislate morality.

[erowe1]

This is an ethical question. The only way such an ethical principle as self-ownership can actually exist as a universal absolute principle from which moral imperatives can derive is if such a thing as universal absolute morality exists. If such a thing does not exist, then this is a moot question. We might be able to say that we prefer to live as though we have rights and ownership of ourselves. But without such a moral absolute, then we have no basis by which to judge that those who disagree are wrong, and to say that our own rule on is anything more than a personal preference that applies only to us.

If moral absolutes do exist, then they exist because there is a God, a lawgiver with the authority to establish these absolutes over us. And if such a lawgiver exists, then our only hope of knowing his laws is if he has revealed them to us. The spiritual realm, including questions of what laws a God has instituted, is not something that can be derived simply from logical syllogisms combined with scientific study of the empirical world. Those things may play a part in it, but only inasmuch as we have already established on grounds apart from them that they are valid, in which case it must be that even if they are valid, they are not in themselves sufficient.

Within a Christian worldview (which is where I'm coming from) there is a place for logic and empiricism, as well as truth revealed by God in the Bible. So a Christian has to answer this (and every other) ethical question from within that matrix. I don't think the idea of owning oneself or others plays much of a role in defining morality as revealed in the Bible. But to the extent that we can adopt that language in expressing morality, we would run into major problems if we assert 100% self-ownership as an inviolable principle. On the one hand, we first have to concede that God is really the one who owns all of us completely. But that might be a cop out when the real issue we're talking about is ownership as it pertains to relationships strictly on the human plane. However, even within that, I can't possibly accept a pure self-ownership model. Clearly the institution of marriage entails obligations of the husband and wife to one another. When they make that covenant, they give up ownership of themselves to each other (the Bible says precisely this in 1 Corinthians 7:4). I don't have a right to commit adultery, since my body is not mine to give another, it's my wife's. Similarly, parents and children have inviolable obligations to one another. My wife does not own her womb. She has an unborn daughter inside it right now, and my wife and I are obligated to care for her both now and after she's born. We are similarly obligated to our son. And our son and unborn daughter are also not completely their own. They are obligated to obey their parents. If they assert their self-ownership so as to say that nobody other than they can decide if they will eat their peas, my wife and I are within our rights to prove otherwise by force.

So it's in the family unit that I'm most certain that the idea of self-ownership breaks down. I find it more difficult to make analogous claims for anything outside of the family, particularly when government has the top-down structure that it does in our nation as it now exists. However, I would also uphold (again on the basis of biblically informed ethics) that the top down structure is evil. Governments are only acting justly when they are formed from the bottom up via voluntary participation. Society that has governments structured that way would be very different than ours. The chief presence of any government most people would ever feel (and perhaps the only governments that could exist at all) would be very localized conglomerations of families and individuals. I tend to think (mainly through trying to imagine the scenarios) that family units would play very important roles as the very bottom units within such societal groups. They would also, in most cases probably be groups that are relatively homogeneous in culture and that involve religious conceptions much more overtly in the rules and mores that guide individual behavior within them and the ways disputes would be adjudicated. And within such systems I can easily envision a further loosening of the concept of self-ownership even outside the immediate family, as the lives of members of these groups may be intertwined in such personal ways as to involve some measure of obligation towards one another. Of course, such relationships in order to be morally right and not wrong, would have to be circumscribed by recognition that whatever obligations people have to one another are not things that can allow killing, kidnapping, and stealing form one another and other such biblically informed maxims. And such a circumscription would severely limit the power of even those local governments. It would have to be the case that the choice of exile from the community would always be available to those people and families who decide they would rather forego the benefits of security it gives them than submit to the rules that govern inclusion in the group. It may be that, depending on how one defines "self ownership," this last caveat makes such a system still compatible with self-ownership.

[heavenlyboy34]

if you don't own yourself, who does?

In modern times, the State. Before that, the king, emperor, etc. Whoever controls the money and power. :(:mad:

[heavenlyboy34]

First off this isn't one of those flame or devil's advocate post, I'm just trying to figure this out. Do we have any rights to... anything? Or is it really survival of the fittest? You only have a right to what you can protect, or convince other people to protect for you.

I personally believe self-ownership is axiomatic. However, the criminals in power disagree with me, so my opinion doesn't count. :(:p:mad:

[torchbearer]

In modern times, the State. Before that, the king, emperor, etc. Whoever controls the money and power. :(:mad:

speak for yourself.
I'm ready to die if government thugs try to impose their will on me.

[heavenlyboy34]

speak for yourself.
I'm ready to die if government thugs try to impose their will on me.

I'm just speaking of the "accepted norms". I agree with you.

[Scofield]

if you don't own yourself, who does?

Federal, State, and Local government.

[Original_Intent]

if you don't own yourself, who does?

My thought exactly.

[Andrew-Austin]

First off this isn't one of those flame or devil's advocate post, I'm just trying to figure this out. Do we have any rights to... anything? Or is it really survival of the fittest? You only have a right to what you can protect, or convince other people to protect for you.

Its wrong to conflate rights with might. If someone steals your property, you still have a right to that property.

If someone steals your wallet, there is obviously no gravity like force that will ensure that it is brought back to you... Property rights is just an ethical assertion, a rational suggestion for how all of mankind ought to conduct itself, in which most people are naturally inclined to respect if not understand (criminals having always been the minority).

[Optatron]

is it true?

not in the same way gravity is true

[Kludge]

if you don't own yourself, who does?

Nature (God), I imagine, since it also apparently grants rights.

[South Park Fan]

I have encountered people who openly don't believe in self ownership and believe that we are owned by society. I find this appalling. You don't own yourself - a real tangible thing - but are owned by "society" - a complete abstraction and fabrication.

Hoppe explains that this view is wrong because it would lead to the destruction of the human race. In order to do anything, you would need the consent of society, but the individual members of society wouldn't be able to consent since they would need the consent of society to use their vocal cords to consent.

[ChaosControl]

It should be, but this world is one ****ed up place.
They can tell you what you can and can't eat? I mean the hell is that crap.

[mediahasyou]

honestly what ever you want to believe.

the government overtime will phase out because the gov cant compete.

[Dreamofunity]

I believe I'm responsible for my actions, and would like to think I have free will in those decisions. If that's not ownership, I don't know what is.

[erowe1]

I believe I'm responsible for my actions, and would like to think I have free will in those decisions. If that's not ownership, I don't know what is.

The concept of ownership entails certain rights. If human beings do have free will (which I'm not sure I agree with, but it may be a matter of defining terms--I do accept that we are responsible for our actions at any rate) then people enslaved to others, and thus owned by them, still do have free will. But if that enslavement is wrong, then there is a reason for it being wrong. Some say the reason is that only those enslaved people can own themselves, thus their it is wrong to allow anyone else to. On the other hand, if slavery were morally right (which I reject, but for the sake of argument), that would not change the fact that the slaves have free will, to whatever extent that it can be said that people do. So the concepts of self-ownership and free will are separate concepts. You can (at least conceivably) have one without the other.

[Optatron]

Nature (God), I imagine, since it also apparently grants rights.

grant but doesn't enforce himself.

[Kludge]

grant but doesn't enforce himself.

Not immediately.

[torchbearer]

Nature (God), I imagine, since it also apparently grants rights.

you can't grant a right. If it is granted to you- it is a privilege and can taken away by the granter.

[Kludge]

you can't grant a right. If it is granted to you- it is a privilege and can taken away by the granter.

So then, God's smiting was immoral?

[torchbearer]

So then, God's smiting was immoral?

Unless he is a judge and brought down a verdict. I've never seen a god smite anyone. Just hearsay from old tomes that are probably as made up as stories of Zeus,
When you say a right is a natural right, its isn't because "nature" granted a right... it is because the right comes from your very nature.

[Optatron]

you can't grant a right. If it is granted to you- it is a privilege and can taken away by the granter.

yes, so the fact rights HAVE BEEN and CAN STILL be taken away, means they're not inalienable no matter what one believes.

[torchbearer]

yes, so the fact rights HAVE BEEN and CAN STILL be taken away, means they're not inalienable no matter what one believes.

they can only be taken away if you allow them to be taken away.
when you say live free or die, you have to mean both parts.
I have come to terms with my own death if need be... I will not cede any of my rights to anyone.
what rights are you willing to die for?

[Optatron]

they can only be taken away if you allow them to be taken away.


So jews allowed the SS to take their rights away when they were escorted to camps?



when you say live free or die, you have to mean both parts.
I have come to terms with my own death if need be... I will not cede any of my rights to anyone.
what rights are you willing to die for?

some but not all, fair enough, thanks!

[Dr.3D]

yes, so the fact rights HAVE BEEN and CAN STILL be taken away, means they're not inalienable no matter what one believes.

They can incarcerate me, they can even take my life. But they can not take away my right to liberty and life. There is a big difference between what they can physically do and what they can do in reality. I can be killed while still knowing I have the right to life. This does not mean they took my right to life away, they just took my life.

[torchbearer]

So jews allowed the SS to take their rights away when they were escorted to camps?





yes.
A slave is someone who didn't fight for their rights, but accepted bondage.
A person will sometimes be faced with 2 choices- to live as a slave - or die a free man.
Most people choose to live as a slave.
If every person chose to die a free man there would be no slavery and criminal governments couldn't exist for very long.

[Optatron]

yes.
A slave is someone who didn't fight for their rights, but accepted bondage.
a person will sometimes be faces with 2 choices- to live as a slave - or die a free man.
Most people choose to live as a slave.
If every person chose to die a free man there would be no slavery and criminal governments couldn't exist for very long.

qft!

[Optatron]

They can incarcerate me, they can even take my life. But they can not take away my right to liberty and life. There is a big difference between what they can physically do and what they can do in reality. I can be killed while still knowing I have the right to life. This does not mean they took my right to life away, they just took my life.

keep saying that, I'd rather not play word games, and instead, choose to stay alive at all costs.

[BillyDkid]

yes.
A slave is someone who didn't fight for their rights, but accepted bondage.
A person will sometimes be faced with 2 choices- to live as a slave - or die a free man.
Most people choose to live as a slave.
If every person chose to die a free man there would be no slavery and criminal governments couldn't exist for very long.Or the choice can be incredibly more complex and difficult than that. Sophie's choice for example. Sacrifice one of your children or sacrifice them both.