Please forgive if this is a totally newbie question. I thought instead of searching through tons of stuff, I would ask a direct question looking for a simple answer.
Someone on the suicide thread said he did not believe in self ownership – to me self ownership is about as simple and basic a self evident truth as there is. Other than a communist take that we all own each other – what other views can a non- communist hold on this?
No one owns anyone? Yours and this are the 2 alternatives Hoppe considers. He rules out any others because a moral theory must be universal.
If you think property rights are utilitarian, you can think that some selfs can be owned by others in some hierarchical fashion.
“Someone on the suicide thread said he did not believe in self ownership”
I believe that you’re talking about me
Define for me ownership and then we can really talk. To me ownership implies either “in procession” or “A property norm of who SHOULD control something” If we define ownership as “having control over something” then self ownership becomes correct but in this case then if I steal a car then I then properly “own” the vehicle as suddenly I have control over it. However in this case there is no case for ownership that says I should not control the car but should still then control my body.
In this situation I call upon the second definition that I gave. Property norms very with each case in question, so why “should” I own myself? You cannot get an ought from an is. The reason why so many here cling to the idea of self ownership as some sacred thing is in order to justify their preferences with objective value and ethics. This was the contradictory treachery of Rothbard in his pursuit of an objective ethic to attempt to force the statists to follow his economics, despite the fact that his economics demonstrate perfectly and correctly that there is no such thing as an objective value.
The view I take, and I am not a communist, is similar to yours, I believe that each individual should own himself in most cases except in the repayment of certain debts or in the case of certain punishments in which case I consider that retaliatory slavery may be acceptable, this being said there is no inherent reason why you should own yourself, and especially not exclusive ownership.
So quite simply the belief that ownership is not an absolute
@andrew ryan: yes it was YOU!!!
thanks for the reply. I follow it for the most part, but feel I need to study philosppy more before I can dig my teeth into a lot of what is on this site. I am a product of public schooling ( and not giving a crap about learning - until later in life). who/what would you read to give a similar point of view as your own and / or where did you get the opinions on rothbards “contradictory treachery”.. thanks
I think the argument for self ownership has much to do with defending oneself against aggression. For the nonaggression principle to apply to people, people must be property of themselves. How else could self defense be considered legitimate?
For the nonaggression principle to apply to people, people must be property of themselves. How else could self defense be considered legitimate?
Why would self-defense be illegitimate if people didn’t own themselves?
“who/what would you read to give a similar point of view as your own and / or where did you get the opinions on rothbards “contradictory treachery”.. thanks”
I actually think that a good part of it would be to crack open a book on Austrian economics. What I mean by the above label is that Rothbard was one of my favorite economists of all time, he was truly great at his profession, however his ethical work contradicted his own theory. All Austrian economics arises from the idea that men have subjective and varying value preferences, this is why markets work because they can take this into account and attempt to predict future value preferences and their effects upon goods and services in the area of prices.
So in short, Rothbard’s economics: Subjective value preferences at the individual level and move up from there. Rothbard’s Ethics: Objective value based upon self ownership: Move up from there… I sense a contradiction in this one.
I am not actually overly familiar with philosophy myself (though I am growing every day) but I recommend two sources
http://fringeelements.ning.com/video/video/listForContributor?screenName=03jog2730rr6y
This is Ryan Falk, odd guy but he has some really great ideas, a lot of his stuff is pure gold both in economics, social theory, and morality.
Secondly I recommend Nietzsche, I don’t agree with a lot of what he believed (the will to power is bullshit) but Nietzsche… Now there is a man who UNDERSTOOD morality. Before you read ANY of his stuff read this
While unfortunately misinterpreting a small number of Nietzsche’s teachings (especially the will to power, disregard what he says on the matter but most of what he derives from the subject is still correct)
While this book is a good summary of Nietzsche’s beliefs, and it is wonderfully comprehensive, understandable, and well written. If you become interested in Nietzsche’s work I would recommend moving on to Beyond Good and Evil. But be warned his witting, although beautiful, is often difficult to understand.
“Why would self-defense be illegitimate if people didn’t own themselves?”
You possibly lose a possible “should” in the statement “people should be able to defend themselves”
You possibly lose a possible “should” in the statement “people should be able to defend themselves”
Possibly. I think the NAP can be formulated to include the “should” without the self-ownership aspect, not that its even necessary.
“Possibly. I think the NAP can be formulated to include the “should” without the self-ownership aspect”
True, but it’s still a good “should”
“not that its even necessary.”
What is?
True, but it’s still a good “should”
What?
What is?
A moral argument for why you should be able to defend yourself.