Assuimg the legitimacy of the concept of Self-Ownership, how excatly does this imply that “mixing” one’s labor with resources grants one ownership of that resource?
I have always heard that this is so, but it is always stated as a matter-of-fact, and not explained why this is so. If someone could help me out, I would be appreciative.
(I assume that the reasoning would be the same whether one uses the Rothbardian approach to self-ownership or the Hoppean. If not, please enlighten me.)
Thank you.
Praxeological control means that it’s an extension of you and who you are. (Saying 'I respect you, but I’m going to ignore your actions in the world would be inconsistent. Respecting someone is respecting his actions.)
I’m in the middle of my exams, so if you want I’ll explain a bit more clear later on.
Ownership implies legitimate control. Since people own their bodies, they therefore have legitimate control over their bodies. Furthermore, bodies can be used to control other things. Obviously this includes legitimate control or ownership.
Hopefully the above isn’t circular. 
Thanks for your reply, but I’m afraid baby steps are needed.
I assume that to “respect” you is to recognize your ownership of self?
Granting that, I still don’t see how it leads to ownership of outside resources. I can recognize your self-ownership and therefore your right to action, but then why does your action lead to you owning the resource you acted on?
Or, is it because of the fact of human action the reason you can own resources? Does it go something like this?
I don’t know. That last part doesn’t make sense to me. I am pretty lost, as you can tell.
Autolykos,
I’m with you until “[o]bviously this includes legitimate control or ownership.”
You say obviously, but I still ask why? I’m afraid it’s not obvious to me. Or, rather, it is, but if one of my anarcho-commie friends were to tell me that “No, it doesn’t,” I would have a hard time explaining why.
No problem. My reasoning is as follows:
Does this make sense to you?
It’s going to be hard to make it obvious, because it’s trivial nonsense.
When do you become a self-owner? In the womb? The moment you’re born? When you can make decisions for yourself (and who decides that, you, or someone else)?
Hell, I’m 25 and my mother still occasionaly makes decisions for me.
Ownership only develops through a competition over objects. Were there no competition, you would not need any kind of ownership, you would just do. With competition you have to say “this is mine.” Crusoe doesn’t own anything until Wednsday (or friday, w/e his name was lol) shows up.
Your mother doesn’t send nerve signals from your motor cortex to your muscles for you.
Who didn’t see this coming.
I’d say self-owership begins where human becomes human and is part of himself (not part of mother in a womb). When “he” is born. Parents are only rightful care-takers, not owners in a true sense.
The easiest way to answer this would be to read up on the homesteading principle.
I’ve been re-thinking this recently.I’ve always thought it made sense.Now it seems less obvious.I also wonder whether proving ownership proves a certain theory of property.
Self-ownership and the mixing are our axioms. In other words, they are nothing more than articles of faith in our belief system. They are not self-evident truths nor are the objectively provable concepts.
Libertarians need to aknowledge the assumptions they make. Personally, I think The Mixing nonsense is so silly.
Whether right or wrong it’s a mis-characterization of “self-ownership” to tag it as a simple assertion. There is at least some thought and reason behind the concept. Calling it a simple “assumption” dismisses all of the underlying reasoning which supports the concept. Whether or not you think the reasoning or thought process that went into it is fallacious would be besides the point. It’s not just a random idea someone thought up one day. It’s unfair to call it an “assumption”. At the very least you could label it a reasoned assumption.
There are many theoretical constructs which are just based on a myriad of assumptions. Though it’s interesting, to me, which ones people pick and choose to be simple assumptions, where others are acknowledge as more formidable. At the very minimum, to be honest, we should be attacking the underlying arguments which support this alleged “assumption” rather then being so generally dismissive.
Travis,
Chapter 15 has Hoppe restating the Rothbardian perspective on the matter, before elaborating with his argumentation ethic.
<< Calling it a simple “assumption” dismisses all of the underlying reasoning which supports the concept. >>
So what?
Calling it an assumption is the most fair thing to call it because it is nothing more. If it can not be proven, calling it an assumption is also the most intelligent and honest thing to call it.
All while ignoring the reasoning that goes into it. I wonder if this treatment is consistent with all theories, both ones you agree and disagree with.
Self-ownership and the mixing are our axioms. In other words, they are nothing more than articles of faith in our belief system. They are not self-evident truths nor are the objectively provable concepts.
You are mistaken.
Natural rights are based upon observation, not assumption or belief system.
That we own ourselves, in the state of nature, is a simple fact. It requires violation by society, by association with others, to abridge our natural choices, like control over our own bodies, the ability to defend ourselves, et cetera.
That anyone is able to graduate even grade school without knowing this is an obscenity. Then again, teaching about natural rights would be a self-defeating thing for a coercively funded, socialized education system.