Possible exception to self ownership axiom

Economics Political Theory
1

A soon-to-be lawyer friend of mine tells me that self-ownership is a misconception. We only have what the law calls ‘self-autonomy’. I proved to him that this is self-ownership in all but name, as the same laws that protect property are the same that protect people. What we call ‘malicious damage to property’ is called ‘assault’ when applied to people. ‘Kidnapping’ is analogous to ‘theft’. ‘Trespassing’ applies to both people and objects. He conceded there was a ‘fine line’ between self-ownership and self-autonomy.

We then agreed on the definition of ‘ownership’ as full control of the object in question. However he claimed that there are persons who can’t exercise ‘full control’ of themselves, like the mentally ill, dementia patients and the incontinent, therefore they don’t own themselves.

Lawyers.

2

No, they do own themselves - however, like children, a custodian might be appointed to aid them.

-Jon

3

Knowing lawyers (in particular, one on this forum), he would object to that on the principle that it doesn’t involve the invocation of positive law words written down on paper by a government violent gang of thugs.

4

Im wary of the word appointed, guardianship would be homesteaded, thus self-appointed.

Homesteading is applicable here because it prevents someone from holding the claim solely to exclude others from exercising it. (The same problem that homesteading prevents in land ownership)

5

Yeah, good point.

-Jon

6

What if you owned an animal you could not control? Even if you had it in a cage you cannot ‘fully control’ its actions. Does that mean you don’t own the animal?