Hello, this is my post on this great forum. I sometimes have a read of posts but I decided to jump in and ask people what they think.
I used to think that natural rights were true and axiomatic in that they were self-evident. Now, I have been convinced that there is no such thing as self-ownership or indeed ownership, per se.
Doesn’t libertarianism collapse under such weak foundations? Don’t arguments against statism or collectivism also weaken?
So do you believe more in the Hobbean state of nature?
I am not sure what to think.
Without self-ownership, I don’t think you can argue against someone owning part of my property (taxation) or even me. It would be no different to picking an apple of a tree, except that it involves people.
What do you think? =]
Personally I think self-ownership is self-evident. Who controls your thoughts and actions? You and only you.
You should check this out and tell me what you think:
Philosophical questions about free will and self ownership do not prevent them from functioning as praxeological assumptions.
Why are you convinced of that? Owning something just means that the people around you think that you should be the only person allowed to have the final say about who gets to control it and how they get to control it. Whether it is natural rights or something else that makes them think that, it doesn’t matter, you still own it.
Now, I have been convinced that there is no such thing as self-ownership or indeed ownership, per se.
Fluke,
I prefer the biological explanation for self-ownership over Hoppe’s (I think Hoppe’s argumentation ethics assumes its premises). That is, we own ourselves because we are the only person who can truly decide our actions. Yes, someone can put a gun to your head and order you to do something, but ultimately the choice to do what you are ordered to do is yours alone.
For me, this doesn’t lead to private property. I believe what leads to private property is that humans are rational (in the sense that their actions are purposeful [not in the more modern sense that their actions are logical]), and at some point it becomes more profitable (towards meeting desired ends) to cooperate with your neighbors; this is what I believe to be the genesis of property rights.
See this: Hoppe on Property Rights.
Why not? Owning something just means that the people around you think that you should be the only person around allowed to have the final say about who gets to control it and how they get to control it. Whether it is natural rights or something else that makes them think that, it doesn’t matter, you still own it.
As I see it, It just means that self-ownership (and everything that flows from this) depends on people’s opinions and whims. I used to quote the legal latin term “quo warranto” in debates which translates as “by what right”. If I can’t legitimtaley explain where my right comes from (such as owning my labour), then why can’t someone else own my labour!!
Libertarianism seems to rest on weak foundations.
Please don’t think I am trolling btw. I am just feeling disenchated at the moment, and a bit confused about what I used to believe.
You proved self-ownership exists when you posted this thread.
Saying “there is no such thing as self-ownership” is equivalent to saying “there is no such thing as language.”
This video proves the validity of property rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tobN6iY4iIs
No, in so much as markets are the only way to really tell what is and what is not efficient, the only way to achieve material (though perhaps not social) wealth, and the best way to ensure your survival, a theory of universal rights is not needed, just an individual preference for wealth maximization.
As far as what is or is not yours (such as self concept), so far as you can make a claim on something and it responds to such a claim, it is yours.
To pentahedron ~ I had a look at the first 4 pages and he seems to summarise the main arguments for self-ownership. You’re probably more informed on this than me, so could correct me. But doesn’t estoppel, argumentation etc just rely on lingustic devices more than anything. Also, doesn’t controling on’es action differ from claims off ownership?
Fluke, I agree with you, the key goal of libertarianism is convincing enough people to let other people live the way they want to.
Reason being that objective morality does not exist.
I also believe it will be easier to keep a society libertarian than to make a statist one libertarian, as most people are conformists.
Edit: We do have Occam’s razor on our side though. Keep it simple: no state. You also can not be asked to prove a negative. It’s up to the statists to prove a state is morally justified.
Just because morality is optional does not mean that morality is not objective.
The objectivity of ethics has been proven.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán ~ Thanks for the link to your blog. It’s quite impressive. I feel I have a lot of reading to do on this subject. But you do say:
“concepts such as property rights and non-aggression principles (which is nothing more than an extension of property rights) developed voluntarily as social boundaries and rules in society, or civilization”
I feel a bit disenchanted by this. If something isn’t ‘set in stone’ and concrete then it seems extremely weak to say that I am entitled to my body (or anything else for that matter). It know it does sound stupid but if someone was to ask me why I have exclusive rights over my property, or body (trying to stop me from using drugs or whatever) then I don’t feel like I could say “I own myself” or the natural rights stuff …
Also ~ how you you quote someone on a thread? I must sound like an idiot :o
You dont need natural rights to believe people should be able to live their own lives. I hold a position of “demanded rights.” And I say we demand the right to direct our own affairs, I base this off of the last 500 years of evidence in support of it.
In that case, you can come over to my house right now and do all of my chores, since apparently you don’t own yourself and I called dibs.
Your very existence is “Set in stone” as it were. It is “just a video game” quote, but as Andrew Ryan said, “A man chooses…A slave obeys!”.
Epicurus ~ I don’t see why.
If you can’t proclaim that you own your body 100% and no-one has a right to claim ownership of that body, then no amount of history (500, or 2000 years) can ever make for that ‘gap’. I can’t say someone isn’t entitled to my body - if I can’t point to exclusive rights over my own. Saying it sounds good … I like it … it makes us get along … seems like weak arguments that don’t stand for anything.
Btw, I am not trolling at all. I just can’t see how someone can be a libertarian and claim full ownership of themselves, and their bodies and their property without having something solid and concrete to base that on. It’s almost like the belief in the existence of God - entirely wishful thinking.
Well, whether you own something does just depend on what the other people think, but that doesn’t mean that what they think is arbitrary or something. It is possible to show them why it would benefit them to think that you should be the only person allowed to have the final say about who gets to control something and how they get to control it.
In fact, we have society only because enough people realized that dividing labor is more productive than not, and that we need property rights and whatever else to making dividing labor possible. We have property rights because of the fact that it is beneficial to us; we don’t have property rights simply because we have a sort of natural right to it. People came up with “natural rights” because property rights are expedient, not the other way around.
I dont believe in full self-ownership. That is silly, half of your thoughts are biological, stemming from your parents (orphaned kids of smokers grow up to smoke, etc). Another x amount is environmental, developed from where you matured, and who you matured with. Self-ownership is silly.
I believe in self-determination. People are generally best left to their own devices. As an example I give you the democritization of governments in 16-19th century west (euro/america) and the industrial revolution, etc.
My other argument is that if you try to take control of my body/thoughts, Ill punch you.
I really dont care for violence so, why dont you just let me be?
You dont need to resort to some imaginary philosophical concept to tell people you will shoot them. You dont want to get shot, I dont want to either. Why dont we just come to a mutally beneficial conclusion?