Here’s another case where I’d like to reduce to fundamentals.
So, my starting point is always that ownership is a claim to the use of “property”, that property is defined as matter, but that the claim of ownership is bounded to some location (area/volume in space) and some specific time period.
At a minimum I believe we would all agree that the mind itself (whatever that is) cannot be divorced from the physical brain. Even more importantly the nerves which control the muscles of a specific human body are connected to the brain, and thus controlled by the mind.
So, the idea of inalienable rights to your body means that there is a property claim over the physical human body, which is a direct use claim and is unlike any other claim of ownership which is an indirect claim of ownership. By this I mean that another human mind can in fact manipulate and interact with this pile of dirt, in the same exact way as my mind can, but the same is not true for my physical body. The way in which I manipulate my body cannot be duplicated by another human mind. In order to “use” my body to do something he must do so indirectly through the employment of his own body.
So, one question is what role does the conscious mind, or as Mises called us homo agens (acting man), what role does agency play in helping us decide what type of claims or agreements are enforced in society?
Now another point I would make, is that a legitimate claim is a legitimate claim because of social enforcement. Meaning that if everyone in society agrees, and no other party in the society stands with you to prevent a claim you disagree with from being enforced by others, then you’re kind of screwed.
So the only way to “use” another human being’s body would be via contract. He has an ownership claim, and it’s impossible to get away from that claim. More importantly, must “uses” I would have for another human being would require homo agens to accomplish. Meaning that he or she would have to act, in order for my ends to be achieved.
I’m just starting to work these things through in my mind, based on this new idea of praxeological conflict and the role of ownership/property.
@Lady Saiga,
Given Ownership as described above, I would make the case that when you use any matter you have two cases, use or self-owned property or a negotiation with another owner for a rent (use) of their property. Slavery as you described then is not ownership, but a contract for rent. That contract is with a second human agent. It cannot be a transfer of ownership because unless you somehow evict the mind (unconscious, braindead, kill the person), you cannot remove the Agent from the human body. And the direct control is the first order ownership. My indirect use of the other person’s body must operate in a way that interferes wtih the other Agent’s direct use of the body. The question for a society is if we value direct ownership as a primary given, or if we value something else first and foremost as a higher given. While I will acknowledge that a social group doesn’t have to honor direct use as a higher order and respected value, any norm which gives indirect use a higher value must be one which values direct use of the human body by some members over and against the direct use of the human body by other members in the society. This must be the case historically for slavery as it was practiced.
For slavery to exist without some social norms/laws that differentiate between members direct use claims, it must be a contract of some type. A contract of such a type is then a set of behaviors, terms, conditions, obligations, etc. for each party. Now the question is who arbitrates disagreements about the terms in practice? In common law, we see the rise of concepts of fairness, conflict of interest, etc. The fundamental idea is that a correlation between an inequality in station, wealth, power and inequality in justice within the context of a contract is self-destructive to the society.
My issue with imprisonment is that fairness within property violations and contract law is healthiest for the society when it’s connected to compensation. I can see labor camps being an efficient mechanism that allows offenders to pay off a debt without being completely abandoned, isolated or shunned by the community. It becomes a mechanism by which the offendor repairs his offense. I can see commitment to an institution for mental health services as a voluntary mechanism that would include working to support the facility so that it can generate a profit. I could see external donations that would help fund a facility of this type. But it must run on a profit motive, and it’s costs cannot be externalized except through voluntary donations. The alternative is banishment or getting killed by someone who you steal from in order to feed or shelter yourself.
To understand why I disagree with punishment one must understand it as a phenomena. I would argue, that it’s an artifact of parent/child relationships. It arises when the parent gives the child artificially constructed consequences which are a substitute for the ones one would expect in the adult world or in isolation in a naked reality. One of two cases is true, the parent creates a fictional consequence as a substitute for a real consequence that could have occured but didn’t (think of running into the street without looking), or creates a lesser consequence for an action and bears the real cost of the childs action on themselves( think of a baseball through the neighbors window).
The biggest failure in our legal system and in our society IMO is legitimization of the disconnection of consequences from actions. The complete disruption of the concept of responsibility and accountability. Politicians do it for themselves, they do it for rich people/corporations via lobbyists, and they promise to do it for us when they campaign.
So, imprisonment to me is a copout, repair the damage caused, and make sure the expense is born by the offender. Otherwise, kick em out, and if they refuse to leave, kill them when they steal or attack someone.
