I guess there are few theories as to what property comprises.
The first, the closest to you guys here is the Lockean-Rothbardian. You know all about it.
Another one is the pure Lockean theory of property, the one that liberals hold on to, which is similar, but different in the detail of property right not being absolute but being bellow the (positive) right to life.
Another is the Roussouan-Proudhonian theory of property. Land ownership is illegitimate accordning to it, because land is not a product of labor; employment, rent, interest are viewed as illegitimate for the same reason.
Also, the Roussouan-Georgist theory, which says that land ownership is illegitimate, but beyond that, libertarian or liberal concept of property kicks in.
All have their arguments. I don’t see the libertarian concept of property being sequitur to the self-ownership axiom.
While giving those stuff a glance, I saw an interesting point- that Rothbard was not a voluntaryist. If it’s consensual, it’s doesn’t mean it’s ok, concretly, slavery by selling oneself is not valid, no matter the consent. I agree with that. But Proudhon argued that just as it is illegitimate to sell oneself, it is illegitimate to rent oneself, and just as “You can only give away your property, not yourself.” (as it says in the Private Property’s Philosopher article) you can only sell your property, not your labor (which is, as opposed to it’s products, a part of yourself). So, two conflicting theories of property stand.
I’ve been thinking for some time about the argumentation ethics by which the self-ownership is shown to be an axiom, and does it also show the non-aggression to be an axiom, or is non-aggression deduced from self-ownership. And if non-aggression is deduced from self-ownership, is it really an axion if argumentation ethics can be shown to justify it’s breaking. If that is shown, then the third, Lockean, theory of property stands as an alternative to the mention two, too.
Voluntary slavery is a contradiction of terms, sorry. If it’s voluntary, it’s not slavery. Rothbard is cool with people who personally like to get beaten and bossed around. He’s not cool when this becomes involuntary. Hence, he is a voluntaryist.
Slavery by selling oneself has existed throughout history, and no slavery is slavery if it has “cancelable by lack of consent of the slave” clause, if it has that clause, then it’s not slavery, that’s employment.
If you voluntarily sign a contract saying that in exchange for someone eg. givng your family such-and-such amount of money, you will become his slave, and not “slave”, but slave, meaning- his property to be bought, sold, killed, forced to work, whatever, that’s not a contradiction in terms. If you can agree to be beaten and bossed around, and if you can agree to be killed, you can also agree to become a real slave.
If you were informed what slave means, and were able-minded (had legal capacity) when singing the contract, that contract cannot be said to be a contradiction in terms, it is a valid contract, except it is shown that it’s in contradiction with some ethical principle.
Evidently you didn’t read that latest link I provided for you. You might want to do that. Then migrate over to this thread…as this is of course not the first time this ridiculous notion has been raised.
And of course, that’s not the only thread where we’ve gone over it. It’s just the longest.
As you can see, this “you can sell yourself into slavery” nonsense seems to find a way to be introduced almost regardless of the precise subject of discussion. And of course, those are just the ones I recall at the moment.
I’ve read it, I just don’t agree with it. Also, I have written in that threat.
Rothbard, and a lot of guys here by following him, talk about some imaginary slavery contracts which have “cancelable by lack of consent of the slave” clauses and call that voluntary slavery, but by the fact of having such clause it is not slavery. Whereas, as I said, slavery by selling oneself has existed throughout history. People knew that by selling themselves into slavery they give up their right to life, liberty, property and the right to cancel the slavery contract, and they agreed to those conditions in exanchge for whatever the slaveowner agreed to. Such slavery can become involuntary on a metaphysical level, but not on the legal one, because by selling oneself into slavery one has waived his right to cancel and get out of the contract.
What if in that time libertarians would come to power, how would they justify taking slaves from the slave-owner that got them when they voluntarily sold themselves to him? The slave-to-be knew what slavery is, he agreed to it, the slaveowner payed the slave’s family, or whoever he needed to give money to according to the slave contract- and what would happen? Would libertarians take the slave from him and explain how that was an illegitimate contract? Whould they give him his money back?
If anyone has the right to do what he wants unless he violates NAP, I don’t see how could it be contradictional with selling oneself into slavery.
So it is questionable whether slavery by selling oneself is inconsistant with libertarianism, and if it is accepted as such, there arises the question if employment is inconsistant with libertarianism, too..
Please cite the passage in which Rothbard talks about such clauses.
Argument by terminology? Argument by tradition?
You claim to have read this stuff, but your comments say otherwise. From the second response in that thread:
Hence, the unenforceability, in libertarian theory, of voluntary slave contracts. Suppose that Smith makes the following agreement with the Jones Corporation: Smith, for the rest of his life, will obey all orders, under whatever conditions, that the Jones Corporation wishes to lay down. Now, in libertarian theory there is nothing to prevent Smith from making this agreement, and from serving the Jones Corporation and from obeying the latter’s orders indefinitely. The problem comes when, at some later date, Smith changes his mind and decides to leave. Shall he be held to his former voluntary promise?
The point is the enforcement of such contracts is not in line with libertarian ethics.
Proof you either haven’t read what you claim to, or simply don’t understand it.
“The concept of ‘voluntary slavery’ is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master’s will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary”.
Argument that redefining meaning of terms to suite one’s purpose doesn’t prove anything. Voluntary slavery- slavery by selling oneself was mentioned from Code of Hammurabi to Codex Iuris Civilis, it is not an imaginery concept Rothbard talkes about “if it’s voluntary it’s not slavery”, it was goddamn slavery. You sell youself knowing that the second you do your owner has the right to kill you, and knowing that you forfeit the right to break the contract.
Maybe it’s your assumption that if read something I will automatically agree with it.
If I sell you a product, you give me money, and I change my mind and take the product back it’s theft. Likewise, if I sell myself to you, if i change my mind and run away, that’s theft. Calling something “title-tranfer” instead of “promise” doesn’t magically make it radically different, just like I transfered a title over my product to you, I transfered the title over my body to you.
And the facepalm? The consistency of thinking that title over one’s body is unalienable but the title over one’s labor is alienable, is not worth thinking and talking about?
Nice links, haven’t seen those, but I must say that I’m for axiomatic aproach, being that I see self-ownership as an axiom, I’m just interested in what principles are axioms, which are not, which are correct and which are not.
Property is entirely a societal and therefore a subjective concept, no one theory of property is inherently better than any other unless one is internally contradictory. This is also why, as you point out, adherence to property rights could lead to non-libertarian beliefs. For instance, many modern statists consider the state as a necessary part of property.
I asked for the passage in which he brings up a clause in a contract. Simply pointing out the fact that a person can decide to not obey an order is not citing a “cancelable by lack of consent of the slave” clause of a slave contract.
slave[sleyv] verb, slaved, slav·ing.
noun
1.a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person
slavery (ˈsleɪvərɪ)
— n
the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
The whole point is nothing you say (i.e. promise) prevents you from simply deciding to not do what you are ordered. So then what.
Basically you’re alleging that one can surrender control of (i.e. alienate) something that is inalienable from him…control over his own will and person. You cannot “sell” (that is, transfer ownership of) your will because you cannot alienate yourself from it. You can voluntarily choose to obey orders, but everytime you carry out an order it is of your own volition (assuming of course there is no coercion involved…in which case we wouldn’t be talking about “voluntary” behavior anymore).
The new “owner” of your will doesn’t really own anything. He isn’t controlling you. You are still in complete control. You’re just voluntarily choosing to obey orders. This is not slavery. The minute you decide to not obey an order, you have illustrated the fact that was true all along…it is in fact you who is owner and controller of your will and person.
Of course you can be physically forced or coerced into obedience, but by definition this means this is obviously not voluntary on your part. This is when it becomes “slavery”.
It’s my assumption that if you are presented with a logically sound reasoning, you will not deny it’s validity. Evidently I assume too much.
Your will and control over your person is not alienable from you as is some outside object. This fact is not “magic”, nor is “magic” required for this difference to exist.
The notion that “labor” is property is indeed worthy of a facepalm, and yet again illustrates that you have not read all that you have claimed to read.
As evidenced above, I apparently cannot expect that you would accept the validity of logically sound reasoning…but if you intend to reject it I would expect at the very least, if you had actually read the sources you claim to, that you would actually address the points addressed in them…rather than simply continuing to make preposterous claims based in your own nonsense reasoning that illustrates no knowledge (or at least understanding) of the logic presented in those resources.
You title a thread “what is property”, and I provide you with one excellent exposition of the libertarian position (which includes not only an explanation of property and the concept of self-ownership, but numerous footnotes and links to various sources), and another one which includes even more links to sources specifically about self-ownership (something you asked about in your OP). You claim to have read them, yet do nothing in this thread but post nonsense that demonstrates no understanding or even exposure to the points presented in those sources. And this latest suggestion that “labor” is property is yet another perfect illustration.
