What type of economic good is the human body?

[Stephen_Forde]

@Brainpolice

@Stephen Forde

@Brainpolice

I don’t consider it to be property of any sort.

Well, what is your definition of property? On page 92 of MESPM, Rothbard explains that property is a good owned. And he also says that we own ourselves, namely our bodies. So, what do you mean? Also, the OP asks what type of economic good it is. You brought up property.

@Brainpolice

But if we’re going to use propertarian metaphors for the body, it’s can be construed as a combination of any of the above (except land).

Why would it not qualify as land? Why would it qualify as capital? or labour? or a consumption good? I’m interested in justifications, not just positions. In other words, why should I agree with you instead of someone else?

Well I don’t consider people to (legitimately) be economic goods or property (and an economic good is a type of property). Indeed, speaking of people in such a way inherently invokes the concept of slavery in my mind. I also reject the premise of self-ownership for other reasons that I’ve gotten into before, but I don’t intend to devolve this thread into that debate.

Well, you seem to be rejecting an economic description because it doesn’t fit in with prejudged ethical prescription. Are you going to provide a definition of an economic good or property, for that matter, or do you accept the standard Austrian definitions?

@Brainpolice

Why would non-land not qualify as land? Think about it. The reason why I imply that people cannot qualify as land is simply a matter of the base meanings of “land” and “person”. The quality of land is inherently agent-external, while the quality of a person is being the agent themself. Land is something that agents occupy and exist within the context of, it is not an agent itself.

Land is a nonreplaceable good which is produced by altering nature given resources with human labour so that it renders services. There is no reason why it must be regarded as agent-external. It is the product of the labour of two parents. The human body is a good that renders labour services. The body does not have unlimited durability and is largely unreplacable. So it seems to have many properties that would make it land.

@Brainpolice

I understand that this is sort of a hypothetical question, but I just dislike the premise of the question (I.E. considering people as economic goods, which in turn is to consider them as property). There’s a sense in which you could think of people as economic goods (particularly by framing the matter as the labor of people obviously being a factor of production), but at the end of the day hopefully this is not too literal to the point of treating people as if they really were nothing more than property.

Dare I invoke the “the individual is an end unto themself, rather than a mere means to the ends of others” premise?

Invoke what you want, but within a division of labour, people are both an end in of themselves, and a means to the ends of others and demonstrate that they regard their body as an economic good with every action they take.

@Brainpolice

Dare I invoke the “the individual is an end unto themself, rather than a mere means to the ends of others” premise?

If we’re sticking within the realm of the more figurative, people’s bodies could be considered labor (indeed, without bodies there is no such thing as labor), capital (for similar reasons) or consumption in different contexts. Other people could be thought of as possessing properties that one consumes, metaphorically speaking. Other people could be thought of as being labor or capital as a factor of production as well, for obvious reasons. But at an ethical and more literal level, all of those options are abhorrent.

Labour is not a good, it is a service. Goods are only valued for the services they render. So the human body cannot be considered labour but rather must be considered a good rendering labour (and leisure) services. I agree that it could also be considered to function as a capital or consumer good. I don’t see how it is ethically abhorrent. It’s just a general description of universal features of human existence.

@Brainpolice

What I wonder is: what exactly is the purpose of this question in the first place? Is it leading up to something?

Not really sure. As I read through MESPM, it just seems like a loose end. The overall Austrian paradigm is fairly thourough and complete for economics, but not entirely. So I thought I would throw my ideas out and see if anyone makes the same connections I do, and to see if I made a mistake and need to correct myself. That’s all.

[hayekianxyz]

@Stephen Forde

You sure it can’t be a consumer good? It can render both services of labour and leisure. For example, I could use my body to work and make money, which would be a productive effort, or I could play chess, which would be consumption

Right, but Rothbard in the very early pages of MES gives the example of bread, saying that it isn’t a consumer good (although, for practical purposes, it might as well be) since it requires the use of other complimentary goods to produce the final consumer good. I’d say this is analogous to the human body, since in this regard it’s the human body being consumed for its own purpose, it is being consumed in the process of making a first order, consumption good (say, the feeling of getting high).

For those with a high time preference it is being treated as low order capital good.

@Stephen Forde

A more extreme example would be a heroin addict, who would be consuming his health for immediate pleasure.

Sure, but capital consumption occurs in other high order goods, that doesn’t mean people are going around eating combine harvesters.

[Brainpolice]

Well, you seem to be rejecting an economic description because it doesn’t fit in with prejudged ethical prescription. Are you going to provide a definition of an economic good or property, for that matter, or do you accept the standard Austrian definitions?

I believe you are grossly applying the Austrian definitions out of context in a bad metaphor.

Land is a nonreplaceable good which is produced by altering nature given resources with human labour so that it renders services. There is no reason why it must be regarded as agent-external. It is the product of the labour of two parents. The human body is a good that renders labour services. The body does not have unlimited durability and is largely unreplacable. So it seems to have many properties that would make it land.

Land is not produced. It pre-exists all production - it pre-exists all agents, in fact. It can be used as a factor of production, it can be transformed and improved upon, but it is not created (scientific law: matter is not created or destroyed). I’m not a geoist, but that should be obvious. I can’t believe you’re insisting that people are land. It’s ridiculous on its face - land describes something that people occupy. Something people stand ON. It inherently is not US - we can only exist ON it. This is a matter of basic PHYSICS and definitions, not economics. The reason why land is agent-external is because that’s the very PHYSICAL definition of what land is. The planet is a body of land and water. We exist ON the planet. Ergo, we are not land.

It’s as simple as the self-other dichotomy.

Invoke what you want, but within a division of labour, people are both an end in of themselves, and a means to the ends of others and demonstrate that they regard their body as an economic good with every action they take.

I don’t regard my body as an economic good with any action I take. I AM my body - economic goods are external to me. My body is not separate from me, and hence it is impossible for me “own” something that I AM. This is part of the whole dualism problem with self-ownership, I.E. it implies a dualism that does not exist. It contradicts the monism of “the person” or “the self”.

[Kregus]

@Brainpolice

My body is not separate from me, and hence it is impossible for me “own” something that I AM. This is part of the whole dualism problem with self-ownership, I.E. it implies a dualism that does not exist. It contradicts the monism of “the person” or “the self”.

Better term is individual sovereignty! [8-|] “Self-ownership” is a misleading term.

@Josiah Warren

Society must be so converted as to preserve the SOVEREIGNTY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL inviolate. That it must avoid all combinations and connections of persons and interests, and all other arrangements which will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of his or her person, and time, and property in any manner in which his or her feelings or judgment may dictate, WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PERSONS OR INTERESTS OF OTHERS.

[Brainpolice]

proceeds to literally walk on people They’re land, right?

[Stephen_Forde]

@GilesStratton

@Stephen Forde

You sure it can’t be a consumer good? It can render both services of labour and leisure. For example, I could use my body to work and make money, which would be a productive effort, or I could play chess, which would be consumption

Right, but Rothbard in the very early pages of MES gives the example of bread, saying that it isn’t a consumer good (although, for practical purposes, it might as well be) since it requires the use of other complimentary goods to produce the final consumer good. I’d say this is analogous to the human body, since in this regard it’s the human body being consumed for its own purpose, it is being consumed in the process of making a first order, consumption good (say, the feeling of getting high).

For those with a high time preference it is being treated as low order capital good.

Ok, I think I agree on this. I’ll have to think it over a bit more, but I think you’re right.

But, what about the human body being land? The key difference between land and capital goods is that capital is necessarily depleted in production and is replaceable, whereas land may or may not be depleteable, but is never replaceable. Take knowledge for example. Once aquired it is a part of our body, and it isn’t reduced by use. It becomes a permanent feature. So, are there not land components as well as capital?

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

I believe you are grossly applying the Austrian definitions out of context in a bad metaphor.

Why is it that you object to economic analysis of the human body?

@Brainpolice

Something people stand ON

Funny, the ocean is considered land, and, as far as I know, regular people aren’t capable of the sort of things Jesus was.

@Brainpolice

This is a matter of basic PHYSICS and definitions, not economics.

And if we’re using physics definitions in economics, we’d eschew subjectivism, something Austrians happen to be quite fond of.

@Brainpolice

I AM my body - economic goods are external to me.

And human capital is what then?

[hayekianxyz]

@Stephen Forde

Once aquired it is a part of our body, and it isn’t reduced by use. It becomes a permanent feature. So, are there not land components as well as capital?

I wouldnt say so, technology is not part of land. It’s not an economic good since it isn’t scarce, that’s sort of where the whole IP argument rests. All use of technology (as in ideas) is non rivalrous.

[Stephen_Forde]

@GilesStratton

@Stephen Forde

Once aquired it is a part of our body, and it isn’t reduced by use. It becomes a permanent feature. So, are there not land components as well as capital?

I wouldnt say so, technology is not part of land. It’s not an economic good since it isn’t scarce, that’s sort of where the whole IP argument rests. All use of technology (as in ideas) is non rivalrous.

Ok, so it’s a free good.What about the fact that people die. We age and die. We cannot fully heal ourselves. In some ways isn’t the body a depleteable resource?