Why You Don’t Own Yourself
By Shaun Kenney | Sunday, February 20th, 2011 | Catch-AllThere is nothing more frustrating than to see 21st century nutjobs hijack the 18th century Founding Fathers. First, watch this video — quiz to follow shortly:
OK kids, so what’s wrong with this picture?
First off, you don’t own yourself. Simple as that.
“But Shaun,” you might ask, “of course I own myself! In fact, you’re arguing that someone else might own me! You communist/fascist scum!”
No, you don’t own yourself. In fact, no one owns themselves, and this is fallacious for at least three reasons.
FIRST, the whole idea of commoditizing a human person to an item of property is wrong, wrong, wrong. You don’t own yourself anymore than you own (or could own) your neighbor, friends, etc. or they could own you, whether by contract or by government. None of the philosophers mentioned (Locke or Bastiat) contended as such — and in fact, you’ll notice throughout the video they can’t point to specific quotes from either pointing to the idea of “self-ownership.”
SECOND, there is no such thing as a “victimless” crime, or act for that matter. Whether you take a nap or feel like gunning down 20 people at an elementary school, every act has a consequence that ultimately affects others. In short, you exist in a polity.
THIRD, what Locke and Bastiat did recognize was that individuals were entitled to certain rights — not because they were automatons of property — but because they were priceless human agents, and those rights are to one’s life, one’s liberty, and one’s property… in that order and for a reason.
Follow the “self-ownership” argument to its rational conclusion. The only reason you own yourself is because you are in command of yourself as a rational actor. This is why you can own a cow, but the cow doesn’t own you back. It’s also why children do not share equal rights until the age of majority (the right to vote, for instance).
So what does this mean? Suppose an alien race of far superior intellect descended upon you and your farm — let’s say, anywhere from little green men to 16th century conquistadors – are they more entitled to own your property than yourself? And why are you more entitled than any other sentient being to own your property anyway? In short, aren’t some people more entitled to self-ownership than you are if, for instance, you simply are not deemed to be in proper control of your faculties?
Extend this to property rights. I own a farm, and decide to timber 100 acres of my land. A group of other self-owners can now decide that I am no longer exercising my rational functions properly (“…if only he had the data we had, he’d see things clearly!”) and choose to impose EPA regulations on you to make sure your rights don’t impede on theirs — or worse, that you don’t do anything that a normally functioning self-owning rational individual could do.
See where this goes?
Of course, the Founding Fathers never believed in nor practiced the concept of 21st century Randroid “self-ownership” to any extent whatsoever. That, my friends, is Randian objectivist (so-called) philosophical bullshit.
The Mother of all Randroids: "A glare that could wilt a cactus." Ugh...
It’s dehumanizing, self-absorbed, and WRONG.
Remember kids — the next time someone talks to you about self-ownership, talk about why they believe that. When it boils down to rational actors after a beer or three… then talk to them about who defines rational.
Above all else, don’t let mindless, gutless, soulless crap like this fill your brain rent-free… ask why they’re selling before you figure out you should buy this garbage. Because that’s precisely what this stuff is — pseudo-intellectual oversimplified garbage for people who think they have some gnostic inner knowledge about how the world should work. No society has ever been sustained on these principles without an army of suckers and slaves to prey themselves upon… and that prey is YOU.
Think about it.
End philosophy rant.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
52 Responses to "Why You Don’t Own Yourself"
The ideas of this video are lifted less from Rand (though they certainly exist there) than from one of her erstwhile disciples, Murray Rothbard, who made these precepts part of his so-called “Praxeology.” Unfortunately, Rothbard and his ilk (they of today’s Austrian School, which devalues Hayek and Schumpeter in favor of an eclectic mix of economic illiterates, historical revisionists, and bigots) have gained quite a following on the right.
Since you’ve been quoted so much scripture lately I thought I’d give you another to ponder, it scripturally backs up your argument. 1 Corinthians 6:20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
I’ve known for a long time I don’t own myself.
I hate when these guys quote the Declaration of Independence like it has force of law.
And, as any first year law student can tell you, one of the rights that is inherent to the bundle of rights we call property is the right of alienation – the right to sell. You can’t sell yourself (except in Nevada), nor can you sell your internal organs. Thus, not property.
Jared –
Not all of the Austrian School are like this… though I’m sure the Rothbardians would love to claim him.
So I take it, Shaun, that saying “No one is the boss of me”, may be illegitimate because it implies self-ownership? I hope you answer quickly as my children are debating this amongst themselves.
Karen, quote Bill Cosby, “I brought you into this world and I can take you out”. If that doesn’t work, “because I said so” might.
I think I survived raising my six but I have to check every now and then.
Karen –
On the contrary… you have many “bosses” in this world. People would probably be shocked to know how many habits they’ve turned into false idols, etc. Talk about a boss that won’t let go!
My kids? Have precisely one (temporal) boss in this world…
This post brings up a very good point.
If man “owns” himself, there can be no higher law, as man would be a law unto himself. To limit temporal government, there must be a higher law to which that government answers. Without a higher law there can be no limited government, because there will be nothing with which to limit said government.
This is why Randian objectivism and limited government are incompatible.
given how widespread slavery was at the time, I doubt the Founding Fathers would have debated “self-ownership” too much in public.
the real question is: can we be pwned?
Only if you’re playing me in COD, Amit!
Well said, Steven. Extremely well said.
Amit, I think for self pwnage clarity a video is in order.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOL5eoKrfWE&feature=related
Hmmm, if you do not own yourself, then how can one object to anything the government chooses to do to you?
I contend that I do own myself. One has to wonder if Shaun here is just trying to rip open CPAC wounds and is hoping a pack of rabid Ron Paulians descend upon this article making themselves look like uncontrolled children and driving a rift between Ron Paul Republicans and the Religious Right. I mean hey, those Ron Paul people and even Libertarians have this great affection for guys like Ken Cuccinelli and Bob Marshall. It is just a crime against all that is right. Isn’t that so, Shaun? That and if Shaun brings in lots of hits for Bearing Drift along the way by being an agitant, then that is just a bonus.
In fact, there is a natural alliance interestingly enough? Why? Because certain portions of the GOP treat the “Paultards” and crazy people that don’t believe in Charles Darwin, like total crap. Both groups find a reason to feel insulted and taken for granted. It isn’t Libertarians that tell the religious to shut up. We believe in Freedom of Religion.
Interestingly enough, I found a copy of that video Shaun put up…….on the Daily Paul. Kinda makes me think Shaun is concerned about Dr. Paul a bit.
http://www.dailypaul.com/154647/great-video-rights-of-self-ownership-property
and it is a great video. Self-ownership in no way conflicts with Christianity. It would probably be a mistake to think Shaun did this because he wants his Natural Rights and Taliban government to. No, I think this is all about coalitions he finds to be a crime against nature. You do know Dr. Paul is Pro-Life right?
Shaun put a lot of “red meat” on the table. It will take a lot of writing to adequately point out how so much of what he said, is SOOOO wrong. So, let me start off with:
“in fact, you’ll notice throughout the video they can’t point to specific quotes from either pointing to the idea of “self-ownership.” – Shaun Kenney
It really is a good video, Shaun. You sould have watched it. Quoted right in there is the following quote by *cough* John Locke:
“Every man has a property in his own person. This, no one has a right to but himself” – John Locke from that video Shaun borrowed.
This will probably be interesting.
That’s an excellent example, Turbo.
You know, I just gotta bite on this one:
Britt… when you clicked “submit comment” that aim would have been accomplished.
I digress. I’m off to tell my friends how much Britt says I hate Ron Paul… because if Britt says it, it must be true.
…and Locke also said the government can strip you of your rights by majority vote (section 140 of the Second Treatise). Did the Founding Fathers believe that? Of course not. Why? Because rights never came from government, or even a government of equal peers, but were endowed by your Creator.
Jefferson — the Deist — said that in your Declaration of Independence. Read it sometime… and come to an understanding as to why Jefferson believed that. Until then, better to be thought a fool and silent than to open one’s mouth…
@Jay D –
Because if gov’t does it to you, then that would be an infringement of your natural rights.
OTOH, if you own yourself, then there are literally no limits to your self mastery. Men become laws unto themselves, without limit. You’ve introduced yourself into the world of either the Nietzschean superman or the Hobbesian Leviathan… and that’s not a comfortable world.
On the other hand, the Founding Fathers inherited a different tradition that supposed rights were granted by a Creator, or rather, that men were not owned, could not be owned, and effectively had no price (i.e. one could not sell themselves into slavery). Rights were inherent.
Effectively, the argument is simple. Can you sell yourself into slavery? If you answer no, then you agree that you do not own yourself. If you answer yes… then you are not a man.
In either event, the idea of “self-ownership” is not an idea from the Founding Fathers or the era of the Enlightenment. It is a purely Randian or Rothbardian concept, and something that your non-utilitarian philosophers of the early 18th century would have instantly recoiled from. Even J.S. Mill disagreed with the concept of selling oneself into slavery… a perfectly acceptable state if one, indeed, “owns” oneself.
Really Shaun, I laugh at your ad hominem. I can do that to. If you must resort to name calling then you and your arguement must be pretty weak. I can stoop to that level, though. I’d rather not.
Nothing you just said changes the fact that you didn’t pay attention to the movie you put up. Lol! It doesn’t change the quote either.
I don’t think you hate Ron Paul at all. For the record, I think you hate the Ron Paul Movement’s growth in size and how they get along so well with Religious Conservatives. Somebody’s power feels threatened.
MY DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE? Thought you were an American Shaun. I guess not.
Where do we agree? I am 100% with you that we don’t need a document to know we have Natural Rights. I do believe they are given to me by our creator. Those documents don’t give us anything, but a guide to the restrictions on government. As to the “Rights”, they were just pointing out the obvious. So, yes, I maintain we are a Constitutional Republic and not a “mob rule” Democracy. The fact that we are born with unalienable rights is “Self-Evident”. Don’t need the founding fathers, whom I admire, to know that.
Shaun, the idea that self-ownership entitles anyone to harm anyone else (also a self-Owner with natural rights) is not in anyway a part of a belief in self-ownership.
Self-ownership does not negate the Natural Rights of others. We have laws to enforce that concept.
And no, you can not sell yourself into slavery, because you can not be seperated from yourself. You can sell your services, but that is as far as it goes.
@ Jared,
“devalues Hayek and Schumpeter in favor of an eclectic mix of economic illiterates, historical revisionists, and bigots”???
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’m glad they do have a growing following. Hopefully ridiculous statements like yours become a thing of the past.
I think this blog would be much more effective if it targeted the absurd ideas of the Democrats, Socialists etc.. rather then the more liberty oriented ideologies, like self-ownership and individualism that most Conservatives/Libertarians prefer.
Dude… you have a profile on Mises.org and have posted once.
What was that about efficacy, again?
More seriously… there are a host of liberals and progressives who would roundly embrace the idea that they “own” themselves. And as a consequence, have the right to own you. As mentioned in the post above that you naturally read before commenting:
I have no problems with the pro-liberty ethic. Find myself to be a subscriber. But where most folks don’t have the patience with the gnostic set of libertarianism is that they feel so confident they are carrying a gun to a knife fight… until they realize we’re all carrying light sabers here.
As before, there are a multitude of pitfalls that a theory of self-ownership presents. It’s worth thinking through the criticisms before thinking through the benefits.
Self-Ownership by definition implies inherent rights. With that theory, a technologically superior alien, should they exist, has no right to violate your personal rights. Same goes for the Left, and you’re right Shaun. Many of them do think that way. If so, they don’t understand the concept of self-ownership either.
And no, some people are not more entitled to self-ownership. Even those that are not in complete control of their faculties.
Self ownership does not mean that in your lack of capacity that you can endanger anyone else. If you are not “competent” leading into your arguement, then no, you can not enter into a contract. That protects others as well as yourself. It may be that at times you are competent. So, yes in some cases you will be protected from yourself, the evils of others, and prevented from harming others due to your lack of capacity. Protecting you from yourself doesn’t mean some liberal concept of nanny stateism. It doesn’t mean enforced action to preserve your soul and interfere with your personal relationship with your creator. All that is choice you have made.
Further. a lack of competency or capacity doesn’t mean you don’t own yourself, it means beyond life or what you are capable of, you simply are unable to function at that level.
Secularists, athiests, and Christians can all embrace the idea of self-ownership. Whether those unalienable rights stem from God as I believe, or fairness as a non-believer might. Regardless, we are all protected.
In my mind, you must choose to accept Christ. The point of a sword does not a Christian make. Voluntary gifts mean more than confiscation. Free Will was given us by God for some reason. If we did not have the right to displease him, we could have been made perfect. We could have been immediately destroyed. God is omnipotent after all. Without the ability to do wrong, doing right loses meaning and purpose. Therefore, it is your unalienable right to smoke pot. Even though your body is a temple. Back to man’s law and self-ownership,yes everything has consequences. If those consequences cause damage, you can be sued or penalized by the law.Your employer should have a right to be sure that you are not intoxicated. If that means you have to stop smoking, then there is your choice and consequence.
Self-ownership only centers on how man interacts with man. You can theorize on why. I can personally guess why I have the capacity to do wrong. We won’t know until we die. “Talent on loan from God” I agree with Rush. Others don’t. None of that means you have the authority to impose yourself on my rights. Fairness or the life and Free Will granted by God. The result here on Earth is the same. The after life? A whole different set of rules and beyond our understanding most likely.
First of all, no one should seperate the founding fathers from their beliefs. Most all of them were Chrisitans. Jefferson would not be considered orthodox but he did not write the Declaration of Independence apart from the other founders. Since my comments get blocked if I put up a link, I would suggest going to Wallbuilders web site.
Self determination is a better word. That was something God gave us. He gave us life. He gave us dominion over the entire planet including the animals, Genesis 1:28-29. Yes, He did give us freedom to choose and you ask why. True love only comes from choice. He could have made us puppets but He didn’t because He wanted us to freely choose and love Him. The founders believed in an individuals pursuit of God. True happiness can only be found in Him (pursuit of). He created us in His image and each individual has dignity. That is why unborn babies have a right to life. We are also responsible for what we do and there are consequences to our actions. Because Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and try life without Him (which is death)sin came into the world. Man is corrupted and so is everything else. Thankfully God in His choice (grace) decided to save us because he loved us (His choice). The God-Man Jesus Christ paid for sins and gave us life. He gives us the choice to receive His gift.
Because this country’s leadership has ditched God and His Word, I am truly thankful that the Declaration of Independence was written. It reminds us that God owns it all and that He has given us by His grace certain rights which no man should ever take away.
By the way Shaun, rationality, reason, wisdom and logic begin with God, Proverbs 1:7 otherwise an argument is reduced to foolishness.
Shaun and Brian, I think natural law does permit me to sell myself into slavery, as illustrated by the many indentured servants that are part of our original colonial heritage. Natural law also allows me to share (and sell) any body parts (kidney, piece of liver, blood, bone marrow, etc.) as long as the act doesn’t insure my death.
It’s man’s law (the government) that prevents the first and regulates the second.
Patty, I really like a lot of what you wrote. Because in implementation self ownership on an earthly realm granted by God, doesn’t conflict with non-believer’s simple platform of “fairness” I try to keep my arguments open to them. Better to ensure our Natural Rights with greater numbers even if there is disagreement as to why we have them. I personally appreciate the opportunity to attempt “continual improvement” or constant effort to come closer to God. Both for the sake of the destination and the journey itself. As for the links, normally when I limit myself to just 1 link, the filter allows it.
Jay D., I have to disagree with you on slavery. It is impossible for you to sell yourself. It is impossible from both a practical and philisophical sense. You can sell your services or the limited use of your body, but you can not terminate self ownership until you at least die.
In order to sell, you must be able to own the exchange. If you sell yourself for 1 billion dollars, you can not own the money, because you sold yourself. That kind of commerce is impossible. Further, you are never truly disowned no matter how deeply you CHOOSE to submit to another person for whatever reason.
I know prostitution is figuratively referred to as selling yourself, but that isn’t the reality. You are merely selling a service. Much like a massage or a hair cut, just much more morally questionable and dangerous.
@Britt, Shaun wrote: “Effectively, the argument is simple. Can you sell yourself into slavery? If you answer no, then you agree that you do not own yourself. If you answer yes… then you are not a man.”
I contend I do own myself and throughout history man has sold himself into slavery (defined as granting another ownership rights to the fruits of your labor AND your right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Indentured servitude was just that, albeit for a limited period of time.
Brian writes: “one of the rights that is inherent to the bundle of rights we call property is the right of alienation – the right to sell. You can’t sell yourself (except in Nevada), nor can you sell your internal organs. Thus, not property.”
Yes we can and yes we do, and often with government approval.
Jay D., I see it as a mistake to accept the premise of that quote of Shaun’s you pointed to. You can’t be seperated from yourself. That doesn’t make your body any less yours or any more the state’s, Shaun’s, or elite organization’s. You can’t sell what you can’t be seperated from. That doesn’t mean you don’t own your thoughts or body.
You can sell the service of your labor, body, or thinking. Indentured servitude is a fraudulent commerce based on a premise where the victim is usually forced to survive in a near desperate state. Sure, I could likely convince anyone even today to sell themselve to me under pain of torture or putting their family at the point of starvation. That won’t prevent me from being imprisoned and sued once that evil was stopped.
Please don’t confuse lawful employment with historical examples of dehumanizing indentured servitude.
You are never not your own literally while you are on Earth. Thus you can not sell your self. Even if you are acting in effect as a slave, it is a false contract or a forcible denial of your rights that is inherently illegal and immoral. Or maybe you’re just kinky and playing the part.
Britt – “You are never not your own literally while you are on Earth.”
If not ‘my own’… then whose???
Jay D., maybe the double negative threw you off my meaning. “Never not your own” as opposed to “never you own”. Rephrasing: you are always your own and can not be otherwise until death.
Britt, then I believe we agree … we DO own ourselves.
For those of you who believe you “own” yourselves…
Can you sell yourself? If not, why not?
Already explained that a time or two, Shaun.
The term “sell out” comes to mind.
Sorry chums, the term applies to betraying one’s ideals.
Call me a shallow thinker, but it is really just all a philosophical argument for egotism. If such a quality is so off putting and self-defeating on the personal level, why should we be surprised when the same thing happens writ large after making it some vague, overarching abstraction?
Well said Britt.
Whether you choose to voluntarily sell yourself or not, you still are the only one in control of your body, and so you still own yourself, and determine your own destiny.
And Shaun, I don’t see what me posting on Mises.org has to do with anything. It’s more known for it’s literature and downloadable lectures, not it’s social networking, which sucks, besides the chat function.
Can’t we all…just …get along?
And trounce the freaking socialists!
And then worry about philosophical differences on the same side?
Shaun, I’m not exactly sure what this truly means because I believe we’re all defined by our actions, not inactivity such as ownership. …and ofnir rather summed up some of it.
But my question is, why do Republicans feel the need to lecture everyone else? It was the Tea Party and there intellect and now it is the Libertarians and there conduct.
While Ron Paul is a big attractor to college students, a voting block no other Republican can penetrate like he. I would find that mainstream Republicans embrace this because its a voting block that would only benefit the Republican establishment. So, now we can add the Tea Party and Libertarians to the list of people who can’t meet establishment Republicans criteria.
I actually find the Republican conduct rather suspect because it appears that they are acting like politicians. …and the Democrats are going after the voting block that is not well informed. They are using their community organization skills to ramp up the emotions of their base, using childish behavior to gain strength and you guys (mainstream Republicans) are holding the populace (tea party and libertarians) at bay.
Why? …and to add, how would you expect college students to act? Look at their conduct during the memorial service in Arizona, wasn’t quite respectful conduct to show respect to the dead.
If we continue down this path… ownership and philosophy will have no place in public.
@Trevor, if your in your teens (or even your early 20s)…your wise beyond your years. It’s nice to see youth speak the way you do. Thanks for giving me some hope.
I wish I’d tackled this topic. Good one, Shaun!
I submit that we are stewards of ourselves. That position is informed by my faith but it also means that on matters of policy, I also have a lot in common with those who believe in self-ownership.
However, the two positions have important points of deviation… perhaps I can elaborate in a follow-up post…
For John Jackson:
I can’t remember Trevor’s exact age. I do know that unfortunately, he is too young to share a beer with. I look forward to that someday.
He is quite the young man. We both worked on James Quigley’s Congressional campaign. I came away being very impressed with him. I can understand your comments in that regard.
I would like to echo the thoughts of Cargosquid. It is a shame that we find so many opportunities to find differences with those we should be allied with.
Some folks like Sudoku; I enjoy philosophical debate so yes, Shaun, I’ll play.
OF COURSE we own ourselves. If I don’t own ‘me’ … then who does? If this debate is about natural rights or inalienable rights, then it’s pretty simple. The moment I take my first breath, I have a right to life and a right to be free. Natural rights come from … my natural existence, my state of being alive. There is no person, custom, religion, political entity, or belief system that can, with natural authority, take away these rights, but I CAN choose to relinquish, sell, trade, barter, or keep some/all of my natural rights
Owning myself does NOT mean I can do whatever to whomever – my natural rights are quite limited to life and liberty. OTOH, when I choose to live within a specific group, my social contract with the group limits, directs, manages, or suppresses individual urges and behaviors. There are times when the good of the group must outweigh the good of ‘me’, but NEVER can the good of the group authorize taking away my breath or my freedom. As far as the slavery question is concerned (not sure why it matters, but I’ll bite again) …others do not have the right to take my freedom (so forced slavery is out) but, because it is MY right, and I own ‘me’ … I can make the choice to sell, trade, or give ‘me’ away.
I have rights and own myself for one very simple reason: I’m here. No one gave me anything, and hence no one can take anything away. I owe nothing to anyone; moral arguments about what I “owe” to others are not (or at least should not be) legally enforceable. No one holds any enforceable claims on me except where I have voluntarily chosen to enter into a contract with that person.
The purpose of government is limited to protecting our ability to exercise our natural rights, in large part by providing a framework within which the contracts we have voluntarily entered into can be non-violently enforced and, to some extent, to protecting the commons.
This thing we call the “social contract” has been rendered meaningless by the extremes to which it has been taken by the Ds and the Rs. New babies born into this society are born with more debt than they can ever repay. Their rights are being violated, and the two-party system is totally complicit in this, isn’t it? We are born debt slaves. There is no valid case to be made that we benefit from this debt; the debt is going to destroy us. It benefits a few and falls upon the rest.
The concept of ownership has been radically altered, and this post is a prime example of that. If I own something I can do with it whatever I want. If I can’t, then I don’t really own it, do I?
Can I buy a piece of land and build a WalMart on it? Yes, I can buy the land, but building a WalMart requires numerous approvals from various government agencies. If I fail to pay annual tithe to the government for the land, the government will seize it. In other words, I don’t “own” it, the government does.
So it is with people. The government has first claim to our earnings. If we fail to pay part of the output of our productive labor as tithe to the government , the government will seize our property. If we resist, the government will seize us. We don’t own property, nor do we own ourselves. The government does. I truly don’t understand why that is so hard for some people to “get.”
Shaun, ask and answered – so where are you?
Jamie Jacoby, interesting comment …
IMO, pursuit of happiness (i.e. property rights) is not a natural, inalienable right. Any property purchase involves land ORIGINALLY obtained by squatting – the act of declaring ownership by continued possession or hostile conflict. Property rights are a legal right … a man-made right … a bargained for right … a necessary rule to avoid conflicts within a group/social setting … and are determined by the existing governing body. The US government has first claim to your earnings (and then your property if you fail to pay) because the people have agreed it is so. You may, however, choose (because you are free) to leave one social setting (group) for another, and carry your natural rights with you. Ergo, we may not own property but we do own ourselves. Thomas Jefferson purposefully substituted “pursuit of happiness” for “property”. FWIW, I believe he understood right to property to be a legal right, conferred by societal institutions, rather than an inalienable (natural) right.
I disagree strongly, Jay D.
The right to own property absolutely is a naatural right. The only thing to be agreed to is the scope of that property. Especially in regard to certain social contracts.
You MUST have the right to own property and have “property rights” for reasons you acknowledge. We can’t have theft. You are to be secure in your PERSON and property. You have the right in most cases to forbid others from entering your home or property.
When the government siezes your property for failure to pay taxes that is just a case of you having damaged others also involved in social contracts within that jurisdiction. The taking of your land would be a legal act used to remedy the damage you caused to the social contract.
While squatting or forcible seizure are violating somebody at some point it has to be decided who owns what and move on from there. Just because an immoral act was undertaken, that does not void the concept property rights exist and are Natural Rights. You have a Natural Right to own property in concept, not a specific amount. If you have no property, you only have the right to earn it/inherit/receive as a gift and then own it.
Britt, if we agree the source of natural rights is our simple existence, our state of being alive … and if we agree that no person, custom, religion, political entity, or belief system can take away natural rights, then it’s impossible to conclude the right to own property is a natural right.
Property rights fall into a different category – rights resulting from man’s decision to live together, in groups or civil societies. Early humans possessed the need (and right) to be free, but no need for ‘ownership’ – until grouping together in non-family units. Only after that social shift was there a critical need to distinguish between yours, mine, and ours. Thus a second tier of rights – and the beginnings of rules and covenants defining ‘right &wrong’– was born. Ownership rights fall into this tier. Important and critical for peaceful human interaction? Yes. Natural? Nope.
Jay,
[i]because the people have agreed it is so.[/i]
This is exactly my point; you have reduced my liberty to a bidding war. Your statement places everything within the reach of the majority. All of my liberties are not liberties at all, they are now privileges granted or allowed to me by the majority. I am now a slave who exists at the pleasure of the majority in a one-way social contract.
Your statement about leaving and taking my natural rights with me is very very interesting. That is exactly why people fled Europe for America in the first place. Where would you have me go now?
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to live under the thumb of the majority.” But if it’s the people’s will it’s OK, right?
The value of any society can be measured by the number of areas of cooperative human activity that are outside the reach of the democratic process.
You guys here at BD remember Reagan?
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/presidents-day-episode-of-freedom-watch/
FF the second vid to exactly 10 minutes and watch for 43 seconds.
Jamie, settle down – my comments attempt only to distinguish between inalienable rights and other rights. I did NOT say your liberties should be solely and exclusively limited to natural rights. Luckily, we are a nation founded on the rule of law. Your legal rights protect you from the majority and protect your property from theft. If you don’t like the law you can choose to ignore it (and risk punishment), work with other group members to change the law, or abandon the group.
Where would you go? Depends upon what you want/need for your own pursuit of happiness. A free life doesn’t tell you where to go, or that you have to go – only that you can go.
Freedom is never dear at any price. It is the breath of life. What would a man not pay for living? – Mohandas Gandhi
Still disagree Jay D.
A cave man kills a deer for his wife children. An opportunistic caveman rips the deer meat away and runs. The uncivilized caveman’s property has been stolen.
Even nomads have property. pack animals, teepees, etc/ etc. A hermit has his hut. Yes even “I never take a bath Thoreau” had property. Not much…..
Clothing is property. Food is property. The parasitic bandit violates one’s property rights even before government.
The scope of what property might mean is chamging, but the natural right to possess property as a natural right does not. Interaction with man does refine property to a great degree. Commerce stretches the abilties quite a bit.
I agree, etymologically one cannot ‘own’ oneself as ownership implies ‘another’ and a relationship between the owner and the property, or the master and the slave. How can I be both an owner and the property of the same thing?
I do not understand this though:
“SECOND, there is no such thing as a “victimless” crime, or act for that matter. Whether you take a nap or feel like gunning down 20 people at an elementary school, every act has a consequence that ultimately affects others. In short, you exist in a polity.”
From this claim it can be inferred that all human actions have ‘victims’ in that acting within the world has effects upon others within the world. This is a rather overbearing use of the term ‘victim’ to say the least.
Britt – Hmmm, interesting, however the conflict you describe is a direct outcome of man meeting man ~ two opposing interests asserting claim for right to specific property. You may wrestle for control of the deer, but if you kill the thief, you’ll be charged with murder. Why? Society determines your response is ‘overkill’ (pun intended!)
Right to life always trumps right to property.
Absolutely we have a right to possess (and defend) property ~ it’s probably #3 on the list. However free life is mine from the moment I take my first breath until I take my last simply because I exist . OTOH, property rights are not only malleable; they are subject to the whims of government, religion, customs, and people … putting them into the (also important) legal rights category.
“You may wrestle for control of the deer, but if you kill the thief, you’ll be charged with murder. Why? Society determines your response is ‘overkill’ (pun intended!)
Right to life always trumps right to property.”
Read Locke:
“But force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho’ he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge.”
Pretty clear.
Jamie, try the Locke defense in court and let me know how well that works for you?!
Leave your response