There 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.
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.
