Camel Glasses

Is my reasoning correct? Does the philosophical principle of Self-Ownership prove the inalienable rights of the individual? 1. It is an axiomatic truth that you own yourself. You own you body, mind, personality, everything about you belongs to you. To paraphrase the words of John Locke, you have property in your own person. As the sole owner of your body it follows that you have the right to life. 2. As owner of yourself it is clear that you own your actions. It then follows that you also own the effects of your actions and hence are responsible for their products. The products of your actions, or the fruits of your labour, are your property. 3. Only you have property in your self, actions and their products. This means that only you possess the right to determine how they are utilized. No one else possess this right unless you give it to them through the means of exchange or just your consent. You have the freedom to enjoy your property without restriction unless your use of your body and its products infringes on the property of others. 1 = Right to life. 2 = Right to property. 3 = Right to liberty. These three rights are natural in that they stem from the state of our existence. They are not rights merely because they were written down centuries ago, or because they are granted at the behest of the State, they are our rights simply due to our presence on Earth as rational, self-possessing, beings. They are, in a word, self-evident.

Thanks again all! I will post my essay onto this board later to see what you make of it.

Ah. Thanks very much Wesley, you have been very helpful!

One specific criticism has stumped me. How am I meant to respond to the argument that all property was originally acquired by force in ages past, and that humans have no right to own pieces of the Earth in the first place?

The former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, is coming to speak at my school in a few weeks time. He will be talking to economics and politics students about several issues and there will be, no doubt, a chance to ask him a few questions. So what should I ask him? Should I query him over the central bank's criminal counterfeiting operation?

Thanks very much for your help guys, it has been very useful. Thanks particularly to Formerlyknown whose analogy I will be using in my essay.

Anarchism, taken from the Greek language, means 'no-rule' or 'no-rulers'. Thus we can conclude that is a political philosophy which rejects the state as what is the state but the ruler over us as individuals? What puzzles me is why collectivists which argue for coercion to be used against others in order to reach some egalitarian goal can call themselves anarchists when really they argue for the state to increase its power over us rather than for it to diminish.

I am currently in my final year of secondary school (high school) in the UK and I am about to write a dissertation on the illegitimacy of taxation as apart of my EPQ (Extended Project Qualification) which is the equivalent of a single AS Level. I am posting this here in order to ask for your assistance and opinions on the issue so that I can articulate strongly why having to submit a portion of one's income in tribute to the state is just theft a not some act of goodness. I would appreciate your thoughts greatly.