McCkins

This is exactly the point I'm getting at. The relationship between the NAP, property rights, self-ownership, and UPB (assuming it holds as True) was confusing to me for awhile. Before UPB was theorized, libertarians had the NAP which had no legs to stand on because it was an assertion (meaning it was not axiomatic in and of itself when divorced from UPB). So now NAP, property rights, and self-ownership are used as shorthand for, and are implicit in UPB. Am I correct about this? In which case it would be fun to hear a podcast about this (I know Stef did and intro to phil. series). The reason being that all of this can be very confusing to new listeners and readers (I know he's working on a UPB book 2.0). Thoughts? Isn't UPB objective morality? By irreducible I mean we can properly declare it axiomatic whereas self-ownership (by itself) is an assertion which can only be argued by referencing self-ownership. Thanks I liked the video. I think you and the guy who made the video have a different starting place with UPB. If you start with self-ownership you can reduce it even more to specific actions: theft, assault, rape, and murder. Is this the confusion we are having? I think it is a confusion in the language we are using. You cannot ARGUE (although they are valid bc of UPB) for property rights, self-ownership, or the NAP If UPB was invalid. Man I'm in the weeds...

I don't think I understand the analogy to numbers here. I understand that the state would like to create this illusion of ownership of citizens. I don't know how to prove self-ownership I guess. I've heard Stef say that the NAP is not irreducible the way UPB is, so how is self-ownership different? If self-ownership is not proven or implied through UPB, then how is self-ownership proven in and of itself, given it is not irreducible.

So is self-ownership just a concept we have because it is a natural consequence of UPB? (UPB being the only irreducible principle here)

But what is the reason for the bestowment of ownership to the child? If the parents exercise ownership from birth (or even before), how exactly can the child one day "wrestle" away his/her own self-ownership, so to speak? (Again, whether this process is gradual or not shouldn't matter here). What if the parents refuse to allow the kid his/her self-ownership and claim all property ever produced? Is this avoided by the fact that the child, before birth, never had the chance to contractually agree to be born? Just as if I wouldn't have to pay an individual who mowed my lawn without my permission? How do we each become self-owning agents and be able to make this an irreducible principle?

I watched the video of Stef and Block posted near the top of this thread and I read a Mises article on this topic. I think the idea that the parents own the child up to a certain point is unescapable. However, I have a couple of concerns about this: 1) Does this mean that the child has no property rights and can technically be aggressed against bc UPB need not apply to them until they are of age? 2) How exactly does someone attain self-ownership (whether it be suddenly or progressively). Is it because, as Stef argues, that one cannot argue against self-ownership without using or implying self-ownership? I know that reasoning skills develop on a continuum, but wouldn't possession of self-ownership occur suddenly at a given time bc of the law of excluded middle? Tell me what you think.

I thought that anarcho-capitalists were purposely redundant about the label because there are other "anarchists" that misapply systems like socialism or communism to anarchy. Anarchy doesn't seem to be compatible with socialism or communism, just as voluntarism isn't compatible with government. I understand that, in practice, people may live communally but this is still anarchy. People may also choose to form a communist society in an anarchist society and thereby exit the realm of voluntarism. Isn't capitalism a rationale consequence of real anarchy?

I agree with dsayers. The notion of voluntary government is a contradiction. By its nature, government is involuntary and uses the threat/initiation of force. In college political science courses we always defined government as the "legitimate" use of force. A "voluntary" government is not government at all; you're basically talking about a business offering services in a voluntary market.

I agree with this, but I'm thinking about the conferring of self-ownership to children at a given time. Why is the child suddenly given self ownership? How does this work? If it depends on the parents relinquishing their ownership of the child, what happens if they refuse? Second, what about the time period before the child has self-ownership; can their parents initiate force against them? This would violate UPB. I've been thinking about this: Is UPB dependent on self-ownership in any way?

I don't think that your parents purchased you but rather purchased services used to birth you. You already existed in the womb before hand. This is an interesting question about the establishment of self ownership, but I would ask a different question: If ownership is established by investing time, energy, and/or money into something (i.e. building or purchasing a house), and the parents of a baby (especially the mother) have invested energy in creating and growing the baby in the womb, can it be said that because of this investment the parents own the baby?