The Principle of Self-Ownership and Natural Rights.

[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.

[SnowDog]

When I think about this, I see that all humans have several things in common, with very few exceptions; except maybe the comatose, children, and mentally impaired:

 

1) All humans set values they want to pursue in life. They do this every day. Their goals are both big and small; including such things as what they want for breakfast, and how to save up for their childrens' education.

 

2) They act to acquire these goals.

 

3) When they do acquire their goals, they expect to be able to keep them. In other words, if someone saves up for a new car, he expects to be able to own the car after he purchases it.

 

These three actions represent Life, Liberty, and Property. Life encompasses all three. Liberty is the freedom of action; and Property is both the product of that action, and the object of new action.

 

If we throw the idea of property out of the window, then the whole process falls apart. If people are not allowed to keep the products of their actions, then they will not act; and if people are not allowed to act, then they will not pursue goals; and will basically lose interest in life. All three are intricately tied together; and importantly, property must be seen as the product of action. Without property, Liberty is futility.

[Tadas]

Any kind of property contradicts with any kind of rights.

 

1 I own myself so naturally I own products of my body too, this means I own my children as they are products of my body, and if I own my children they don't own themselves. this can be solved if parents voluntarily transfer property fight to their children but they are not obligated to do that.

 

2 If I own product of my actions, then  if I build road this is my property and cannot be used by anyone else. since earth is not infinite within some time every vacant place will be taken and mere existence of new human being will be property rights violation, because if you exist on my land you are using my property and since there is no vacant land you have no right to exist.

this is solved with state which gives you right to use its public land in exchange of something.

 

in conclusion: property cannot coexist with liberty. 

[Rob_Ilir]

@ Tadas1, children are not property, as you can destroy your own property if you want, I hope you dont think the same way about innocent todlers.

Children do not chose to be born, and it is the parents duty who wanted the child, to compensate all his/her discomforts till the child can have choices. 2, Your preference to isolate yourself by not allowing others to pass through your land, is acceptable I guess. But you cant force others not to trade property, and passage. 

 

As for your conclusion/confusion, you just created a post/property with liberty, and you are saying it cant exist. You proved yourself wrong

[Tadas]

1 Children are my property because they are product of my body, just like hair or nails.

I am allowed to take any of my cells and grow anything like from them

if you exclude them from property you basically deny my rights to my body as it means that I don't own my cells.

and thus entire concept of property falls down.

 

2 I am not forcing anyone anything, but within some time people will be forced to pay me for using my land because they will have no other option.

just as if you are in the middle of the ocean you are forced to accept my conditions for saving you or just drown.

 

and actually i do not believe in property just in liberty because property is unnecessary concept so I created this post with my liberty only.

this post is not my property anyone can do whatever he wants with it i do not have any exclusive rights to anything including my body neither anyone has.

[Rob_Ilir]

Dude, you can do whatever you want to your own body that you control, but you cant cut up self controlling babys,  just as you cut up your hair and nails. Where did you get that information from anyway?And if you dont have exclusive right to your body, who is replying to me through a computer and keyboard? 

[Tadas]

I can not really control my hair or nails either yes, i can clip them but in same way i probably can clip my children heads or dump them into trash can as i dump my feces or other body waste. 

I am not saying that I am going to do that. I just talk about principle that if I can clip my hair cells and trash them what makes it different from doing same with newborn baby?

 

another way to say this, would I be allowed to do this: I clone myself and use my clone as my slave?  only difference between us who pushed cloning button everything else is same

 

Who is replying? I am.  Jut because I don't own exclusive rights to my body it does not mean I don't own any rights, I can use my body however i can just like everyone else can use my body in any way they can.  

[Rob_Ilir]

 "Children are my property because they are product of my body, just like hair or nails."

 

"i probably can clip my children heads or dump them into trash can as i dump my feces or other body waste."Two different meanings there. In one you are saying that you can cut up toddlers just as hair, and than you lose the brutality of your first response. 

 

 

"just like everyone else can use my body in any way they can. " 

With your permission or without? If without, do you live around people who have no respect for your mind and body, and you are trying to normalise your situation?

[Wesley]

I can use my body however i can just like everyone else can use my body in any way they can.  

This statement implies that successful rape is perfectly fine, but unsuccessful rape would be bad.

[Tadas]

 

Two different meanings there. In one you are saying that you can cut up toddlers just as hair, and than you lose the brutality of your first response. 

 

 

With your permission or without? If without, do you live around people who have no respect for your mind and body, and you are trying to normalise your situation?

 

lest ignore that brutality because it is just for sake of displaying absurdity of ownership. 

instead of cutting my toddlers heads I can just indoctrinate them with some stupid religion which demands them to blow up themselves in the bus full of another humans beings.

 

 

What permission? Other people are simply incapable to control my body, they have as much chance to do is as you can steal sun from the sky.

of course they can try to use my body as some raw material but it has very little value and if they try i will resist and do great damage

if other people want to use my body most efficient way is to ask me politely. 

 

But of course don't forget that we are living in real word with some social norms so even if I do not agree with certain rules I must obey them. 

If you were living is society where slavery is legal you will own several slaves even you think it is wrong.

This statement implies that successful rape is perfectly fine, but unsuccessful rape would be bad.

 

I think we can deal with rape without ownership rights.

just as if someone burns forest we do not need to be owners of that forest to punish such man. 

[Wesley]

I think we can deal with rape without ownership rights.

just as if someone burns forest we do not need to be owners of that forest to punish such man. 

Maybe, but that is not what you said.

 

You said that it would be fine for anyone to use your body in any way that they can. This means rape is fine as long as I am able to succeed (thus the "can").

[Tadas]

Maybe, but that is not what you said.

 

You said that it would be fine for anyone to use your body in any way that they can. This means rape is fine as long as I am able to succeed (thus the "can").

I will not say it will be "fine" I would be really pissed of if someone damaged my body similar to how I would be pissed of if someone burns down my local park.

or if someone takes my parking lot which I was planing to use.

 

Jut because you can do something it does not mean you are allowed to do that.

and list of what we are allowed to do is separate thing not related to any ownership rights.

[Bert]

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.

 

How is it an axiom that I own myself? Self is not even well defined, the closer you look at what self means the more meaningless it seems. There are 10 times more bacterial cells in my body than there are human cells, so a large proportion of the form I make isn't even made up of cells which carry my DNA. Lets ignore all that just say its the atoms in my body which is myself, but every year 98 percent of the atoms in my body will be replaced, so how can I say this collection of atoms is myself when it is constantly changing? It's likely that atoms inside me right now, were once apart of you, and vise versa, does that mean I own part of you and you me?

Lets ignore for a minute that mind is created by the physical so we don't have to worry about all the implications and say my mind is self. What is it that shapes my mind if not the culture I was raised in, so my mind nothing but a reflection of the people I grew up around and so again not self. All the thoughts I can have I can only have because of the people who have come before me. I wouldn't even be able to write these words if it were not for them. So how can mind be self when it is so vastly defined by others?