On self onwership

[labmath2]

I have contemplated libertarian ideas and every time i came to a roadblock i wanted to pass it off as some flaw in logic or just an extreme that should never be taken seriously. What if we did take it seriously, and the problem simply stems from the foundation of libertarian principles. It is at this point i decided to subject the foundation of libertarian principles, namely self ownership, to the Socratic method.

 

What is self-ownership? 

what would have to be true for self ownership to be false?

Finally in trying something akin to Bayes' rules, could the evidence for self ownership be equally or better explained by another theory, i.e self-control, self-awareness, autonomy, e.t.c?

 

Working from the premise that self-ownership is true, we still have to accept that is only true as long as our mind is still intact. A dead person, or a mad person, or a newborn child does not own himself/herself in the same way an adult does. Then it stand to reason, at least in my opinion, that the owner is the mind, and the property the body. However, the body dictates to the mind to some degree because the body is the source of input for the mind. Simply put, though i own myself, i cannot change the reality of the pain i feel from hunger or thirst. If this is true, then i have wonder how much of myself do i really own and how much of myself are things that are simply outside of my control. 

 

I would like to end on something i heard from Dr, Peter Boghossian. Faith is pretending to know something you don't know. I think faith exists outside religion, it exists in almost every facet of human knowledge, from child rearing (those who believe in corporal punishment) to death (fear of death). If we all have a little less faith, i think we can benefit greatly from what reason has to offer. Thanks to Stefan for starting the ball rolling.

[dsayers]

I think that in order for self-ownership to be false, humans would have to exist in a fundamental state that allowed for others to have a greater claim over one's body than one's self. I think that even after a couple seconds of consideration, this could never be universalized.

 

I have no control over when the struts in my car give out, but this doesn't mean I don't own the car. The autonomy of much of our biological processes are for survival's sake. I think I would find it exhausting if I had to voluntarily pull every muscle required for me to breathe every second of my entire life. Our inability to control this on a larger scale I do not view as a challenge to the idea that we individually own the body that this accurately describes.

[labmath2]

I think that in order for self-ownership to be false, humans would have to exist in a fundamental state that allowed for others to have a greater claim over one's body than one's self. I think that even after a couple seconds of consideration, this could never be universalized.

If self control is taken as the premise instead of self ownership, then i think you can logically see how this could be extended to a more generalized theory. The mind is the agent of control, the body is the primary thing that is controlled and everything else we control is through the control of the body. In this sense, it is possible for someone to exercise greater control over your body by exerting some force on your mind that translates into the control over your body. In this sense, your actions are judged based on level of self control. An example of this will be payment of taxes which stems from some force exerted on the mind (threat of incarceration) which translates into control over the body.

 

But this is just one way of thinking about the ideas supporting self ownership as possibly explained by other theories. The segment after the three questions is just there to get the reader going, the main idea is the three questions above it.

 

Thanks for your input, but i was hoping you would address the three questions more directly.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I have contemplated libertarian ideas and every time i came to a roadblock i wanted to pass it off as some flaw in logic or just an extreme that should never be taken seriously. What if we did take it seriously, and the problem simply stems from the foundation of libertarian principles. It is at this point i decided to subject the foundation of libertarian principles, namely self ownership, to the Socratic method.

 

What is self-ownership? 

what would have to be true for self owner ship to be false?

Finally in trying something akin to Bayes' rules, could the evidence for self ownership be equally or better explained by another theory, i.e self-control, self-awareness, autonomy, e.t.c?

 

Working from the premise that self-ownership is true, we still have to accept that is only true as long as our mind is still intact. A dead person, or a mad person, or a newborn child does not own himself/herself in the same way an adult does. Then it stand to reason, at least in my opinion, that the owner is the mind, and the property the body. However, the body dictates to the mind to some degree because the body is the source of input for the mind. Simply put, though i own myself, i cannot change the reality of the pain i feel from hunger or thirst. If this is true, then i have wonder how much of myself do i really own and how much of myself are things that are simply outside of my control. 

 

I would like to end on something i heard from Dr, Peter Boghossian. Faith is pretending to know something you don't know. I think faith exists outside religion, it exists in almost every facet of human knowledge, from child rearing (those who believe in corporal punishment) to death (fear of death). If we all have a little less faith, i think we can benefit greatly from what reason has to offer. Thanks to Stefan for starting the ball rolling.

The property is the mind too. You own your mind and your body. Most notions of ownership throughout history have been imposed by thieves who desire to enslave you. That's part of the reason why it's hard to comprehend the idea the the owner and the thing owned can be the same thing (self-ownership). Rulers have always depended on people believing that there can only be an owner and the thing owned because if the people knew they owned themselves then it is revealed that the rule has no foundation for their rule other than force.

[Omegahero09]

Self ownership is simply the concept that we are aware and responsible of and for our actions and thoughts. That's all. It differentiates us from the animal, in that we have the ability of choice and thought.If you waive your self-ownership then you become less than those who wield their ownership.

 

If you seize it then you become free.

 

The mind is just as much property as it's body, one a tool for perception and kinetic action, and the other- is whatever you intend it to be. Whether the mind is used and for what purpose is up to the individual.

[labmath2]

Self ownership is simply the concept that we are aware and responsible of and for our actions and thoughts. That's all. It differentiates us from the animal, in that we have the ability of choice and thought.If you waive your self-ownership then you become less than those who wield their ownership.

 

If you seize it then you become free.

 

The mind is just as much property as it's body, one a tool for perception and kinetic action, and the other- is whatever you intend it to be. Whether the mind is used and for what purpose is up to the individual.

 

You attempt to answer my first question, but i am not sure your answer is well thought out. You bring in the idea that animals do not own themselves, but to my knowledge, nothing in self ownership states an animal exception. Animals after all do exercise control over their body and make decisions. We might all agree they have much less control over themselves than humans do, but that does not exclude them from self ownership.

 

I think it will be easier to see these problematic areas if you try answering all three questions to the best of your ability.

[Omegahero09]

You attempt to answer my first question, but i am not sure your answer is well thought out. You bring in the idea that animals do not own themselves, but to my knowledge, nothing in self ownership states an animal exception. Animals after all do exercise control over their body and make decisions. We might all agree they have much less control over themselves than humans do, but that does not exclude them from self ownership.

 

I think it will be easier to see these problematic areas if you try answering all three questions to the best of your ability.

 

Well I am no expert, however I did state that awareness is necessary for self-ownership. If you don't understand that you are responsible for your actions- like a puppy who cannot understand why his owners are upset at him for peeing in the house- then there is no self-ownership.

 

Awareness of the ownership of self is necessary. Otherwise you are a reaction machine- like the animal.Pardon my not attempting to answer your questions explicitly-

 

a) What is self-ownership?

Self ownership is simply the concept that we are aware and responsible of and for our actions and thoughts.

 

b) What would have to be true for self ownership to be false?

If we were to discover something which would tell us that we are not responsible for our actions and thoughts, then self-ownership would be false. The classic ideas of fate, predetermination, original sin, and so on, are opposite self-ownership. These ideas are of course, fantasy.

 

c) Finally in trying something akin to Bayes' rules, could the evidence for self ownership be equally or better explained by another theory, i.e self-control, self-awareness, autonomy, e.t.c?

I hesitate to answer this question because I don't think we've come to a consensus on what self-ownership is. So I'll just answer it the best I can off of my operative definition.

 

No, I don't think it could be better explained by other theories. Self-control is a result of self-ownership. Self-awareness or sentience is a component of self-ownership. Autonomy is related to self-ownership in that if you decide that you do own yourself, then your autonomy will be different from one who waives their ownership.

[TheRobin]

Aren't there two aspects to Self-Ownership though? One being the fact that we control our bodies, the other being the right to have ownership over our bodies (as in, another person can't claim my kidneys his own and cut one out, when he needs one)?

 

Because the first one is simply a fact and wouldn necessairly matter for the second one. And the second one is just the only universalizable of the possibilities (as, not having the right to your own body would contradict itself when applied universally)

[labmath2]

a) What is self-ownership?

Self ownership is simply the concept that we are aware and responsible of and for our actions and thoughts.

 

I think i might need clarity in your definition. Can you please elaborate on what you mean to be aware and responsible of and for our actions and thoughts.

 

First, what do you mean by thoughts, as in IP or what way can people be responsible for their thoughts.

 

Second, isn't awareness a necessary condition to making decisions? If you mean self awareness, then i do not know of any test that concluded that animals do not have self awareness. Even if we did agree that animals are not self aware, i am pretty sure babies are in the lacking self awareness category as well. How do we know when someone has achieved self awareness or even if they can achieve self awareness (the mentally disabled)?

 

Third, in what sense is anyone responsible of and for their actions? How is a rapist responsible for his actions, if not by actions of others forcing him to be responsible for it. I do not know in what sense you mean responsible.

Thanks for taking the time to actually try and think this through.

[alexqr1]

I'll give it a goWhat is self-ownership?Self-ownership is the only possible universal moral solution to the question regarding the ownership of reasoning individuals.There are 4 different potential solutions to the question:1) No one owns anyone, which ultimately reverts to self-ownership2) Everyone owns everyone, which is invalid because it is not possible in reality3) Some own others, which is not universally applicable and thus invalid4) Every person owns his/herself, which is the only valid conclusionwhat would have to be true for self ownership to be false?

Either another potential scenario regarding the ownership of individuals would have to be applicable and universal, or self-ownership would have to be non-universal or non-applicable or both. 

Working from the premise that self-ownership is true, we still have to accept that is only true as long as our mind is still intact. A dead person, or a mad person, or a newborn child does not own himself/herself in the same way an adult does. Then it stand to reason, at least in my opinion, that the owner is the mind, and the property the body. However, the body dictates to the mind to some degree because the body is the source of input for the mind. Simply put, though i own myself, i cannot change the reality of the pain i feel from hunger or thirst. If this is true, then i have wonder how much of myself do i really own and how much of myself are things that are simply outside of my control.

I don't see a need to separate the body and the mind. I think the self is the whole 

I would like to end on something i heard from Dr, Peter Boghossian. Faith is pretending to know something you don't know. I think faith exists outside religion, it exists in almost every facet of human knowledge, from child rearing (those who believe in corporal punishment) to death (fear of death). If we all have a little less faith, i think we can benefit greatly from what reason has to offer. Thanks to Stefan for starting the ball rolling.

I agree

[labmath2]

Aren't there two aspects to Self-Ownership though? One being the fact that we control our bodies, the other being the right to have ownership over our bodies (as in, another person can't claim my kidneys his own and cut one out, when he needs one)?

 

Because the first one is simply a fact and wouldn necessairly matter for the second one. And the second one is just the only universalizable of the possibilities (as, not having the right to your own body would contradict itself when applied universally)

 

Well, i am not sure what you mean by it is the only universalizable of the possibilities. I think control is fundamental to ownership. I can claim to own a star and no one would fight me for it since i have no control over it anymore than they do. To claim ownership is to claim greater control and if someone else's control supersedes yours then there is no violation of property right.

[Omegahero09]

I think i might need clarity in your definition. Can you please elaborate on what you mean to be aware and responsible of and for our actions and thoughts.

 

First, what do you mean by thoughts, as in IP or what way can people be responsible for their thoughts.

 

Second, isn't awareness a necessary condition to making decisions? If you mean self awareness, then i do not know of any test that concluded that animals do not have self awareness. Even if we did agree that animals are not self aware, i am pretty sure babies are in the lacking self awareness category as well. How do we know when someone has achieved self awareness or even if they can achieve self awareness (the mentally disabled)?

 

Third, in what sense is anyone responsible of and for their actions? How is a rapist responsible for his actions, if not by actions of others forcing him to be responsible for it. I do not know in what sense you mean responsible.

Thanks for taking the time to actually try and think this through.

 

Certainly good sir. The awareness I speak of comes down to understanding that you have choices over what you think and do.A thief is aware that he is a thief, because he is taking something which is not his.

 

I apologize for the confusion in the thoughts end of the definition, let me attempt to clarify myself-

 

We choose what to think. How to think. The thoughts we choose to think (or lack of control thereof) determine us. Animals don't think, they only react. We think. Humans think. We have the capacity of reason- and being aware of that reason gives us freedom to grow, to change.

 

Also yes babies lack self awareness, but they develop it as they grow older.As far as the rapist being responsible- he is responsible objectively. The ownership of an individual's actions is a reality, whether or not anyone is there to hold responsibility to that individual.

 

If the person is insane, and is afflicted with psychosis, then the individual cannot be held accountable because they are incapable of understanding the reality around them and should be cared for I think.

[labmath2]

I'll give it a goWhat is self-ownership?Self-ownership is the only possible universal moral solution to the question regarding the ownership of reasoning individuals.There are 4 different potential solutions to the question:1) No one owns anyone, which ultimately reverts to self-ownership2) Everyone owns everyone, which is invalid because it is not possible in reality3) Some own others, which is not universally applicable and thus invalid4) Every person owns his/herself, which is the only valid conclusionwhat would have to be true for self ownership to be false?

Either another potential scenario regarding the ownership of individuals would have to be applicable and universal, or self-ownership would have to be non-universal or non-applicable or both.

 

I am not sure if you noticed, but your answer to what would have to be true for self ownership to be false is just you restating that self owership is false.

 

Your definition of what self ownership is unclear. I am not sure what you mean by the only possible universal moral solution to the question regarding the ownership of reasoning individuals. Let me rephrase the question, what does it mean for an individual to own himself/herself?

[alexqr1]

I am not sure if you noticed, but your answer to what would have to be true for self ownership to be false is just you restating that self owership is false.

What I meant is that it would not be necessarily true, if another potential scenario could be both applicable to reality and universal. If that were the case then self-ownership could potentially be false

 

Your definition of what self ownership is unclear. I am not sure what you mean by the only possible universal moral solution to the question regarding the ownership of reasoning individuals. Let me rephrase the question, what does it mean for an individual to own himself/herself?

Oh sorry, then I guess the answer is simpler: it means that each individual has the moral right to do with him or herself ans he/she pleases as long as there is no violation of someone else's negative rights.

That moral right is the only possible solution to the question of who owns who, to which i refereed in my 1st post.

 

Self-ownership is only a logical conclusion to a series of arguments.

[labmath2]

Self-ownership is only a logical conclusion to a series of arguments.

I am not familiar with those arguments, so can you please reference those arguments?

.

Why isn't control sufficient and universalizable for the idea of ownership to be unnecessary? In that sense, it is impossible for two people to exert equal control over something, therefore, the one with the greater control determines the outcome of the thing, Even if you "own" your body, it is possible for someone else, i.e a gunman, to still exert control over you, even though you are physically capable of making decisions for yourself. If self ownership is always true, then someone holding a gun to your head should not absorb you of responsibility for what you do since you always own yourself. This is just an example to get you thinking about a more complete sense of the term self ownership and what would have to be ture for it to be false.

 

Certainly good sir. The awareness I speak of comes down to understanding that you have choices over what you think and do.A thief is aware that he is a thief, because he is taking something which is not his.

 

I apologize for the confusion in the thoughts end of the definition, let me attempt to clarify myself-

 

We choose what to think. How to think. The thoughts we choose to think (or lack of control thereof) determine us. Animals don't think, they only react. We think. Humans think. We have the capacity of reason- and being aware of that reason gives us freedom to grow, to change.

 

Also yes babies lack self awareness, but they develop it as they grow older.As far as the rapist being responsible- he is responsible objectively. The ownership of an individual's actions is a reality, whether or not anyone is there to hold responsibility to that individual.

 

If the person is insane, and is afflicted with psychosis, then the individual cannot be held accountable because they are incapable of understanding the reality around them and should be cared for I think.

 

I keep running in to a problem when i consider the fact that self ownership in this sense stems from control over one's thought which i am not sure is verifiable. I am sure a pedophile would have a defense in saying he/she does not control his thoughts for children. I am not sure to what extent our control over what we think and how we think affects our self awareness..

[Omegahero09]

I keep running in to a problem when i consider the fact that self ownership in this sense stems from control over one's thought which i am not sure is verifiable. I am sure a pedophile would have a defense in saying he/she does not control his thoughts for children. I am not sure to what extent our control over what we think and how we think affects our self awareness..

 How is control over one's own thought not verifiable?

 

Are you not using your mind to evaluate the ideas in this post, to run them against your ideas and your experiences to form an idea to reply with? Are you not choosing to do these things? Are you choosing to think about this stuff instead of, I don't know, boobs and french fries? 

[alexqr1]

I am not familiar with those arguments, so can you please reference those arguments?

Sure, I should had done this earlier, sorry about that:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31PfA_bATr4&list=UUICLhy-IVD58jGRsb8leiiw

Why isn't control sufficient and universalizable for the idea of ownership to be unnecessary? In that sense, it is impossible for two people to exert equal control over something, therefore, the one with the greater control determines the outcome of the thing, Even if you "own" your body, it is possible for someone else, i.e a gunman, to still exert control over you, even though you are physically capable of making decisions for yourself. If self ownership is always true, then someone holding a gun to your head should not absorb you of responsibility for what you do since you always own yourself. This is just an example to get you thinking about a more complete sense of the term self ownership and what would have to be ture for it to be false.

Control alone is not sufficient because it does not address the issue of how you gain control of a person. If you watch the video you'll get a much better idea of what I am talking about.

[dsayers]

I share that video with people all the time. It helped me sort through a lot of this stuff.

[alexqr1]

I share that video with people all the time. It helped me sort through a lot of this stuff.

 

Hey man, I've noticed that. Thank you for that, I am very glad it helped you and I hope it can help other people.

I started thinking about that issue when I heard people say that you can't argue against self-ownership without proving it, and I think that approach is not valid.

 

Quick question, should I just call you dsayers or is there a name I can use?

[dsayers]

Call me anything you like except late for dinner

[labmath2]

I saw the video and it still gives an incomplete picture of what self ownership is.

First, it does not state a sufficient condition for self ownership, thought at the end when he discusses abortion, he implies life is the sufficient condition for self ownership.

 

He states almost at the beginning, "if we do not directly affect that which we claim to own, then we do not own it." I take this to mean control is a necessary condition for ownership. He does not state how much control is necessary for ownership so i do not fully know what he means by the statement. IN the end he also proposes a case where someone being threatened has his negative rights being violated, but there is a problem there. If a gunman points a gun at you and demands your wallet, you have 2 options, to surrender your wallet or not to surrender your wallet. If you claim you have no choice but to surrender your wallet, then you imply you do not have control over your action in which you deny self ownership. Which means the gunman owns you in that moment in time. If you however still own yourself, then you did voluntarily give him your wallet because he did not actually do anything to you. You might think this is absurd, but it seems to follow self ownership argument in my opinion.

 

Does someone in a coma own himself/herself? Do animals own themselves? Do we have to take someone's will seriously? He does not fully address ownership issues since sometimes the necessary condition is not there, but ownership persists, and there is no sufficient condition for self ownership (at least no explicitly stated one).

[alexqr1]

Call me anything you like except late for dinner

Got it dsay

I saw the video and it still gives an incomplete picture of what self ownership is.

Self-ownership is an abstract idea that is logically concluded from the arguments in the video. If all you are looking for is a definition of self, then you don’t have to go further than the Oxford Dictionary:“A person’s essential being that distinguishes them from others”Once we know what the self is, then we can ask, who owns it? The answer is what is provided by the arguments in the first few minutes of the video.

He states almost at the beginning, "if we do not directly affect that which we claim to own, then we do not own it." I take this to mean control is a necessary condition for ownership. He does not state how much control is necessary for ownership so i do not fully know what he means by the statement.

The question of how much control is irrelevant to the statement, what is important is that if you have zero control, then you don’t own it. There is no claim here suggesting that there is a specific amount of control necessary to own something, just that is you have no possibility of affecting anything about the object, then you don’t own it.

IN the end he also proposes a case where someone being threatened has his negative rights being violated, but there is a problem there. If a gunman points a gun at you and demands your wallet, you have 2 options, to surrender your wallet or not to surrender your wallet. If you claim you have no choice but to surrender your wallet, then you imply you do not have control over your action in which you deny self ownership. Which means the gunman owns you in that moment in time. If you however still own yourself, then you did voluntarily give him your wallet because he did not actually do anything to you. You might think this is absurd, but it seems to follow self ownership argument in my opinion.

You are analyzing the situation in a vacuum without taking into account how the situation came about, as if the situation arose from nowhere. The interaction became immoral when the gunman directly forced the other person to make a decision that he was not willing to make freely, thus violating a negative right. Without the initial threat of violence from the gunman, the victim would not had been forced to make a decision between giving his money away or risk getting hurt or killed.

Does someone in a coma own himself/herself?

Well sure, the same way you own yourself when you are asleep. The more important question is, do others have an obligation to keep him alive, well that depends. If someone acquired the responsibility to keep him alive in the event of a coma, then yes. So if you have not acquired an obligation to take care of me if I go into a coma, then you cannot kill me because you don’t own me, but you can let me die, which is completely different.

Do animals own themselves?

No, they have no capacity to use reason. I guess your next question would be, is the capacity to use reason necessary for self-ownership? The answer is yes, then what about kids and babies right? Well kids and babies have the capacity to use reason they just lack the knowledge and experience to put it together.

Do we have to take someone's will seriously? He does not fully address ownership issues since sometimes the necessary condition is not there

How can someone who is dead own something? However, if while the person was alive he or she entered into contract with someone (lets say a representative agent of a DRO) to make sure his or her belongings went to lets say the spouse when he died, then the DRO acquired a positive obligation towards the spouse (who is alive) to make sure the dead person’s former belongings are effectively transferred in the way stated by the contract.It’s all in the video really. It is all a question of negative rights being a necessary result of self-ownership and positive rights being the result of positive obligations freely acquired by others.

[labmath2]

I think it will be easier to simply state what is sufficient for self ownership. 

 

The argument with the gunman is not dispelled by stating the interaction was started by him pointing a gun at you. The problem is with the idea that you were forced, meaning you had no control over your actions (control as a necessary condition for ownership), well then who owns you at that point in time. If however, you still own yourself, then while the gunman is guilty of threatening you, he cannot rob you without forcefully taking the money from you since you still own your actions (physical force will be necessary to violate self ownership). 

 

From your answer about animals, you imply capacity to use reason is also a necessary condition for self ownership. The problem here is i do not know what you mean by reason? How do we determine if something has the capacity for reason? What about someone who is mentally disabled, even though they have the capacity for reason (i can only assume they have capacity for reason since i do not actually know what criteria you use to determine if someone does) are they also held to  the same standards as normal people?

[alexqr1]

I think it will be easier to simply state what is sufficient for self ownership.

For a human being to be born is enough for him to own himself. From that point on, a person can willfully transfer partial or total ownership of himself freely. 

The argument with the gunman is not dispelled by stating the interaction was started by him pointing a gun at you. The problem is with the idea that you were forced, meaning you had no control over your actions (control as a necessary condition for ownership), well then who owns you at that point in time. If however, you still own yourself, then while the gunman is guilty of threatening you, he cannot rob you without forcefully taking the money from you since you still own your actions (physical force will be necessary to violate self ownership).

The argument is dispelled by pointing out that A owns himself therefore B can’t directly force him into a situation he is not willing to be part of. And again you are relying on total control being necessary for self-ownership when it is not. 

From your answer about animals, you imply capacity to use reason is also a necessary condition for self ownership. The problem here is i do not know what you mean by reason? How do we determine if something has the capacity for reason? What about someone who is mentally disabled, even though they have the capacity for reason (i can only assume they have capacity for reason since i do not actually know what criteria you use to determine if someone does) are they also held to the same standards as normal people?

This is from Wikipedia:Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, nstitutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.Again, there is no “amount of reason” necessary, just the capacity to use it. If A has no capacity for reason, then there is no self-ownership of A. This does not mean that there is a specific amount of reason necessary for self-ownership to “kick in”

[cynicist]

I have contemplated libertarian ideas and every time i came to a roadblock i wanted to pass it off as some flaw in logic or just an extreme that should never be taken seriously. What if we did take it seriously, and the problem simply stems from the foundation of libertarian principles. It is at this point i decided to subject the foundation of libertarian principles, namely self ownership, to the Socratic method.

 

What is self-ownership? 

what would have to be true for self ownership to be false?

Finally in trying something akin to Bayes' rules, could the evidence for self ownership be equally or better explained by another theory, i.e self-control, self-awareness, autonomy, e.t.c?

 

Self-ownership is exclusive control over your body/mind. For it to be false you would either have to not have any control over your body/mind or someone else would have to be able to inhabit them or manipulate them in a freakish possession sort of way. I don't understand your last question, are you asking if there is a better word to use to describe it?

 

Working from the premise that self-ownership is true, we still have to accept that is only true as long as our mind is still intact. A dead person, or a mad person, or a newborn child does not own himself/herself in the same way an adult does. Then it stand to reason, at least in my opinion, that the owner is the mind, and the property the body. However, the body dictates to the mind to some degree because the body is the source of input for the mind. Simply put, though i own myself, i cannot change the reality of the pain i feel from hunger or thirst. If this is true, then i have wonder how much of myself do i really own and how much of myself are things that are simply outside of my control. 

 

I don't see why you are separating the mind from the body here, or what pain/feelings have to do with self-ownership. There is no self in a dead person, so talking about ownership there is pointless. Both a child and an insane person have self-ownership and exercise it. They don't have the same self-control or responsibility for their actions as a sane adult but those are different things. 

[TheRobin]

 To claim ownership is to claim greater control and if someone else's control supersedes yours then there is no violation of property right.

So, if I drug you and drag you around I have greater control over you. So I should (at least in that moment) have higher right to your body than you (?)

[labmath2]

For a human being to be born is enough for him to own himself. From that point on, a person can willfully transfer partial or total ownership of himself freely. The argument is dispelled by pointing out that A owns himself therefore B can’t directly force him into a situation he is not willing to be part of. And again you are relying on total control being necessary for self-ownership when it is not. This is from Wikipedia:Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, nstitutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.Again, there is no “amount of reason” necessary, just the capacity to use it. If A has no capacity for reason, then there is no self-ownership of A. This does not mean that there is a specific amount of reason necessary for self-ownership to “kick in”

Your first response seems to imply that by definition, and not criteria, humans can own themselves. You could just say by definition humans are the only living things we think have the capacity for self ownership.

 

Your response to the gunman situation is still confusing for me. You use the word force, but there is no use of force by the gunman, unless you say threat of use of force is itself the use of force. If you mean b is in a situation he did not choose, well that is true of many of B's interaction with people. B did not choose to be born, does not choose how people perceive him, e.t.c. I will appreciate if you can be a little more clear by what you see as the problem. You keep focusing on the fact that there is a threat, but he can still say no to the gunman, but if he chooses to hand over his wallet, then we would have to agree it was a choice by someone with self ownership and hence a valid choice.

 

For the third part, animals are capable of reason if that definition is applied. Since animals can learn (for example a dog), then it is the case that they are consciously making sense of things, applying some logic for establishing and verifying facts, institution and belief based on new or existing information. If this were not possible, then they could not learn.

 

 

Self-ownership is exclusive control over your body/mind. For it to be false you would either have to not have any control over your body/mind or someone else would have to be able to inhabit them or manipulate them in a freakish possession sort of way. I don't understand your last question, are you asking if there is a better word to use to describe it?

I am not sure what you mean by exclusive control. It certainly is the case that you don't control certain aspect of your body and mind (like who you find attractive or if you are hungry). Even if we ignore the lack of complete control, we could still say you have exclusive control, but if someone were to put a gun to your head and demand your wallet, are you still in exclusive control? If you are, then handing over your wallet does not violate your property rights, if you are not, then you do not seem to own yourself.

So, if I drug you and drag you around I have greater control over you. So I should (at least in that moment) have higher right to your body than you (?)

It is not that you should have higher right, but that you do have higher right because i am not in a position to oppose your control over me. Of course this has no ethical implication, it is just a description of events. We can always add a clause saying no one ought to control anyone else. This argument is just to say that is an alternative theory to self ownership that could be explained by the same evidence for self ownership. Actually self control kind of fails when you add the claim you ought not control anyone else because it is the case that you ought to control your children till they can control themselves. This test of theory and possible revision is the process i am looking for.

[alexqr1]

Your first response seems to imply that by definition, and not criteria, humans can own themselves. You could just say by definition humans are the only living things we think have the capacity for self ownership.

I did not bring the concept of human self-ownership out of nowhere, I proved that it is the only possible solution to the moral question of ownership of the human self. I am willing to have my argument debunked, but in order for that you’d have to address it.Maybe you are failing to realize that the question of human self-ownership is a moral question because it is an issue concerning only to morality.

Your response to the gunman situation is still confusing for me. You use the word force, but there is no use of force by the gunman, unless you say threat of use of force is itself the use of force.

Which it is according to the video. If you fail to see how the imminent threat of violence directly forces you into a situation you did not willingly accept, then I am not sure I can help here.

If you mean b is in a situation he did not choose, well that is true of many of B's interaction with people. B did not choose to be born, does not choose how people perceive him, e.t.c. I will appreciate if you can be a little more clear by what you see as the problem.

I also address the issue of not choosing to be born in the video. The question about perception of others if of no concern to morality as you do not own other people’s thoughts. That would directly contradict self-ownership which I believe I have established as the only moral, universal and applicable solution to the problem of human ownership

You keep focusing on the fact that there is a threat, but he can still say no to the gunman, but if he chooses to hand over his wallet, then we would have to agree it was a choice by someone with self ownership and hence a valid choice.

It is strange to me that you don’t realize the fact that the person is being forced into a situation where limited options are available which all violate the already established ownership of the self.The 2 options are, hand over the wallet or face the violent consequences. The individual has a negative right to be left alone, which is being violated in the interaction.

For the third part, animals are capable of reason if that definition is applied. Since animals can learn (for example a dog), then it is the case that they are consciously making sense of things, applying some logic for establishing and verifying facts, institution and belief based on new or existing information. If this were not possible, then they could not learn.

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, nstitutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.Can animals use logic, do they have beliefs?

[labmath2]

The problem i have with your logic in the video is that you already assume self ownership before proving self ownership. You do not cite what criteria must be satisfied for self ownership. You state two criteria to my knowledge that is necessary, which is control and reason, but you claim even if i do not control myself, self ownership still holds. When you say reason, You seem to assume human reasoning. For something to learn, there has to be a belief (an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists) system. An example of this is Pavlov's dog believing there is food after a bell rings even if there is no food, of course it then confirms this belief with its senses.

 

You keep stating the person with a gun to his head has only two choices, in reality he has a plethora of choices, he can sing, dance etc. He cannot choose what the gunman does, but he can certainly choose what he does and his choices in this area are not limited to the gunman's demands.

[lee1138]

I'm not sure why this concept is so hard to get... 

Here is a video that may help:

 

[labmath2]

I think i understand now. The problem i had with the concept of self ownership is that you claim it arises naturally, as if its a description of something that already exists. However, self ownership is a prescription, an axiom, from which all other libertarian idea follow. Self ownership itself is assumed, instead of proven. The reason i emphasize this point is that many libertarians seem to assume there are only two positions, the acceptance of self ownership, or the denial of self ownership. There are other philosophies based on slightly different axioms that can also be generalized and have different consequences for the philosophy. An example is self autonomy by left libertarians, which does not see the self as a property, but the self as an agent and instead of straight ownership, advocates occupancy and use. Of course this has its problems as well, but you get the point, Another possibility is self control, in this case the mind is seen as the unit of control and the body its "puppet." In which case, we all try to increase the amount of control we exert and while others can exert control over things we used to control in our absence, we cannot control anything once our mind is gone. In this sense, we not only compete with others for control, we also compete with nature for control. 

 

I am sure if we subject each of these philosophies to the Socratic method, it will fail at some point because it is not a descriptive (except for maybe the self control, but i am not sure it gives rise to any real philosophy on which to build a society, since it simply describes what we observe) claim. 

 

The reason i am being really careful with details is that many of the old philosophers tell you this is what i assume to be true, and if it holds in all situations, then everything else i derived from it holds. I have not yet seen a libertarian do that kind of presentation of libertarian philosophy, they simply seem to claim libertarian philosophy always holds regardless of the conditions. If that is true, then it is a descriptive claim, and i have yet to encounter any such claim that can also help us make value judgement (good or evil) without relying on some assumption. Of course you can say libertarian ethics only tell us if someone has violated NAP, which in itself is neither good nor evil (not virtuous), so their is no obligation to follow NAP.

 

In the realm of science and morality, I personally prefer Sam Harris' approach. We can certainly measure if an individual is better physically or psychologically in one state relative to another, and if the intention is to maximize each individuals physical and psychological well being, then we can try different rules and see which help us achieve this condition. A rule such as thou shalt not kill seems pretty self explanatory, but there are some areas which are much more difficult and i am willing to concede libertarian philosophy probably has the best solutions to date for those areas.. At this point i can only assume some people will roll their eyes and say well such a society will not have principles. I agree, but if there arises a situation where principles make people demonstrably worse off (one of those extreme examples people bring up, like life boat scenario), we should be willing to say if we are in the same situation, we would probably do the same thing and so should make it an exception.

 

I think this sums up my perspective and if you disagree, well thanks for reading anyways.

[cynicist]

I am not sure what you mean by exclusive control. It certainly is the case that you don't control certain aspect of your body and mind (like who you find attractive or if you are hungry). Even if we ignore the lack of complete control, we could still say you have exclusive control, but if someone were to put a gun to your head and demand your wallet, are you still in exclusive control? If you are, then handing over your wallet does not violate your property rights, if you are not, then you do not seem to own yourself.

 

Exclusive control != Complete control over every aspect of your body

 

What it means is that I alone control my body. If someone puts a gun to your head, you still maintain exclusive control over your body. They may be telling you what to do, but they aren't moving your hands for you. You are confusing several concepts together. If I say I didn't have full control in a situation with a gun involved, that's true, but it's also true that you have exclusive control over your body in that situation.

[alexqr1]

I think i understand now. The problem i had with the concept of self ownership is that you claim it arises naturally, as if its a description of something that already exists. However, self ownership is a prescription, an axiom, from which all other libertarian idea follow. Self ownership itself is assumed, instead of proven.

Wrong, I am assuming you are not reading my replies or choosing not to address them directly.Let's try it step by step--A--Do individuals exist as physical entities? If your answer is no or I don't know then I guess that is the end of the convo with me because there is no point in debating an illogical position. If your answer is yes then:--B--All physical entities either can or can't be owned, there is no other possibility and they are mutually exclusive. Agree? If no, then explain, if yes then:--C--All the universe of possibilities that exist regarding the ownership of individuals are mutually exclusive and one has to be true if we are to find an objective, universal and consistent theory of morality that can be applied to reality. That universe is composed by the following possibilities:1) No one owns anyone2) Everyone owns everyone3) Some own others4) Every person owns his/herselfAgree?If No, why not, is there another possibility? are these not mutually exclusive, is it not necessary for one to be true? Is it not necessary for the solution to be objective, universal, consistent and applicable to reality? why?If yes then:--D--1 would revert to self ownership. Agree? if no, why not, if yes then:--E--2 is impossible, you can't get everyone to to agree about what everyone else alive must do all the time. Agree? if no, then how wold that be possible? if yes then:--F--3 is applicable to reality, with some creativity maybe universalized and maybe even consistent. But it is not objective by any stretch of the imagination. Agree? If no, then how could it meet all the criteria including objectivity? If yes then:--G--4 is the only possible solution left, and since one of the 4 has to be true and they are all mutually exclusive, and since 1,2 and 3 are false, then 4 has to be true.Agree? If no, then how is the last statement incorrect? If yes, then there you go, self-ownership is not only a rational and logical consequence of the argument, but it is the ONLY rational and logical consequence.If you want, lets go statement by statement starting with --A-- and not move on until you either agree or prove me wrong. How about that?

[labmath2]

Exclusive control != Complete control over every aspect of your body

 

What it means is that I alone control my body. If someone puts a gun to your head, you still maintain exclusive control over your body. They may be telling you what to do, but they aren't moving your hands for you. You are confusing several concepts together. If I say I didn't have full control in a situation with a gun involved, that's true, but it's also true that you have exclusive control over your body in that situation.

 

What would full control look like. I cannot control myself to spontaneously fly so please explain.

 

 

--B--All physical entities either can or can't be owned, there is no other possibility and they are mutually exclusive. Agree? If no, then explain, if yes then: 

 

It is this point that needs evaluation. In what sense do you mean own? If control is necessary for ownership, then there are physical entities i cannot own because i cannot control them. If of course you mean own in a different sense, let me know. You can try many coming up with substitutes for own till you come up with something simpler. What is sufficient for ownership?

[cynicist]

What would full control look like. I cannot control myself to spontaneously fly so please explain.

 

Do you have control over your emotions? The rate at which your heart beats? So clearly you don't have full control over every aspect of your body. (not sure why you brought up flying)