need help understanding self-ownersip

[afterzir]

Over time, basically all of nature will eventually be homesteaded. So, for simplicity one can assume that in the future, transference will be the only way to acquire property... in short I'm not that interested in homesteading anymore.

 

My question is: how are ownership over one's body+actions & ownership over a piece of nature related? Are they identical? similar? different?

 

One owns one's body and therefore owns that which the body creates (like a sentence, pencil, murder). With external property, one can abandon it if one chooses. But you can't abandon your body or its actions. If a judges asks if you said such n' such incriminating statement, then you can't abandon that statement and say no (assuming you did say it).

 

Also, if I hedonistically try to slowly destroy my body, I still have 100% control over it and hence am still the owner. Whereas if I neglect/harm my external property does that eventually ruin my ownership of it?

 

These two scenarios are possible areas where the two properties differ but I am unsure/could be wrong.  I'm having difficulty.

 

Thanks

[AncapFTW]

 

Over time, basically all of nature will eventually be homesteaded. So, for simplicity one can assume that in the future, transference will be the only way to acquire property... in short I'm not that interested in homesteading anymore.

 

My question is: how are ownership over one's body+actions & ownership over a piece of nature related? Are they identical? similar? different?

 

One owns one's body and therefore owns that which the body creates (like a sentence, pencil, murder). With external property, one can abandon it if one chooses. But you can't abandon your body or its actions. If a judges asks if you said such n' such incriminating statement, then you can't abandon that statement and say no (assuming you did say it).

 

Also, if I hedonistically try to slowly destroy my body, I still have 100% control over it and hence am still the owner. Whereas if I neglect/harm my external property does that eventually ruin my ownership of it?

 

These two scenarios are possible areas where the two properties differ but I am unsure/could be wrong.  I'm having difficulty.

 

Thanks

 

Seeing as how there are billions of galaxies with millions of stars each, that's a very long way in the future.  First, land would have to be scarce enough for people to colonize the oceans and the planets/moons in this star system, then it would have to become scarce enough to drive us to other systems, and eventually property in the galaxy would have to become scarce enough, etc.

 

You can abandon it as long as you aren't infringing on another person's property.  I can't give up my claim on nuclear waste by dumping it in your front yard.  In the same way, you can't give up the claim to your actions if doing so subjects another to harm, ie. abandoning your child.  If, for example, you give up the fruits of you labor in the form of a book by letting others have it for free, that doesn't harm anyone, though.

 

No, you still own it, it's just virtually worthless now, like your body after a period of hedonistic abandon would be.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

They become related over time as you mix your labor, time with "the land". 

[ThomasTheIdealist]

My question is: how are ownership over one's body+actions & ownership over a piece of nature related? Are they identical? similar? different?

I think they're completely distinct. And it's because of this that I have a hard time justifying external property using "self-ownership" as an axiom. When I take "ownership" of my body/actions, I'm not making a legal property claim. It's ironic that self-ownership advocates here and abroad are against intellectual property while also claiming that I "own" the words coming out of my mouth because I made them. This is conflating ownership as a property claim and ownership as an abstract relationship. For example, when I say "my mother" I'm describing a relationship relative to myself and not my ownership over my mother.

 

So when you modified something external using actions that your body puts into motion, at best you can say you should be accountable for that action just like you're accountable for other words and things you do. I'm not sure how you can deduce a property claim from the action. Just because you're the consciousness that can best control the body you seem to inhabit, doesn't mean you have a property claim over it, and that certainly doesn't imply that everything you touch (loosely speaking) is your property.

 

Is there something I'm misunderstanding about self-ownership?

[GailG]

You own your body.  You do not own nature.  You can own the fruit of your labor, but nature is held in common.

[dsayers]

You own your body.  You do not own nature.  You can own the fruit of your labor, but nature is held in common.

Where do you live? I look forward to the free room and board