Argument against self ownership

[elzoog]

How would you guys respond to this argument against self ownership?   A person owns a thing if he buys it (i.e. I give money to the computer shop so now I own a computer).   When I was born, my parents bought me by going to the hospital and paying them to give birth to me.   Otherwise, I would not exist.   Therefore, I am owned by my parents.

Response?

[neeeel]

seems like a reach to me. As in, you are changing meanings to support your argument, and your argument doesnt really follow logically

[rosencrantz]

A similar argument is made by many Libertarians. And when you have a look at the discussion between Stef and Block it is hard to argue logically against it 

[Cuffy_Meigs]

Isn't there an infinite regress here? Everybody ends up being the property of some long dead "Eve", in the absence of some arbitrary ruling about how ownership passes on.

[dsayers]

A person owns a thing if he buys it

Trace it back; How do you know they owned the currency used to buy it?

 

my parents bought me by going to the hospital and paying them to give birth to me

Did the hospital own you before your parents paid for their SERVICES? What about the people not born in hospitals?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

They would also then own the moral obligations towards the child/you.

What is the argument you're making?  

[Wuzzums]

So prior to hospitals babies didn't exist?

[Pelafina]

Please google homesteading principle.

[Mister Mister]

Is the person comfortable with the implications of this?  Because if you own your baby, then everything up to and including baby rape and murder is within your rights as a property owner.

[EclecticIdealist]

How would you guys respond to this argument against self ownership?   A person owns a thing if he buys it (i.e. I give money to the computer shop so now I own a computer).   When I was born, my parents bought me by going to the hospital and paying them to give birth to me.   Otherwise, I would not exist.   Therefore, I am owned by my parents.

 

Response?

Your parents did not buy you from anyone at the hospital, they (or their insurance provider) paid for services rendered related to an attended pregnancy. They did not purchase you, if anything, they created you.

 

If your culture says that ownership of sapient beings is permitted, then you should be considered their property until such time as ownership is transferred to you or someone else. If your culture was a middle-eastern culture hundreds of years ago, you would be your father's chattel (as your mother and any siblings would be) until, if you are a male, you reach the age of manhood and become your father's heir (if from one of his recognized wives), or his chattel if from one of his concubines. If you are female, you would become your husband's property when your father sells you to him.

 

In modern society, most cultures presume you to be your own owner from the time you are born, and your parents are conservators or trustees until you reach the age of majority or are emancipated by the courts.

[ValueOfBrevity]

How would you guys respond to this argument against self ownership?   A person owns a thing if he buys it (i.e. I give money to the computer shop so now I own a computer).   When I was born, my parents bought me by going to the hospital and paying them to give birth to me.   Otherwise, I would not exist.   Therefore, I am owned by my parents.

 

Response?

First of all, your claim that "a person owns a thing if he buys it" is not always true. I could buy your television from a thief, do I then own it?

 

Secondly, the hospital has nothing to do with your argument, so why include it? If your parents bought you from the hospital, then the hospital owned you originally. Quite silly.

 

Third, if my parents own me, can they murder and rape me? Are they excused from NAP?

 

Last, and most importantly, no one can be legitimately owned. Stating that we do not own ourselves is synonymous with saying we have no free will, we are not responsible for our own actions, etc.

 

People must own themselves to be responsible for their choices.

 

 

[Troubador]

The parent/child relationship is not one of ownership, but it is one of responsibility. You are both responsible for (ie it's my responsibility if my child breaks your window), and responsible to (I am responsible for providing my child with shelter, food, security, love & affection basically to be the launchpad to get them off to as best a start as possible).

 

I see no reason whatsoever that NAP does not apply to that relationship.

[Mister Mister]

all good arguments here, I would just add that in my experience, I've found that people tend to have problems with self-ownership as a principle, because they don't want to assign responsibility to themselves, or people in their life.

[EclecticIdealist]

all good arguments here, I would just add that in my experience, I've found that people tend to have problems with self-ownership as a principle, because they don't want to assign responsibility to themselves, or people in their life.

 

I have a problem with self ownership, but only in the sense of it being the starting point for libertarian ethics.

 

I believe the starting point is universal individual sovereignty, not self-ownership.

[neeeel]

I have a problem with self ownership, but only in the sense of it being the starting point for libertarian ethics.

 

I believe the starting point is universal individual sovereignty, not self-ownership.

 

Those sound the same to me. Whats the difference?

[EclecticIdealist]

Universal individual sovereignty is self-rulership; ownership of property is a result of individual action (one's own, or as a beneficiary of another's action).

[dsayers]

self-rulership

rule - to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over

 

You're talking about self-ownership.

[EclecticIdealist]

rule - to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over

 

You're talking about self-ownership.

own - to possess with exclusive right to control, to belong to an individual or group.

 

One can own something without controlling it. An item may be stolen from its rightful owner and controlled by another.  A piece of property that is owned by a bank or mortgage holding company may be controlled by the one paying the mortgage. To own is not to control, although the two usually come hand in hand. One can possess or own things without having the liberty to control how they are used; one can control things without possessing or owning them as well. Universal Individual Sovereignty is self-rule, not self-ownership.

 

own - <slang> to trounce another in a contest or argument.

[McCkins]

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?

[dsayers]

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?

I think the transition from animal to person is one of the most complex areas of objective morality. I think that the fetus is no question the property of the woman as it is a part of her body. However, once out of the womb, the human baby has the certainty of becoming a person (capable of reason). For this reason, I think the most accurate description is that the parents are in a voluntarily created obligation of acting as custodians to the child, nurturing and protecting it until such a time as it is able to do so without its parents.

 

Keep in mind that in a free society, the question will mostly be moot since people will not have a desire to own other people.

[McCkins]

I think the transition from animal to person is one of the most complex areas of objective morality. I think that the fetus is no question the property of the woman as it is a part of her body. However, once out of the womb, the human baby has the certainty of becoming a person (capable of reason). For this reason, I think the most accurate description is that the parents are in a voluntarily created obligation of acting as custodians to the child, nurturing and protecting it until such a time as it is able to do so without its parents.

 

Keep in mind that in a free society, the question will mostly be moot since people will not have a desire to own other people.

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?

[AncapFTW]

I think the transition from animal to person is one of the most complex areas of objective morality. I think that the fetus is no question the property of the woman as it is a part of her body. However, once out of the womb, the human baby has the certainty of becoming a person (capable of reason). For this reason, I think the most accurate description is that the parents are in a voluntarily created obligation of acting as custodians to the child, nurturing and protecting it until such a time as it is able to do so without its parents.

 

Keep in mind that in a free society, the question will mostly be moot since people will not have a desire to own other people.

Yet you, who I assume want to live in a free society, just stated that a person, or at least someone who would become a person, was owned by another person.  You obviously believe that some people will want to own other people, as you just said that one person should own another, and presumably would support them own this other person that lives inside of them.

[dsayers]

Why is the child suddenly given self ownership?

I don't think it would be sudden. The degree to which a (young) mind is capable of reason can be found on a continuum. Decisions we make in life come in varying degrees of complexity.

 

you just said that one person should own another

"fetus" "baby" and "person" are not interchangeable words

[AncapFTW]

"fetus" "baby" and "person" are not interchangeable words

Apparently, reminding you of the fact that you, in your own words, support one person owning another isn't a strawman.  Even if you don't see it as a person OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT, therefore it is still an issue and will continue to be one.  And, of course you downvote me, because why should you engage in an actual discussion when you can yell "logical fallacy" and be condecending?

 

But then again, you are the ultimate arbiter of everyone else's rights, aka, the state, so it's OK.

[dsayers]

Even if you don't see it as a person OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT

There's a difference between making a case and erecting a strawman. Something to keep in mind when you utilize ad hominem while accusing somebody else of not engaging in an "actual discussion."

[McCkins]

I don't think it would be sudden. The degree to which a (young) mind is capable of reason can be found on a continuum. Decisions we make in life come in varying degrees of complexity.

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.

[dsayers]

2) How exactly does someone attain self-ownership (whether it be suddenly or progressively).

Sorry I wasn't clearer before. I mentioned reason because that is the requisite for self-ownership. You understand the consequences of your actions and therefore you are responsible for them. Human children are in a unique moral category. They are the only set that doesn't possess reason, but will certainly develop it. As a result, most people would argue that they deserve all the protections of people. Such as they cannot be stolen from, assaulted, raped, or murdered. Nor are the responsible for the effects of their actions immediately. Like if they break a window, their parents are financially responsible. Check out Troubador's post if you haven't already.

[labmath2]

Every time a situation of sorites paradox comes up, i am always entertained. If you can solve this problem, without assigning abritrary limits, then you have created a template to solving the identity problem, which is the supersete of the abortion problem and this problem.

 

For those who are not familiar with it, sorites paradox goes like this. I have a pile of sand. I remove obe grain of sand and i still have a pile of sand because i grain of sand does not make the difference between a pile and a non-pile. Repeat this process enough time and you end up with a pile of sand made of one sand. Remove this sand and you still have a pile because one sand is not enough to go from pile to non-pile. The minute removing one sand is enough to go from pile to non-pile, then you have found the essence of a pile. In the Aristotle video Stefan used a baby and changing attributes of the baby till you end up with a non-baby. The instance where changing one attribute is enough to go from baby to non-baby, then you have found the essence of a baby.

 

In this case the istance where you go from non-self ownership to self ownership, that change is the essence of self ownership. Unless you are in the camp that says self ownership is on a spectrum which creates confusing ownership schemes to avoid this problem. Even then you will still need some way of assigning ownership in some distributed form so that parents own sone percentage of the child that diminishes over his/her lifetime.

[Phable Omsri]

"Self Ownership" is a pretty intense issue for me.  When I was a youth I thought the whole system of working to pay rent to live to eat to work to pay rent was basically slavery... and subconsciously I must have felt the truth of the matter.  In Jamaica during the days of slavery a slave had "a bond" which his or her "owner" had, which was basically a piece of paper that said "Warrior Slave, Worker Slave, Woman Slave, Child Slave, or Baby Slave".  These bonds were bought and sold at what was known as "The Stock Market", where people sold animals and slaves.  So in 1933 The United States Corporation went bankrupt and all the common people were put up as collateral against the debt.  Thus the Social Security System and The Birth Certificate System were enacted and Bonds were there by issued for every person born in America.  I have read that these bonds are worth a person's weight in gold at the point of their birth.  These bonds are bought and sold over and over and over and their value is artificially inflated via the Fractional Reserve Banking System to an unfathomable value and degree. Basically a person is "incorporated" at birth, meaning that a person is made into a corporation via the all caps birth certificate, and this bond is meant to back all a person's "work expenses" they accumulate while endeavoring on behalf of those whose Credit we are collateral to improve.  The United States Corporation is the employer and oneself is the employee. So it was assumed that a person would incur all sorts of expenses while being taxed to the gills working for THE MAN... so this fund was set aside for each and every person which can discharge business related expenses, a fund which anyone can learn to draw from at basically any time.  Not only that but a person is owed "back compensation" for all the transactions which have occurred during the transacting of one's Bond, compensation a person is well within their legal rights to request.  However, if a person dies and does not claim this Bond, and does not discharge their debts via this fund, then the Bond matures and the money is collected by The United States Corporation (a sum of between $300,000.00 and 1 million dollars) and is used to pay The Government's debts instead.  This results in a terrible conflict of interest where people are often worth more to the Government dead, instead of alive.  And certainly there is no imperative to inform the general public of this arrangement regarding the money set aside for them on the part of The Government, given as how lucrative our ignorance is for them.  So as far as "who owns me"... that is actually a complicated legal agreement, which has resulted in other people profiting extensively while anticipating my total subservience to a system which insures their further profit. There is a wicked assumption, a sinister plot, which capitalizes on the ignorance of our parents and society as a whole... its an assumption that the people in general can be used as collateral for an elite societies debts, an assumption  that the people can be reduced to a commodity, an assumption that the common people can be made slaves so that a handful can rule us all.  Its an assumption that was followed up with a series of legal agreements that our parents made and make with The Government regarding our Birth Certificates and Social Security Numbers and the formation of this Bond in a new born baby's name.  So the powers behind The Government actually do not own your Birth Certificate, and a person can claim ownership of the account that certificate represents.  A person can then begin to conduct business in full legal knowledge.  So, technically a person is the owner of themself (upon becoming an adult) as well as being the owner of the Corporation that their all-caps Birth Certificate denotes, but one must know their legal position and all their rights in order to act fully on one's own interest and behalf.  Until a person reaches cognizance of this "co-ownership" of one's life and affairs by The State, one's activity can hardly be seen to be that of a "self-owned" human being and one's Sovereignty is definitely in question.  Thus, for me, I will never really be comfortable with the arrangement regarding my life, my finances, the issues "self ownership" and I cannot thwart these general assumptions and endeavors to make me a slave until I can figure out how to access that Bond, The Expense Discharging Account and all the money owed to me for back transactions conducted by the investors in The Government in my name.  They assume I will die before I learn how to access those financial  assets, and if I make no endeavor to discover the implications of this information they will be right.  Learning about Sovereignty, our Rights, and how they circumvent our rights (to legally steal people's money and property) via The Uniform Commercial Code (The U.C.C.), and discovering The Fund set aside in your name  all constitutes a tremendous amount of study and work... essentially a person must become their own lawyer and one can gain a huge wealth of knowledge about how the system works by undertaking the study.  I am no expert on this subject at all, however I have friends who are going through the process and I have found many hours of material regarding this subject online.  This Bond does appear to be a real thing, and so is the account... it just takes alot of legal knowledge to actually execute the process.  I would suggest being 100% certain of your steps before undertaking any actual legal declarations.  Those are my thoughts on "Self-Ownership", I hope you have a blessed day! 

   

[McCkins]

In this case the istance where you go from non-self ownership to self ownership, that change is the essence of self ownership. Unless you are in the camp that says self ownership is on a spectrum which creates confusing ownership schemes to avoid this problem. Even then you will still need some way of assigning ownership in some distributed form so that parents own sone percentage of the child that diminishes over his/her lifetime.

 

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?

[dsayers]

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?

Very nice approach. The proposition does seem to fail to infinite regression. Which is why it's much simpler and more accurate to understand how organic self-ownership is.

[labmath2]

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?

Good questions. I wish i had the answers. I have engaged others extensively on this very topic only to be met with a priori self ownership or fluid meaning of ownership. If a priori self ownership is true, then i have always owned myself, even before i was conceived. If ownership is a property of the thing, then you need a way to observe/measure it. The most common property used to qualify ownership is control, but as someone stated earlier you can "own" property without controlling it. Not to mention forced organ transplant becomes legitimate the minute its completed (to figure out who owns a body part, we need to see who exercises the greatest control over it in the moment. Any moment before the transplant the original owner exercises the greatest control, any moment after the new owner exercises the greatest control). Control is not really a good property with which to decide ownership. Which is why it is imperative to determine when that switch happens to deermine the property that makes a thing a self owner.

[Pod]

I don't see any consent given by the person being born so nope.

 

If I drugged you with roofies , hauled you to my house with a rented truck, threw you in my cellar, and said "I own you now because I spent time and money getting you here", who would accept that?

[McCkins]

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

[dsayers]

So is self-ownership just a concept we have because it is a natural consequence of UPB?

I think this is putting the cart before the horse. This sentence reads to me like "is 2 just a concept we have because it is a natural consequence of (insert some complex calculus here)?"

 

Self-ownership is a concept we have because it accurately describes the real world. It has only ever been obfuscated for the sake of coaxing people into subjugation with less resistance. If you can trick people into thinking that nationalism is a virtue for example, it's easier to swallow the ways in which the government of the nation you're in purports to own you for example.