Argument against self ownership

[McCkins]

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.

 

I don't think I understand the analogy to numbers here. I understand that the state would like to create this illusion of ownership of citizens.

 

I don't know how to prove self-ownership I guess. I've heard Stef say that the NAP is not irreducible the way UPB is, so how is self-ownership different? If self-ownership is not proven or implied through UPB, then how is self-ownership proven in and of itself, given it is not irreducible.

[dsayers]

I was referencing complexity. To me, objective morality is quite simple whereas UPB is complex. Meanwhile "NAP" is shorthand for "theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent." I think if you're trying to understand a new idea--especially using words like irreducible--it might be helpful to keep things simple. Even if it takes longer to type, I think it would be helpful in avoiding what looks to me like a communications breakdown.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by prove self-ownership. It seems self-evident to me. Axiomatic if you will. It's not even something you would have to argue because EVERYTHING that's put forth as if it were morality or a method by which to "organize society" are all predicated on property rights being valid. If everybody already accepts that property rights are valid, self-ownership is a given. Or if you don't think that it is, it would be helpful if you could identify where the disconnect comes in.

 

Forgive me if I've already shared this video with you, but the first bit in it does a good job of explaining an easy way of arriving at self-ownership by process of elimination:

[EclecticIdealist]

Self-ownership is a false-start, and red-herring.  Universal Individual Sovereignty is the proper start. The sapient individual is sovereign by nature. The assertion that must be proven, the assertion which requires justification is the assertion that the individual is NOT sovereign, that one individual has authority to control and dominate another. The notion that parents have a just claim of rulership over their children is based on what, that they created them and therefore have the right to control them? That would certainly be fine for things incapable of sentience, consciousness, and volition; but if one is to expect others to respect one's own sovereignty, one must respect the sovereignty of other sentient, conscious, volitional beings. To not respect the sovereignty of others is to invite others to respond with violence to any initiation of aggression, including the aggression of attempting to enforce one's wishes over another.

[neeeel]

 

Self-ownership is a concept we have because it accurately describes the real world.

 

 

No it doesnt. nowhere in the real world does self ownership exist.  thats like saying "America is a concept we have because it accurately describes the real world", I think you would agree that America doesnt actually exist, and doesnt accurately describe the real world.

 

You keep asserting things like this in other threads, I challenge you, and then my challenge seems to get unanswered.

[Mrdthree]

If self ownership is about agency then you are the defacto owner of your body—no one else can compete with you to overcome your position of agency (hypnotism?).

 

Put another way:

Other people have indirect control over your arms and legs and must move them by external force.

You can move your arms and legs using a direct and non-mechanical agency; you move your mind and body by acts of will.

 

These observaitons are medieval I believe and the basis of notions of inalienable rights-- your right to control your body directly is inalienable.

[dsayers]

No it doesnt. nowhere in the real world does self ownership exist.  thats like saying "America is a concept we have because it accurately describes the real world", I think you would agree that America doesnt actually exist, and doesnt accurately describe the real world.

 

You keep asserting things like this in other threads, I challenge you, and then my challenge seems to get unanswered.

How do you know that it is YOUR challenge? It's NOT like saying "America is a concept..." because that is describing something that was made up. THAT is an assertion. What I have put forth is backed up by observable, universal, empirical evidence.

 

Who owns you?

[Mrdthree]

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

 

There is a fact of agency or self-ownership that is immutable-- you are the agent of your body and cant be deposed. ('possession' or 'hypnotism' could be thought experiment alternatives)

 

Property and ownership are concepts there to establish priority in the face of competition. In the absence of competition I suppose you need only demonstrate control to prove ownership. This would be the case where agency proves self-ownership.

 

However in a social setting, where competition exists, you have to start finding reasons that are (socially?) acceptable to justify priority of control. From this point of view questions of self-ownership start to look a whole lot like rights..

[neeeel]

How do you know that it is YOUR challenge? It's NOT like saying "America is a concept..." because that is describing something that was made up. THAT is an assertion. What I have put forth is backed up by observable, universal, empirical evidence.

 

Who owns you?

 

Self ownership is also made up. Its not a real thing, in the real world. It is exactly the same as saying "america is a concept"

 

Asking "Who owns you" to someone who doesnt believe in self ownership, seems to be a leading question. Pretty much whatever I answer, you are going to go "ahah! so you DO believe in self ownership then". I dont believe self ownership is a thing, and there isnt a who that owns me. And, There can be an understanding of a concept, and its usefulness

 

It is perfectly possible for challenges to be brought up, without self ownership being real. There being a challenge, does not automatically validate self ownership.

 

What observable empirical evidence have you put forth for self ownership?

[dsayers]

There is a fact of agency or self-ownership that is immutable-- you are the agent of your body and cant be deposed. ('possession' or 'hypnotism' could be thought experiment alternatives)

The ability to hijack control of another person is a good reason why it is important that we help people to see the world in terms of property rights.

 

However in a social setting, where competition exists, you have to start finding reasons that are (socially?) acceptable to justify priority of control. From this point of view questions of self-ownership start to look a whole lot like rights..

I'm not sure what you're saying here. How is there increased competition over control of me just because other people are standing next to me?

 

@neeeel: You didn't answer my question as to how you know that it is YOUR challenge. Also, I would wager that you are unwilling to give me your worldly possessions. And if I were to try and take them from you, you would take exception to this behavior. So if nobody owns you, how did you come to believe you rightfully own the things that could be described as your worldly possessions? You are demonstrating self-ownership as you make the claim that it is made up. Multiple pieces of evidence here that you in fact accept self-ownership because it is inescapable.

[neeeel]

 

@neeeel: You didn't answer my question as to how you know that it is YOUR challenge. Also, I would wager that you are unwilling to give me your worldly possessions. And if I were to try and take them from you, you would take exception to this behavior. So if nobody owns you, how did you come to believe you rightfully own the things that could be described as your worldly possessions? You are demonstrating self-ownership as you make the claim that it is made up. Multiple pieces of evidence here that you in fact accept self-ownership because it is inescapable.

 

I answered your question perfectly fine. I dont believe that self ownership is a real thing, and therefore I dont KNOW that its MY challenge( and, I need to use words in order to communicate with you, words like "me" and "I" and "mine"). Im not sure whats not clear here? I dont believe theres a self that can own things, and I dont believe that theres this physical property called ownership. Ownership happens in peoples heads. Nothing changes in reality when an object changes hands ( I suppose you could claim that the structure of peoples brains change, I dont know)

 

You are using circular arguments to try and support your position. 

you are assuming the existence of self ownership, in order to prove the existence of self ownership.

 

It is perfectly possible for challenges to be brought up, without self ownership being real. There being a challenge, does not automatically validate self ownership.

 

Gravity is inescapable. Self ownership isnt, since it is just a made up concept.

 

 

With regard to my possessions,like I have said, is it possible that I can understand the concept of self ownership ( a concept that doesnt exist in reality) and accept that, if everyone accepts and uses that concept, life is much easier? And, and the same time, recognise that its not a real thing?

It depends what you tried to steal? I have had my motorbike stolen, and I wasnt that pissed, because I didnt use it that much. There is a drive to survive. Surviving is easier with things than without. Not having to defend your things constantly is easier than having to defend your things constantly.

 

So sure, if you want to put forth property rights as a system to base things on, I would probably be all for it. But that doesnt mean its a real thing, that its observable and empirical. 

[McCkins]

This is exactly the point I'm getting at. The relationship between the NAP, property rights, self-ownership, and UPB (assuming it holds as True) was confusing to me for awhile. Before UPB was theorized, libertarians had the NAP which had no legs to stand on because it was an assertion (meaning it was not axiomatic in and of itself when divorced from UPB). So now NAP, property rights, and self-ownership are used as shorthand for, and are implicit in UPB.

 

Am I correct about this? In which case it would be fun to hear a podcast about this (I know Stef did and intro to phil. series). The reason being that all of this can be very confusing to new listeners and readers (I know he's working on a UPB book 2.0). 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was referencing complexity. To me, objective morality is quite simple whereas UPB is complex. Meanwhile "NAP" is shorthand for "theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent." I think if you're trying to understand a new idea--especially using words like irreducible--it might be helpful to keep things simple. Even if it takes longer to type, I think it would be helpful in avoiding what looks to me like a communications breakdown.

Isn't UPB objective morality? By irreducible I mean we can properly declare it axiomatic whereas self-ownership (by itself) is an assertion which can only be argued by referencing self-ownership.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by prove self-ownership. It seems self-evident to me. Axiomatic if you will. It's not even something you would have to argue because EVERYTHING that's put forth as if it were morality or a method by which to "organize society" are all predicated on property rights being valid. If everybody already accepts that property rights are valid, self-ownership is a given. Or if you don't think that it is, it would be helpful if you could identify where the disconnect comes in.

Thanks I liked the video. I think you and the guy who made the video have a different starting place with UPB. If you start with self-ownership you can reduce it even more to specific actions: theft, assault, rape, and murder. Is this the confusion we are having? I think it is a confusion in the language we are using.

 

You cannot ARGUE (although they are valid bc of UPB) for property rights, self-ownership, or the NAP If UPB was invalid. Man I'm in the weeds...

[dsayers]

Isn't UPB objective morality?

I think it's one expression of it. I'm not a UPB guy. To me, objective morality is way simpler. And before I could read it, I saw many people struggling with it.

 

The bottom line of objective morality is "theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent." The end.

[Will Torbald]

I think it's one expression of it. I'm not a UPB guy. To me, objective morality is way simpler. And before I could read it, I saw many people struggling with it.

 

The bottom line of objective morality is "theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent." The end.

 

"internally inconsistent" is not a moral statement, but a logical one. You haven't explained why logically inconsistent actions are evil, nor why people should behave in logically consistent ways - since there are more illogical behaviors besides those, too, and people would also be immoral according to you.

[dsayers]

You haven't explained why logically inconsistent actions are evil, nor why people should behave in logically consistent ways

I don't have to. Because of the logical inconsistency, the person engaging in the theft, assault, rape, or murder are TELLING YOU that what they're doing is wrong.

 

It's not up to me how others SHOULD behave. However, with objective morality, when person A tries to steal person B's bike and person B punches them in the face to dissuade them from doing so, it's easy to see who's in the right. With 7 billion people on the planet, many of which are trying to control others out of historical momentum, this sort of clarity is invaluable.

 

It's like saying to me that I haven't explained to you how a hammer can measure the length of something. That's not its purpose, sir.

[Will Torbald]

I don't have to. Because of the logical inconsistency, the person engaging in the theft, assault, rape, or murder are TELLING YOU that what they're doing is wrong.

 

It's not up to me how others SHOULD behave. However, with objective morality, when person A tries to steal person B's bike and person B punches them in the face to dissuade them from doing so, it's easy to see who's in the right. With 7 billion people on the planet, many of which are trying to control others out of historical momentum, this sort of clarity is invaluable.

 

It's like saying to me that I haven't explained to you how a hammer can measure the length of something. That's not its purpose, sir.

This also avoids the second point I made about how if logical inconsistency is the standard of immorality then other illogical behaviors are evil too. For example, telling someone to shut up is using your voice to silence another which would be equally evil as murder because it's the affirmation of your voice against the voice of another. A debate would also became the affirmation of my opinion against yours thus also wrong to do. In essence, what you claim is objective morality isn't morality even if it is objective. Logic is not a sufficient requirement for moral behavior even if it is a necessary one. You do need to explain why it is sufficient to be hypocritical to be evil. You do need to differentiate violent by hypocrisy from non violent. Which UPB does, instead. It does try to explain in moral terms the good and the evil beyond the objective hypocrisies which are still there but can't be the complete story.

[dsayers]

I don't know where you're getting the first half of your post. The content of what you say to somebody is not binding upon them without their consent.

 

As for the second half of your post, I am not a UPB guy so I can neither accept nor reject what you've put forth. Assuming it's true, great; That means that people who want more than "theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent" have material to consume. But as I've said before, many who do seem to walk away with less clarity, not more. So I will continue to put forth this true, objective claim as it's a fine, concise, passes the 5 year old test, cliff note version of how to measure inter-human behaviors. Which is what the world seems obsessed with INFLICTING upon one another, so I know it's not as of little value as you are describing.

[Will Torbald]

I don't know where you're getting the first half of your post. The content of what you say to somebody is not binding upon them without their consent.

 

As for the second half of your post, I am not a UPB guy so I can neither accept nor reject what you've put forth. Assuming it's true, great; That means that people who want more than "theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent" have material to consume. But as I've said before, many who do seem to walk away with less clarity, not more. So I will continue to put forth this true, objective claim as it's a fine, concise, passes the 5 year old test, cliff note version of how to measure inter-human behaviors. Which is what the world seems obsessed with INFLICTING upon one another, so I know it's not as of little value as you are describing.

Cool, but morality has to pass the philosopher test, not the five year old test to be valid.

[neeeel]

Dsayers, is there any reason you arent answering my last post?

[neeeel]

Dsayers, is there any reason you arent answering my last post?

 

So instead of answering me, you downvote me? 

[MrNlul77]

So instead of answering me, you downvote me?

 

It was I who down voted you, I feel saying things like "I challenge you" is confrontational, and I also feel you are attempting to control Dsayers, the fella has already answered you, you just don't like his answer, if he wants to get into it again with you that's his choice. Also, I found the bit about your motorbike being stolen and you weren't that pissed because you didn't use it that much to be nonsense.

[neeeel]

It was I who down voted you, I feel saying things like "I challenge you" is confrontational, and I also feel you are attempting to control Dsayers, the fella has already answered you, you just don't like his answer, if he wants to get into it again with you that's his choice. Also, I found the bit about your motorbike being stolen and you weren't that pissed because you didn't use it that much to be nonsense.

 

 

Ok, how is it nonsense? Its not an argument against property rights, for sure, but he was asking me how I would personally feel if he came round and tried to steal my stuff. Are you saying that I am lying, and was actually pissed about my motorbike being stolen? Or what?

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Who owns you?

Multiple people, I'd say.

 

If you define ownership as the state of legally having control over something, then a consciousness only has partial ownership over their body. The state has significant claim they exercise over you and the body you inhabit. In fact, your property rights largely come from the state assuming society at large respects their authority.

 

Believing you have a right to do something is as pointless as believing you have a lambourgini when you clearly do not. It's illogical to assert a right to do something that's illegal, it is by definition not a right. Unless you appeal to the natural rights mysticism of many enlightenment thinkers who believed God had a hand in things.

 

I think it's useful and desirable to give a consciousness sovereignty over the body they seem to inhabit. There is no inherent reason to give them the sovereignty, but I like the consequences.

[EclecticIdealist]

I think it's useful and desirable to give a consciousness sovereignty over the body they seem to inhabit. There is no inherent reason to give them the sovereignty, but I like the consequences.

What do you mean by "give a consciousness sovereignty"? Do you have the sovereignty to grant or revoke sovereignty over another person? If you claim that you do, from whence does this sovereignty come?  I maintain like the thinkers of the Enlightenment era that Universal Individual Sovereignty is mankind's natural state. It is not something we grant to others, it is something we recognize as inherent in our fellow human beings. For us not to recognize it is to invite violence against us as we attempt to impose our will upon others through violence.

[dsayers]

If you define ownership as the state of legally

Of course I don't. This is a philosophy forum. "Legally" means actions you can engage in without people who pretend to exist in a different, opposing moral category threatening you. It is a subjective and arbitrary non-standard.

[elzoog]

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.

Not only that, but if I let you borrow my car for a day, you control that car but you don't own it.

 

I knew the argument I made in the OP was bogus, but I wanted to get some good arguments against it.

[EclecticIdealist]

I knew the argument I made in the OP was bogus, but I wanted to get some good arguments against it.

Happy to oblige.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

What do you mean by "give a consciousness sovereignty"?

I mean refrain from restraining them from making their own decisions/actions.

Do you have the sovereignty to grant or revoke sovereignty over another person? If you claim that you do, from whence does this sovereignty come?  I maintain like the thinkers of the Enlightenment era that Universal Individual Sovereignty is mankind's natural state. It is not something we grant to others, it is something we recognize as inherent in our fellow human beings.

I alone likely don't, but society at large does. The sovereignty comes from the ability and willingness to assert. A mere variation of the "might makes right" sentiment. I don't see how having rights is any more natural and inherent to mankind than not having rights.

For us not to recognize it is to invite violence against us as we attempt to impose our will upon others through violence.

Indeed, which is one of the consequences making it desirable to recognize some form of self-ownership.

Of course I don't. This is a philosophy forum. "Legally" means actions you can engage in without people who pretend to exist in a different, opposing moral category threatening you. It is a subjective and arbitrary non-standard.

I know. So you're discussing ownership, a property relationship, outside the context of a legal framework on which property is contingent? What purpose does such philosophical musing serve? You may as well disregard the laws of physics and discuss the ideal speed of light.

[dsayers]

I know. So you're discussing ownership, a property relationship, outside the context of a legal framework on which property is contingent? What purpose does such philosophical musing serve? You may as well disregard the laws of physics and discuss the ideal speed of light.

Other way around.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Other way around.

Which is the other way around? You discussing ownership or you discussing it outside the context of a legal framework?

[EclecticIdealist]

I mean refrain from restraining them from making their own decisions/actions.

That is not the same thing as giving something to someone. If Universal Individual Sovereignty exists, it is as an inherent quality of the individual, or it is something which must be granted to the individual or otherwise acquired by the individual. You have suggested with your response that it is something which is inherent in the individual which can be infringed upon by other members of society.

 

I alone likely don't, but society at large does. The sovereignty comes from the ability and willingness to assert. A mere variation of the "might makes right" sentiment.

Now you are contradicting your previous claim by suggesting that individuals likely do not have the authority to grant or revoke the authority to act, but that groups do based on the sentiment that "might makes right" or in other words, "might grants/revokes rulership" or "power begets authority". The assertion that authority or rulership is derived from power certainly appears to have merit from an empirical standpoint. One can certainly observe that the strongest or most powerful tend to be the leaders in groups of animals as well as in groups of men; although "the strongest" generally does not mean the one displaying the most physical prowess. In modernity, one who is able to muster the most economic and socio-political power is superior to one who is most physically imposing powerful.

 

I don't see how having rights is any more natural and inherent to mankind than not having rights.

Indeed, rights, much like Universal Individual Sovereignty, are philosophical contrivances having no inherent or independent abstract existence. Instead, they are something which societies choose to recognize as existing based on the cultural traditions and biases stemming from the Enlightenment Era of Western Europe. In short, they are the philosophical expression of the nearly universal socio-political preferences for a governmental system which embraces or embodies the ideals of egalitarianism, personal liberty, and property rights. Essentially, rights are the philosophical push-back of the enlightened common man against the authority claims of the rich and powerful claiming a right to rule over others, whether by virtue of divine censure, or noble birth, or some other attempted justification. It is the ultimate democratization of authority or self-rule into each and every individual equally.

[rosencrantz]

Before UPB was theorized, libertarians had the NAP which had no legs to stand on because it was an assertion (meaning it was not axiomatic in and of itself when divorced from UPB). 

 

Actually, John Locke came up with the concept of self ownership in his Second Treatise on Government. He also deducted the NAP from self ownership. Another route was taken by Hoppe who took the concept of Argumentation Ethics from the Frankfurt School and used it to justify the NAP as well. Finally, Kant argued for ethics to be universal and a priori true for it to be valid. Add those concepts and you essentially have UPB.

[labmath2]

Indeed, rights, much like Universal Individual Sovereignty, are philosophical contrivances having no inherent or independent abstract existence. Instead, they are something which societies choose to recognize as existing based on the cultural traditions and biases stemming from the Enlightenment Era of Western Europe. In short, they are the philosophical expression of the nearly universal socio-political preferences for a governmental system which embraces or embodies the ideals of egalitarianism, personal liberty, and property rights. Essentially, rights are the philosophical push-back of the enlightened common man against the authority claims of the rich and powerful claiming a right to rule over others, whether by virtue of divine censure, or noble birth, or some other attempted justification. It is the ultimate democratization of authority or self-rule into each and every individual equally.

Is this yours and fo i have your permission to use it if i ever decide to write an article or book?

[ThomasTheIdealist]

That is not the same thing as giving something to someone.

 How is giving someone liberty different from refraining from interfering with their liberty? As I see it, they are the same course of action.

If Universal Individual Sovereignty exists, it is as an inherent quality of the individual, or it is something which must be granted to the individual or otherwise acquired by the individual. You have suggested with your response that it is something which is inherent in the individual which can be infringed upon by other members of society.

I'm not sure why you think I suggested that soverenigty is something inherent. I clearly said "There is no inherent reason to give [people] the sovereignty ..."

 

I think rights (including individual sovereignty) should be contingent on the actions of an individual, not on any inherent attribute (e.g. species, age, nationality). Rights today are already partially contingent on actions, after all people in prison for violating the rights of others don't exactly have the right to liberty. Natural rights advocates will often claim that prisoners still do have an inherent right to liberty, but that really flies in the face of reality, and that's said to avoid mentioning the fact that an individual's rights were taken away, something supposedly inalienable.

 

Now you are contradicting your previous claim by suggesting that individuals likely do not have the authority to grant or revoke the authority to act, but that groups do based on the sentiment that "might makes right" or in other words, "might grants/revokes rulership" or "power begets authority". The assertion that authority or rulership is derived from power certainly appears to have merit from an empirical standpoint. One can certainly observe that the strongest or most powerful tend to be the leaders in groups of animals as well as in groups of men; although "the strongest" generally does not mean the one displaying the most physical prowess. In modernity, one who is able to muster the most economic and socio-political power is superior to one who is most physically imposing powerful.

Not a contradiction. I merely said I alone likely don't have the ability to take away someone's sovereignty, because that sovereignty must necessarily have wide social support, something I alone likely cannot combat. Nobody has soverenity in a society that opposes them, it comes directly from the social "might" and ability to enforce it.

 

But I agree with the rest of your observations regarding the modernity of strength. I certainly don't mean to imply that "might" merely means physical strength.

[EclecticIdealist]

Is this yours and fo i have your permission to use it if i ever decide to write an article or book?

Yes, it is mine, and you have permission to use provided you cite accordingly (John Robertson)

[EclecticIdealist]

How is giving someone liberty different from refraining from interfering with their liberty? As I see it, they are the same course of action.

Giving requires prior possession and typically ownership. By "giving someone liberty", one is asserting that liberty is not something that naturally belongs to the individual by right and is infringed upon by force, but is merely a privilege that is granted by the totalitarian state. They are the same course of action but they are fundamentally different in terms of rights, authority, and morality.

 

I'm not sure why you think I suggested that sovereignty is something inherent. I clearly said "There is no inherent reason to give [people] the sovereignty ..."

Either the individual has sovereignty, or they are granted authority. By suggesting stating that by "giving individuals liberty" you mean "refrain from restraining them from making their own decisions/actions," you are implying that the individual is not being restrained from exercising their Individual Sovereignty (making their own decisions/actions). Thus, we see a contradiction in your position, which given your prior statements suggests a lack of consistency or clarity about the concepts of sovereignty and the state.

 

I think rights (including individual sovereignty) should be contingent on the actions of an individual, not on any inherent attribute (e.g. species, age, nationality). Rights today are already partially contingent on actions, after all people in prison for violating the rights of others don't exactly have the right to liberty. Natural rights advocates will often claim that prisoners still do have an inherent right to liberty, but that really flies in the face of reality, and that's said to avoid mentioning the fact that an individual's rights were taken away, something supposedly inalienable.

What exactly do you mean by rights? If you mean, the recognition of an Individual's liberty to act as they see fit provided they do not violate the NAP, then you are exactly right. Society is not obligated in any way to respect the rights of an individual who is refusing to respect the rights of other members of society. So in that regard, it is perfectly consistent to say that rights are contingent upon good behavior. Those who seek to harm others or infringe upon the rights and liberties of others have no just claim upon society for society not to infringe upon their liberties in self-defense and the defense of other members of society. Natural rights advocates are correct that prisoners indeed have an inherent right to liberty, but such liberty can only be exercised where such individuals who are anti-social (i.e., not inclined to respect the rights and liberties of others) can do so without infringing upon the rights of others. We used to have penal colonies where such individuals were sent, but due largely to pragmatism, we no longer expel uncooperative members of society from society, instead we torture and abuse them in cages until a largely arbitrary period of time has passed or they have expired.

 

Not a contradiction. I merely said I alone likely don't have the ability to take away someone's sovereignty, because that sovereignty must necessarily have wide social support, something I alone likely cannot combat. Nobody has sovereignty in a society that opposes them, it comes directly from the social "might" and ability to enforce it.

I agree that the recognition of individual sovereignty requires wide-spread support for it to have any substantive meaning or efficacy, and absent a society willing to recognize such sovereignty voluntarily, one must wield greater individual power than the whole of society which refuses to acknowledge it if one is to enjoy it. This essentially renders society ruled by the law of the jungle rather than the law of reason and cooperation for mutual benefit. In short, the more a society acknowledges and recognizes the Universal Individual Sovereignty of Mankind, the more peaceful, cooperative, and mutually beneficial participation in that society will be for all members of society. The less it recognizes and acknowledges the Universal Individual Sovereignty of Mankind , the less beneficial it will be for all but the most powerful members of that society.

 

And while I speak of sovereignty as something which actually exists, I do so pragmatically, as it is simply a philosophical perspective, a way of viewing myself and mankind which I maintain best serves the vast majority of mankind, better than any other system ever conceived or put into practice by intelligent, rational people. It may not be the best system for people who are less intelligent or rational who might benefit more under a benevolent dictatorship, monarchy, or feudal system.