Does Self-Ownership Make Sense?

Just some thoughts on why I think one argument against the conceivability of self-ownership is not successful.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• self-ownership
• libertarian
• market
• anarchy
• free
• murray
• rothbard
• austrain
• economics
• philosophy

[danielsondanielson]

@Austrolibertarian If it should be possible for people to sell themselves into slavery, what to do with children of such slaves born during the slavery? If you say that they are free, you believe that there are some inalienable human rights that must have priority over the ownership of slaves in some circumstances. But if slaves can't give birth to slaves, why should be themselves alowed to become slaves at the first place?

[Austrolibertarian]

@danielsondanielson

You can't consent for others, not even children. I accept only "voluntary" slavery. That is, where the decision to be a slave is based on consent from the outset. Such slavery consists of the potential-slave agreeing that the owner can force him to do whatever, depending on a contract either express or implied, without legal consequences.

[brainpolice2]

@danielsondanielson The bigger question is, what happens when the "voluntary slave" changes their mind and wants out? Is the contract violently enforcible indefinitely? At such a point, I fail to see what's "voluntary" about it - it has crossed over into chattel slavery. I also fail to see how anyone who is sane would sell themselves into slavery. The most likely situation would be someone in a dire situation signing an indentured servitude contract by some exploiter.

[Austrolibertarian]

@brainpolice2

No sane person would do it. I also doubt hardly any contracts of that sort would be upheld by most rational legal systems. The context you just described of dire situations would be a case of duress, in which case true consent isn't present anyway. It's all contextual.

[mikemat3307]

Dualism vs Monism.

"I can not own myself because I AM myself."

My "soul" owns my body, thoughts, hopes, dreams, desires, actions, etc.

Or..."Substance dualism asserts that mind and matter are fundamentally distinct kinds of substances."

Most Atheists reject all forms of dualism because it leaves the door open for the possibility for the existence of "God". However, Agnostics choose to neither believe, nor disbelieve in the existence of God.

[EdiblePlanet]

Bravo! We remove ALL taxes and collect 100% of the rental value of Land and return 100% of the rental value of Land back to every man, woman and child equally. This ensures that EVERYONE receives a Land Dividend that exactly equals the Land rent on the average piece of Land . Infrastructure is funded by fair use fees - use it you pay, don't use it you don't pay. This places the monetary system within the boundaries of Life which ensures equal Freedom and Responsibility for ALL. Bravo!

[lycan639]

In islam, god is the absolute owner of all things, person, people, places, and we are trusties, not owners. i hope this sheds some light on the subject.~

[GhostCoastBand]

If you define 'you' as your singular non-abstract consciousness=the function of your brain which performs such an action, and define your external body as an object or tool for which only that consciousness can operate, then yes. You can 'own yourself'. I am the sole controller of my hand. I am the only person who can unilaterally control what my hand does- someone else can persuade me to 'work' with my hand but my consciousness has to control the action. 'You' are your conscience, body=object.

[progrockcoffee]

@Austrolibertarian Isn't slavery "involuntary servitude"? How can you have voluntary involuntary servitude? Or is my definition of "slavery" mistaken?

[brainpolice2]

@Austrolibertarian In that case, I think the position becomes kind of toothless and it's shouldn't be too controversial.

[danielsondanielson]

@brainpolice2 Yeah. Here I'm afraid I must absolutely agree with you, my friend. But try to explain it to some hard, fundamentalist libertarian...

[danielsondanielson]

@Austrolibertarian Thanks for your clarification. But if you are banned a priory for giving consent for others (even for those your children that haven't been born yet), why should you be allowed to give a potentially unlimited consent for yourself? And if you already are in the legal position of livestock, why should be your offspring in any different legal position than that one of your non-human fellow livestock?