Philosophy Now Forum

It has been said that all rights we have as human beings are rooted in individual self-ownership. If taken literally, and not as some sort of metaphor, this cannot be right. Property is not at a deep enough level. Its constituents are rights (and obligations). So it cannot be the basis of rights. It is also less immutable than we would like are central individual rights to be. The view would also exclude animal rights by definition, as only humans and such human constructs as corporations can own property. Rhetorically it encourages a commodity take on what it is to be human. For a much longer winded version of my argument, see http://www.LawrenceCrocker.blogspot.com.

If you don't own yourself, you will have no objection when the benevolent masters of the state medical system tell you that another citizen needs the heart beating in "your" chest...

-Imp

And yet it is the privatized system that allows for organ theft and the economic blackmail of organ 'donations' from the poor?

I own me. I am my first, best, property. No other has any claim to me that I recognize. Any and all are welcome to dispute my self-ownership.

Bessie the cow is not an 'I', not a self...she is bio-automation...if she disagrees, and chooses not to be a hamburger, she, like me, can defend herself as she is capable.

This not about (the pleasant fiction) of rights, this is about tangible reality, flesh and blood fact. This is not about some communal agreement to extend privilige, but about the assertion of one and the successful defense of that assertion (not with reason but with the fist, the stick, the bomb, the gun).

Slavery, in any form, can be reasoned 'right', but violence in defense of one's self needs no reasoning as foundation...I am, I will, fuck you is sufficient.

I don't think ownership of self is a good way to look at human life. To self-own is to be able to lose ownership as well. It must be worded another way that ownership does not come into play at all. And self-ownership as it stands has many other flaws. Does a.parent own.a child? Does a woman own her body, and everything in it? Doesn't a suicide own their body, that they can't be locked up upon attempt? I'm not keen on a system with that many holes in it.

Self-ownership is the perfect descriptor. One must claim himself, defend himself, or -- sure as shit -- some one else will, and not just overtly (as in shackles on your wrists) but covertly as well (as in 'persuading' you).

You are your first, best, property.

#

"Does a.parent own.a child?"

In a sense, yes.

#

"Does a woman own her body, and everything in it?"

Yes, so what she does with it is on her.

#

"Doesn't a suicide own their body, that they can't be locked up upon attempt?"

Yes, he owns himself and should be left alone to do the stupid and irrevocable (full disclosure: some one I love wants of off himself, I'm gonna try and stop him...probably won't call the cops; probably will lock him in a closet to keep him from doin' the deed...yeah, I'm a hypocrIte...don't care).

You did not give life to yourself so you do not own the life.

Your responsibilities to life are custodial in nature, not ownership.

This is not a matter of designation or morality.

This is natural selection.

The careless gene gets the Darwin award and by lack of awareness causes that necessary to carelessness, sometimes too bad for others too check the news, and tire pressure.

"You did not give life to yourself so you do not own the life."

I din't make the clothes and shoes I wear, I just selected and paid for them.

Do I own them, or am I merely their steward?

I didn't give birth to myself, true, but -- here and now -- I own myself, I direct myself.

As I say up-thread: any one who thinks different is free to try and lay claim to me.

Ain't gonna be pretty cuz somebody is gonna end up dead in an awful way.

Lawrence Crocker wrote:It has been said that all rights we have as human beings are rooted in individual self-ownership. If taken literally, and not as some sort of metaphor, this cannot be right. Property is not at a deep enough level.

That's where I get lost in your post. What levels are you referring to? Why does whether something's level depth have an implication for whether it's right?

henry quirk wrote: any one who thinks different is free to try and lay claim to me.

I wouldn't anticipate you being inundated with claimants.

cuz somebody is gonna end up dead in an awful way.

What, as opposed to ending up dead in a nice way?

"I wouldn't anticipate you being inundated with claimants."

HA!

henry quirk wrote:"You did not give life to yourself so you do not own the life."

I din't make the clothes and shoes I wear, I just selected and paid for them.

Do I own them, or am I merely their steward?

I didn't give birth to myself, true, but -- here and now -- I own myself, I direct myself.

As I say up-thread: any one who thinks different is free to try and lay claim to me.

Ain't gonna be pretty cuz somebody is gonna end up dead in an awful way.

henry quirk wrote:I din't make the clothes and shoes I wear, I just selected and paid for them.

Do I own them, or am I merely their steward?

Life is the measure, not shoes, though they definitely make walking more pleasant when not on sand.

Life is what all basis of all comparisons lead to and so is beyond comparison, like a Venn diagram with a no overlap intersecting the circular border of life.

The point is more about plumbing than agreeing, within most any situation.

"Life is the measure"

Indeed, and the bit of life that is me sez 'I own me'.

henry quirk wrote: 'I own me'.

As I implied earlier: you are welcome to you.

as an aside, if you don't own yourself, do you own what you produce?

if not, why vote?

-Imp