[mikema63]

Because its you will that is in control of your body, as their will is ultimately in control of theirs.

It would make sense for any argument that you own yourself and not anyone else to have a different rational for why you don't ultimately own your children, no?

[Pants-of-dog]

Because it's your will that is in control of your body, as their will is ultimately in control of theirs.

It would make sense for any argument that you own yourself and not anyone else to have a different rationale for why you don't ultimately own your children, no?

I am saying that your definition of ownership makes no sense when applied to humans, and because it makes no sense, you are forced to apply it inconsistently.

According to your definition, I own myself, I partially own my children, and I can't possibly own anyone else.

Therefore, human beings with wills can entirely be property, can only partly be considered property, and can never be considered property.

[Nunt]

In other words, I own them in that I choose what they consume, which medical procedures they undergo, whether they work or not, etc. and nobody is allowed to forcefully intervene with those decisions.

You do not own them. You act as a guardian for your children. Meaning, you do not own them, they own themselves. However, since they are unable to make certain decisions, you get to make some decisions on their behalf and for their benefit. You do not own them as you own yourself. For example, you are allowed to punch yourself, you are not allowed to punch your children.

Strange that you feel that libertarian property rights could not apply to humans. When applied to goods, property rights describe who gets to do what with the good. When applied to humans, they describe who gets to do what to your body. Its real life application is very clear. Let me give an example: current drug laws. Currently, the government does not recognize your right to take drugs. The government contests that you do not fully own your body, but the government has some say in it. In contrast, according to libertarian, people own their own bodies, so nobody else gets a say in it and it is up to the individual to decide do take drugs or not.

Let me end by explaining that libertarians have a complex view of property rights. You seem to assume that property rights are a zero/one variable. That because I am allowed to make some decisions about children, I automatically own their complete person. This is not true. Take for example a plot of land. I could own the right to walk across the land, but not own the right to exclude others from walking across that land. I could own the rights to build a house on the land, but not the right to dam a stream that runs across it. The whole point of assigning ownership is to avoid that people have conflicting claims on the same activity. But several non-conflicting activities can take place on the same plot of land.

[Pants-of-dog]

You do not own them. You act as a guardian for your children. Meaning, you do not own them, they own themselves. However, since they are unable to make certain decisions, you get to make some decisions on their behalf and for their benefit. You do not own them as you own yourself. For example, you are allowed to punch yourself, you are not allowed to punch your children.

In other words, when you say that I own myself in that I choose what I consume, which medical procedures I undergo, whether I work or not, etc. and nobody is allowed to forcefully intervene with those decisions, that this does not apply solely to the concept of ownership but also to guardianship. Consequently, all of these reasons that you give for why I must be owning my body do not necessarily mean I own my body. They can also indicate that I am the guardian of my body.

Strange that you feel that libertarian property rights could not apply to humans. When applied to goods, property rights describe who gets to do what with the good. When applied to humans, they describe who gets to do what to your body. Its real life application is very clear. Let me give an example: current drug laws. Currently, the government does not recognize your right to take drugs. The government contests that you do not fully own your body, but the government has some say in it. In contrast, according to libertarian, people own their own bodies, so nobody else gets a say in it and it is up to the individual to decide do take drugs or not.

Property rights are transferable for most normal definitions of property. If you include your body, then transferring the property rights would involve slavery, which is supposedly inconsistent with libertarianism.

Let me end by explaining that libertarians have a complex view of property rights. You seem to assume that property rights are a zero/one variable. That because I am allowed to make some decisions about children, I automatically own their complete person. This is not true. Take for example a plot of land. I could own the right to walk across the land, but not own the right to exclude others from walking across that land. I could own the rights to build a house on the land, but not the right to dam a stream that runs across it. The whole point of assigning ownership is to avoid that people have conflicting claims on the same activity. But several non-conflicting activities can take place on the same plot of land.

I know about easements (or as we call them, servitudes).

I don't think those apply to humans either.

[Rothbardian]

I do not own my body.

I am my body.

Are you controlling your body to the exclusion of any other members of humanity? I assume you are, since you're still posting and not obeying my will. Please stop this terrible aggression against me immediately.

If you want to stretch the meaning of ownership that way, sure.

I don't want to bother with word play. Rothbardian's point is that since people own their bodies, and since ownership can be collective, people should have access to my body.

Bodies are not property in any meaningful sense outside of your efforts to have a consistent ideology. Since I don't care about the consistency of your ideology, I am not going to change my definition of property to include myself.

What I'm saying is that the 'property is aggression' argument is ridiculous. It's not possible to be alive without restricting others from the resources necessary for you to live. I could stand in a field and not move until I starve to death to try to assuage your wrath and I'd still be a violator since you wouldn't have access to the land immediately beneath my feet.

Really, I am going to go out on a limb and say that as a general rule, any theory that concludes that women who resist rape are violent aggressors is fundamentally flawed in some way.

[mikema63]

The way I see it, what makes you you is your mind, the connections and information stored within you that makes up your personality.

In a sense you are your body because your brain houses your mind and allows it to work but when you die your brain can be intact but I would not consider the body you in any meaningful sense.

This cloud of sentient information that makes up your mind is you, and has control over the body that houses it by neccesity. It is yours because that control is yours, your ownership of your body is inalienable because it is physically impossible for your mind to vacate it till death.

Your children are the same, they have minds in ultimate inalienable control over their bodies, but as their minds are not fully developed and they are incapable of taking care of themselves and we are biologically programmed to wish to help them we have developed a variety of social systems to cope with the problem. The current one is simply a social system where the neccesarily control is generally given to the parents.

As a social system it is certainly messy but it is an effective one under the circumstances but by no means neccesarily the one we shall use in future.

This is of course my personal view that has led me to the positions I hold, it is not libertarian doctrine nor is it neccesarily the same opinion as that held by others who have come to similar conclusions.

[Nunt]

In other words, when you say that I own myself in that I choose what I consume, which medical procedures I undergo, whether I work or not, etc. and nobody is allowed to forcefully intervene with those decisions, that this does not apply solely to the concept of ownership but also to guardianship. Consequently, all of these reasons that you give for why I must be owning my body do not necessarily mean I own my body. They can also indicate that I am the guardian of my body.

In other words, you say that when two things share some properties, they are identical. In your example: guardianship and ownership both allow you to decide which medicins to inject, so they must be the same thing. Using the same logic: a car and a tree are both green, so they are the same?

This is absurd. So even if guardianship and ownership share some properties, other properties are different. The crucial difference here is that with ownership you get to make any decision you want. With guardianship you get to make some decisions on behalf of another. So you cannot have a guardianship over you own body, you do not make decisions on behalf of someone else.

Property rights are transferable for most normal definitions of property. If you include your body, then transferring the property rights would involve slavery, which is supposedly inconsistent with libertarianism.

Not all property rights are transferrable.

I don't think those apply to humans either.

So you still find it absurd that anyone should want to decide who gets to make decisions over your body?

[Pants-of-dog]

Are you controlling your body to the exclusion of any other members of humanity? I assume you are, since you're still posting and not obeying my will. Please stop this terrible aggression against me immediately.

Thank you for providing an example of how absurd it can be when you decide bodies are property.

What I'm saying is that the 'property is aggression' argument is ridiculous.

And all of this is based on the incorrect assumption that your body is your property.

The 'property is aggression' argument is only ridiculous if you assume your own body is property.

But as we see, the idea that you own your body is also ridiculous.

It's not possible to be alive without restricting others from the resources necessary for you to live. I could stand in a field and not move until I starve to death to try to assuage your wrath and I'd still be a violator since you wouldn't have access to the land immediately beneath my feet.

Really, I am going to go out on a limb and say that as a general rule, any theory that concludes that women who resist rape are violent aggressors is fundamentally flawed in some way.

Good thing no one is advocating any of this.

------------------------------------------

The way I see it, what makes you you is your mind, the connections and information stored within you that makes up your personality.

...

This is of course my personal view that has led me to the positions I hold, it is not libertarian doctrine nor is it necessarily the same opinion as that held by others who have come to similar conclusions.

This is all well and good, but it does not address the contradictions implicit in viewing bodies as property.

------------------------------------------------

In other words, you say that when two things share some properties, they are identical. In your example: guardianship and ownership both allow you to decide which medicins to inject, so they must be the same thing. Using the same logic: a car and a tree are both green, so they are the same?

This is absurd. So even if guardianship and ownership share some properties, other properties are different. The crucial difference here is that with ownership you get to make any decision you want. With guardianship you get to make some decisions on behalf of another. So you cannot have a guardianship over you own body, you do not make decisions on behalf of someone else.

No. I am saying that just because something has traits A, B, and C, it does not automatically belong to group X just because everything in group X also has traits A, B, and C. This is because group Y also contains objects that have traits A, B, and C.

Not all property rights are transferrable.

This is because the idea of other people owning your body is reprehensible, while the idea of owning your own body is not. Thus, you make this special case in terms of human bodies because of your morality. Why not simply get rid of the idea of owning bodies altogether? Why does everything have to be owned?

So you still find it absurd that anyone should want to decide who gets to make decisions over your body?

I find it absurd that you would want to apply the concepts of servitudes to human bodies.

[Joe Liberty]

In other words, when you say that I own myself in that I choose what I consume, which medical procedures I undergo, whether I work or not, etc. and nobody is allowed to forcefully intervene with those decisions, that this does not apply solely to the concept of ownership but also to guardianship. Consequently, all of these reasons that you give for why I must be owning my body do not necessarily mean I own my body. They can also indicate that I am the guardian of my body.

Guardianship in this context involves people who cannot assume full responsibility for themselves, which means it's something different than just a synonym for ownership. The term guardianship itself implies that there's an owner who has ceded control over something that is rightfully his.

So, who controls your body, if it's not you? To say one doesn't own one's own body is pretty close to saying free will and individualism don't exist in the first place.

And if opposing government-sponsored birth control is a "war on women", then telling them they don't really own their own wombs is a nuclear strike.

[Pants-of-dog]

Guardianship in this context involves people who cannot assume full responsibility for themselves, which means it's something different than just a synonym for ownership.

I never suggested it was synonymous with ownership.

The term guardianship itself implies that there's an owner who has ceded control over something that is rightfully his.

Sure.

So, who controls your body, if it's not you? To say one doesn't own one's own body is pretty close to saying free will and individualism don't exist in the first place.

Who controls your mind?

Who controls your will?

Who controls the little bit of you that controls all the other parts of you?

At a certain point, you get to a certain "you" who does the owning.

It seems that all of you have this odd philosophical belief that there is your body, which is some sort of animated meat puppet that you own, and then there is some luminous being that is the actual you that owns the meat puppet. I do not share this philosophical belief.

And if opposing government-sponsored birth control is a "war on women", then telling them they don't really own their own wombs is a nuclear strike.

I'm going to star ignoring these weird statements.

[Joe Liberty]

I never suggested it was synonymous with ownership.

My mistake then. It sounded like you mentioned guardianship as if that were the same thing as ownership, and thus refuted claims of ownership.

Who controls your mind?

Who controls your will?

Who controls the little bit of you that controls all the other parts of you?

At a certain point, you get to a certain "you" who does the owning.

Then where's the disagreement?

It seems that all of you have this odd philosophical belief that there is your body, which is some sort of animated meat puppet that you own, and then there is some luminous being that is the actual you that owns the meat puppet. I do not share this philosophical belief.

The point is not how we arrived at this conclusion, the point is whether or not it is true. I don't care what you believe in or how you reason things out, the point is that your body is yours and belongs to no one else. That's why they say they found "X's body" when they find a dead guy. Because whatever made him "him" isn't there anymore. Whether you believe that to be a soul or just the firing of synapses, it's gone.

And if opposing government-sponsored birth control is a "war on women", then telling them they don't really own their own wombs is a nuclear strike.

I'm going to star ignoring these weird statements.

I don't see what's weird about it: you're denying that an individual's body is her property. That seems to undermine every pro-choice argument I've ever heard.

[mikema63]

At the end of the day PoD all our political opinions hinge on personal, unsupportable, beliefs.

Why should we help the poor? Why should we bother raising children? Why should the human race continue at all?
Why is it simply assumed that saving an innocent life is good?

Our political beliefs all stem from desires, beliefs, and emotions that can't be supported or refuted empirically. We simply make an assertion about our goals and the nature of existence and start from there. Obviously if you disagree with me that your mind is on a higher order than your body the you will disagree with me on owning your body.

[Pants-of-dog]

My mistake then. It sounded like you mentioned guardianship as if that were the same thing as ownership, and thus refuted claims of ownership.

No. I refuted the point of ownership in another way.

Then where's the disagreement?

Why do you own your arm but not your will? Is it that you own the muscles, but not the electrochemical impulses that activate them?

The point is not how we arrived at this conclusion, the point is whether or not it is true. I don't care what you believe in or how you reason things out, the point is that your body is yours and belongs to no one else. That's why they say they found "X's body" when they find a dead guy. Because whatever made him "him" isn't there anymore. Whether you believe that to be a soul or just the firing of synapses, it's gone.

Can I sell my body?

I don't see what's weird about it: you're denying that an individual's body is her property. That seems to undermine every pro-choice argument I've ever heard.

Okay. Let's go back to the luminous being that owns your body and cannot be owned. That part of you is not your property. You do not own you. you are you. You are the you that is owning and thus cannot be owned by you. Does the fact that you do not own that part of you all of sudden make it all right for other people to own you?

------------------------------------------------------

At the end of the day PoD all our political opinions hinge on personal, unsupportable, beliefs.

... Obviously if you disagree with me that your mind is on a higher order than your body the you will disagree with me on owning your body.

You disagree with yourself about it. Please note how I showed how according to your definition, I own myself, I partially own my children, and I can't possibly own anyone else.

Therefore, human beings with wills can entirely be property, can only partly be considered property, and can never be considered property.

Hmmm.

[Joe Liberty]

Why do you own your arm but not your will? Is it that you own the muscles, but not the electrochemical impulses that activate them?

Did I miss part of the discussion? Who said I don't own my will?

Can I sell my body?

I believe you can. Whether or not it's legal is another matter.

Okay. Let's go back to the luminous being that owns your body and cannot be owned. That part of you is not your property.

Who's is it? And why are we going back to that when I said it didn't matter whether you think you have a soul or not?

[Pants-of-dog]

Did I miss part of the discussion? Who said I don't own my will?

Are you choosing to own your will based on your free will? Is your will causing you to own your will?

I believe you can. Whether or not it's legal is another matter.

Can i sell the bodies of others?

Who's is it? And why are we going back to that when I said it didn't matter whether you think you have a soul or not?

It's not anybody's, as far as I can tell.

Just like my body does not belong to anyone.

[mikema63]

It's because they have minds, and thus ultimate control over themselves, that despite your control you do not own them.

If you do not have ultimate control of something but only temporary and partial control you are a caretaker not an owner, I am not sure why you see this point as confusing or contradictory.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's because they have minds, and thus ultimate control over themselves, that despite your control you do not own them.

My body has a mind too, but I can apparently own it.

If you do not have ultimate control of something but only temporary and partial control you are a caretaker not an owner, I am not sure why you see this point as confusing or contradictory.

Can you make your wallet levitate?

Obviously not. Thus you only have partial control over it.Thus it is not your wallet. You are your wallet's caretaker.

[SolarCross]

I would say that I am a mind and my body is my property. Because it is my body and not anyone else's I can do with it as I please including sell or give it away, in whole or in part. As a matter of self interest I probably won't do that except to give away some blood now and again for those that need it at my discretion. Of course I am comfortable with defining my body as my person rather than my property but much the same applies to the rights that I claim to my person as I would to my property so what difference does it make whether you call it property or person?

[mikema63]

You are your mind, so it follows that if your bodies mind is you then you own the body, this can only be a purposeful misrepresentation of what I have said.

The wallet thing too I can only imagine is a misrepresentation of my meaning, either that or I have underestimated your abilities to understand information and discern meaning. Quite clearly I meant by ultimate control was not that you have the absolute power to do any impossible feats but that you have the final ability to do something with something else.

You have partial control over your children because you make decisions for them but they will not neccesarily carry them out because they are their own separate person.

@taxizen, you can't sell it because you can't give up ultimate control of your body.

[SolarCross]

Mikem - If that is what I want to do then yes I can. Why can't I? Whose slave am I that I don't have authority over my own flesh?