Discourse ethics and Libertarian rights

[Trapper John, M.D.]

Hi all.
Commonly, nowadays, I see right-libertarians use arguments stating that in order to engage in discourse, it is necessary for one to have self-ownership, to be free from aggression(abide by the non-aggression axiom in other words), and to have access to private property. So basically, if you're against libertarian rights such as these, then you would be contradicting yourself if you attempted to argue against them. This is the gist of the argument.

Anyone have any comments on this type of argumentation?

If you have the time, look up discourse ethics in Wikipedia and see Hoppe's argumentation ethics in the article for more details. I can't post links since I don't have 25 posts or more, so sorry for the inconvenience.

I post this in opposing ideologies so libertarians can expand or clarify this argument.

[Dean]

Hi all.
Commonly, nowadays, I see right-libertarians use arguments stating that in order to engage in discourse, it is necessary for one to have self-ownership,
I assume "discourse" implies "free activity." Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'll be arguing from this stance.

To have "self-ownership" indicates a few things. First, it is notable that something which is owned must also be able to be sold. If it cannot be used this way, it is not really ownership in the same sense. Also, this begs the question - what is the standard by which we judge this "ownership"? That is, do we consider the specifically mental, muscular or cellular organization in the body to be the sole owner of these rights?

Also, it is important to note that ownership is exclusory. If I own something, that not only endows me with total rights to it (from a libertarian stance) but it also negates all responsibilities and rights as the object is seen from the standpoint of others. So if I have the right to do what I wish with my body in totality, what can be said when my own actions and rights enter the social realm, such as in cases of violence? What is to stop total self-ownership from also allowing the total range of human faculties from taking over that of others? And if you own your body and nothing more, what happens if I decide that I solely own the air or natural resources? Are we so limited in possession that a total lack of such rights could allow such slavery or death? Or do you concede that material goods are in the realm of social rights?


to be free from aggression(abide by the non-aggression axiom in other words), and to have access to private property. So basically, if you're against libertarian rights such as these, then you would be contradicting yourself if you attempted to argue against them. This is the gist of the argument.
This is a very limited view of the human being which totalyl ignores his social existence as well as what aggression means materially from a human standpoint. Can it be considered aggressive for someone to take exclusory rights to the land and subsequently its resources - thereby deeming human needs such as eating less important than the property or "coercion" standard? In that case, possession is meaningless.

I think the guru you talk about is saying that to not be libertarian is to be against oneself. However, it is a paranoid sense for freedom, which relies specifically on exclusion, isolation and property, rather than a moe rational concept of freedom which takes into account human needs and human social existence. I consider it much more self-interested to promtoe the idea that all people ought to have a fair chance at survival and social life, rather than the concept of negative rights that you are promoting here.

The difference is between earning social rights as a goal and being entrusted with them as a standard. The socialist would like to give the benefit of the doubt to the individual, and when the individual becomes a threat, remove them from the position in which they are threatening. The capitalist would like to distrust the individual first off, and then only give them what they need if they can play his game properly and establish himself. The difference isn't just in motivation and incentive; it is actually about conditioning. Which society do you think creates more trustworthy members - one which trusts its members or a paranoid one which distrusts all members at birth?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Self-ownership is based on what, exactly? I hear a lot of unsupported rhetoric, but there's nothing that backs it up other than trivial jargon based in hot words like "freedom" and "liberty." I look around and I see that people are themselves, but how does one own oneself?

Self-ownership is a clever way to disguise slavery, if you ask me. By technicality you can sell anything you own, so why not sell yourself to a master? Social pressure sometimes dictates what comes into possession of said person - may as well defend the same statement, replacing what with who.

Libertarians are trying to ascribe property with inherit rights, not humans. This is where their argument falls apart.

[Baconator]

Hi all.
Commonly, nowadays, I see right-libertarians use arguments stating that in order to engage in discourse, it is necessary for one to have self-ownership, to be free from aggression(abide by the non-aggression axiom in other words), and to have access to private property. So basically, if you're against libertarian rights such as these, then you would be contradicting yourself if you attempted to argue against them. This is the gist of the argument.

Anyone have any comments on this type of argumentation?

If you have the time, look up discourse ethics in Wikipedia and see Hoppe's argumentation ethics in the article for more details. I can't post links since I don't have 25 posts or more, so sorry for the inconvenience.

I post this in opposing ideologies so libertarians can expand or clarify this argument.

This is an argument from effect which I personally find to be ineffective but nevertheless logically consistent. The argument implies that if there are no valid property rights then there is no logical way you could command your fingers to do the typing to make the argument or produce the sound waves from your vocals to voice the argument. By directing yourself to argue against property rights you're already presupposing property rights and thus any argument against property rights fails.

I find the argument from morality to be much more effective as it tells us not only if property rights are valid but whether they are right or wrong. I can elaborate on this more if you wish.

[Baconator]

Self-ownership is based on what, exactly? I hear a lot of unsupported rhetoric, but there's nothing that backs it up other than trivial jargon based in hot words like "freedom" and "liberty." I look around and I see that people are themselves, but how does one own oneself?

Self-ownership is a clever way to disguise slavery, if you ask me. By technicality you can sell anything you own, so why not sell yourself to a master? Social pressure sometimes dictates what comes into possession of said person - may as well defend the same statement, replacing what with who.

Libertarians are trying to ascribe property with inherit rights, not humans. This is where their argument falls apart.



One argument can be that self-ownership is axiomatic and reaffirms itself necessarily based on the above argument from effect. I am a little puzzled on what you mean by people are themselves? It seems that a slave can be a slave , a murderer a murderer , a president a president, a rock a rock. I don't know where your going with this and how this somehow negates the concept of self-ownership or how its even related making moral and other choices.

The selling yourself into slavery argument is not a very good one. I can admit that since humans are biological creatures that we are not all exactly universal and there are 'defects.' Biology isn't an absolute science like physics but it is a valid one giving way to few anomalies. The moral argument can be one of a reciprocity which is completely logical and empirically verifiable with the majority of human beings. The majority of human beings prefer not to sell themselves into slavery. And of course , if you 'sell' yourself then you implying a trade which implies that you seek to benefit as well. Slavery is coercive and only one side benefits and its not the slave. ' Most human beings are not sadomasochistic and this is not a universally preferable behavior so 'selling yourself to slavery' is a junk laced argument that really isn't empirical at all and negates itself by 'selling yourself' and 'slavery' in the same action as desires for the same individual. Furthermore if a man can own a slave , even if the slave 'volunteers' in this made up scenario of yours, then that man must also himself willing to be a slave or the logic doesn't hold. Moral propositions such as if slavery is morally permissible must apply to all human beings since none of us fundamentally differ from each other in our make up as biological humans. Its hard to find logic and evidence in valid opposing moral rules for the same species. In fact you can't without running into a big fat contradiction.

The practicality of it all is that no matter what , at the end of the day someone has to dispose of assets as it is necessary for survival and prosperity on the most fundamental level.

If you have a problem with 'social pressures' 'dictating' property rights then why are you wanting to dictate what property rights are or are not in this very argument for other people?

As far as libertarians wanting to ascribe property with rights I don't know of very many like that. Property is a concept and does not exist in material reality, just like collectives, math , numbers, don't really exist in objective, tangible, material , sensual reality. Being a concept , property rights can either valid or invalid and that depends on the logical consistency of the argument for property rights and whether it is non contradictory to reality.
Property rights in and of themselves mean nothing apart from the individual.
It is typically communists ( and other 'left' and 'right' collectivists) assigning concepts - concepts. :p The collectivist says that this entity called the collective ( nation , race , class, etc) exists in reality independently of individuals yet sensual evidence tells us that collectives are meaningless without individuals that are supposed to comprise them.

When you assign property rights to a collective ( collective) ownership but you deny those rights to the individual, then how is that even valid? Its like saying a building made up completely of wooden parts is 'steel' when its complete. You give the building attributes of steel and deny characteristics of wood even though sensual reality tells you that it is in fact a building made up of wooden parts. Or even better , a wooden building can't be called a building but a steel building can. :thumbup:

Any thoughts?

[Baconator]

By the by , can someone explain to me how slavery can exist without the threat or use of violence? How is 'voluntary slavery' even possible? No human being can will another human being to do any kind of function with their own person without the use of force. If there was no force required then the action would be voluntary which would mean that I perform a service for no material compensation which would be also called charity. Charity and slavery are two very different things. And 'selling' of yourself into slavery is basically impossible and certainly illogical since it implies a two way trade at whatever price I ( the so-called slave) charge. Slavery is negative economics at best which requires force and isn't voluntary. It is impossible to have another person do something by simply willing it as each individual has biological , chemical , and neurological exclusivity over only their own bodies.

Without ownership over yourself and therefore your actions how can any one ever truly be responsible or accountable for cruel actions such as murder , rape , theft , etc? Such acts would have no meaning since no one can be held accountable for their own actions.

Everyone argues for property rights whether it be collective or individual ownership. The same negation of property rights also applies to the collective. If no individual can exercise property rights , then how can a group of many individuals called a 'collective' possibly claim ownership to anything? The moral implication is quite obvious. If property rights are 'wrong' , then they are wrong for all individuals in any collective. The only moral or right thing to do would be to stand there , not breath ( you would be claiming exclusivity to several particles of air for your own selfish reasons) and just sort of keel over and die. In such a scenario no choice for morality can logically exist without wiping out the population altogether. Its like claiming its 'wrong' to obey gravity. The choice for morality is impossible and thus there is no way logically that property rights can ever be 'wrong' just like obedience to gravity can never be wrong.

[Baconator]

I wonder, and this is getting a bit ridiculous but its fun.

So if someone like GeneCosta got some really bad disease ( I seriously hope not, just an example) in which he lost a lot of blood. Could he just come over to me and stick a needle in my body and take out my blood as much as he wants? Of what if he needed a liver transplant? Should he be able to just come and rip my liver out of my body and have it put into his? I mean if we have not one iota of ownership over ourselves then would he really be doing anything wrong if he decided on that course of action?

If you feel he would be wrong , please explain why. If you think its perfectly fine then I'm sorry , you're a supporter of murderer at best and a lover of sadistic murderers at worse.

Yes yes , I realize most humans simply don't act like that as it is not a universally preferable behavior even in desperation. But I was thrown a life boat so here's my return gift. :thumbup::thumbup:

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Ah anarcho capitalists, got nothing to do but talk to themselves on a socialist board. Why don't you go cuddle with Francois Tremblay or something? I'm sure it would be more satisfying.

[freakazoid]

I too have never really understood the logic in saying that you don't own yourself. If I don't own me then who does?

:confused:

[Dean]

I too have never really understood the logic in saying that you don't own yourself. If I don't own me then who does?

:confused:

Nobody. You should not look at yourself or anyone as an owned object, but rather an actor with rights. Your body is a part of you and part of your faculties, rather than a commodity which can be owned. You have exclusory rights to your faculties (though not in totality, as I explained in my last post) but not in the alienating sense of property.

[trivas7]

Self-ownership is based on what, exactly? I hear a lot of unsupported rhetoric, but there's nothing that backs it up other than trivial jargon based in hot words like "freedom" and "liberty." I look around and I see that people are themselves, but how does one own oneself?

Self-ownership extends the view that individual property rights are the only legitimate human rights. To quote Ayn Rand: "Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own efforts, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." One's person thereby becomes one's (proper) property.

[apathy maybe]

I don't really have the inclination to address Baconator's comments (sorry, maybe some other time), nor to really such much at all at the moment on this topic.

However, I will say a little.

That is, the idea that we "own ourselves" is just silly, you don't own yourself, as pointed out above, you are yourself. As an individual you do of course have complete rights over yourself, and your body, and can legitimately deny others access to your body, but that isn't ownership in the common sense of the word (when it is used for resources).

So then to talk about "property", I would agree to a certain limited extent that to be independent requires access to resources, access which isn't restricted. However, you only need what you can use, which firmly points me on the otherside of the fence to the right-wingers. You don't need three houses, and you can be independent and an individual with only one, and by having three, you are denying others access to the other two. You are in fact setting up a hierarchy, a fundamentally anti-anarchist position.

I have got more to say on this issue of property, I'll start a thread in the future perhaps, but that's all for now. As for "self-ownership", the concept of ownership doesn't apply to one's self, if you cannot sell yourself, then you cannot be property.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This is an argument from effect which I personally find to be ineffective but nevertheless logically consistent. The argument implies that if there are no valid property rights then there is no logical way you could command your fingers to do the typing to make the argument or produce the sound waves from your vocals to voice the argument. By directing yourself to argue against property rights you're already presupposing property rights and thus any argument against property rights fails.
That's just fucking stupid. "Property rights" are not synonymous with "any and every kind of control that a person has over anything." I control my fingers. Does that mean I have property rights over them? No, because I can control something without owning it.

The same applies to my body, and my vocal cords. Discourse does not imply self-ownership, it implies some degree of control over your body and (possibly) some inanimate objects. But not all control is ownership.

Hell, discourse doesn't even require the participants to be free in any meaningful sense. Can't two slaves engage in discourse? They sure can.

[freakazoid]

To quote Ayn Rand: "Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own efforts, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life."

lol, that sounds anti-capitalist. :D

[RGacky3]

You don't OWN yourself, you ARE yourself.

Anarcho-Capitalists always argue with a set of presumtions, formost is the idea that everything must be owned, which is'nt based on anything concrete, and the homestead theory, which has no logic behind it that I can find, other than a theory to justify the unjustifiable.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If the human body is just another chink of property, and I sell myself to another person out of desperation (I need blood, or food), I can't get myself back unless that person says so. Congratulations, Bacon. You just created a state.

It's called human rights, bub.

[Baconator]

Nobody. You should not look at yourself or anyone as an owned object, but rather an actor with rights. Your body is a part of you and part of your faculties, rather than a commodity which can be owned. You have exclusory rights to your faculties (though not in totality, as I explained in my last post) but not in the alienating sense of property.

Can you describe in better detail what sort of rights your talking about and if t those are fundamentally different than property rights? Since you acknowledge I am an actor with rights, then if my actions produce something of value , can I claim that something my actions produced?

[Baconator]

I hear this argument you are yourself and how its fundamentally different than the concept of self-ownership. Can someone explain to me specifically whats meant by you are yourself?

[IcarusAngel]

All you have to do is read baconator's posts to see how logical this von Mises nonsense is.

How can a group of people, who have produced virtually no intellectuals or scientists, be making decisions as to what constitutes "human nature" or not?

[Baconator]

Ok people. I think its a good idea to define what we all mean by 'ownership' so we can use an agreed upon definition just so everything is clear.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Ownership: A relationship between a person, an object, and the state, in which the state grants and protects the person's right to use that object however he sees fit, to abuse it or destroy it, to sell it or rent it in whole or in part, and to prevent other people from doing anything with the object against the person's will.

You do not own your body because the relationship you have with your body does not meet all the conditions above (it meets some, but only some of them).

[Self-Owner]

Ownership: A relationship between a person, an object, and the state, in which the state grants and protects the person's right to use that object however he sees fit, to abuse it or destroy it, to sell it or rent it in whole or in part, and to prevent other people from doing anything with the object against the person's will.

You do not own your body because the relationship you have with your body does not meet all the conditions above (it meets some, but only some of them).

I don't particularly want to get into the semantics of ownership. Say we accept your definition. When libertarians talk about self ownership, it's perfectly plausible they mean that individuals should be the recognized owner of themselves in the way you explicate above. It's obviously not true that people do always own themselves in your sense - the existence of the institution of slavery is enough to show that. But all we're saying is that in a moral sense, people do own themselves. Presumably you're not averse to normative claims regarding ownership (if you've ever claimed that the proletariat should own the means of production, for instance, you can't be). So if you reject self ownership as a moral ideal, I'd love to hear your alternative.

[Trapper John, M.D.]

I don't agree with many libertarian principles and axioms but I have trouble understanding why it's inherently incorrect to claim that you own yourself. Self-ownership is possible at least under certain conditions.

For example:
I am a human. Humans are tangible objects.
Humans can own. Tangible objects can be owned.(ex Toasters are tangible objects, therefore they can be owned.)
Humans can be owned(the existence of slavery proves this) since they're tangible objects.
Therefore I can own myself if no one else does.

Basically: If humans can be owned, then it isn't wrong to say you own yourself.

I'm not making any a priori statements about ownership or the ethics of it. I believe the only way to own something is through force. Governments make it illegal for you to own other human beings for mostly moral reasons, I'd imagine. But someone claiming she owns herself, even though she is human, really doesn't matter to governments because her owning herself only affects her and no one else.

But what is the logic of saying someone else can own you, but it's somehow impossible to own yourself?