khalling: I can follow db's reasoning and argument, but I wonder if the disagreement from many doesn't have to do with a definition or confusion over it; of self, I, me, etc., i.e. the entity of a man as a total sum deriving from his rational and reasoning mind exercising his life as one and as integral of body vs. the concept of self as a soul inhabiting a body as in religious belief systems. It's always struck me in discussions and debates about this issue that many have difficulty with integrating the concepts mind/I as non-separate from the biological entity, man. Others seem to believe primarily that mind/soul, the I of which they speak, exist in some dimension outside of the physical body, even arriving at concepts of 'You may own my body, but not my mind/heart/soul/spirit, etc.'

I think as long as some think af 'themselves' as separate from the lives of their bodies, they're never going to understand or accept the reality of self ownership.

Wow. Deep. That was very insightful, but unfortunately, such logical arguments would fall on the deaf ears of communists in our courts and on crapitol hill.

This is so basic that it should not even have needed to be said.

I was pleasantly surprised by the article. I thought it was going to be a progressive smear-piece on the idea of self-ownership.

There is a world of difference between the right to life and self-ownership. Yes, self-ownership does raise the specter of slavery, but dropping that term and talking only about the right to life ignores the issue of slavery completely. Maybe it even tacitly allows for it.

A good essay, and a good point.

This incisive essay on a fundamental aspect of the case for genuine liberty is such a welcome addition to the discussion. It got me thinking, for sure, and I find myself excited by the analysis, but unable to agree with the conclusion.

One way to check the validity of a concept, or its application, is to ask, as Ayn Rand did, what are its “genetic roots” in the hierarchy of concepts, where, for example, a concept like “theft” makes no sense without the prior concept of “property.” The concept of “theft” is genetically depend upon the existence and validity of the concept “property.

I argue below that the concept of ownership is dependent upon, and derives from, the concept of a “right”—broadly the right to life. The right to life, on the Objectivist/Lockean view, is the right to take all those actions required for the survival over a life span of a being that survives by reason. Because we have such a right to freedom of action, what we create or produce or acquire by means of those actions belongs to us, we own them. This is the logical derivation of the concept of ownership from the concept of the right to life.

Inherent in the concept of the right to life--the right to self-sustained and self-generating action--is the right to do as we will with our person—including for example, having an abortion, selling an organ, or committing suicide. Those are not an issue of ownership, but an issue of our right to action.

Having derived the right to ownership from the right to life, as derived from it and dependent upon it, we cannot go back and apply the concept of “ownership” to our self, our person. If our right to life, to take all actions required for survival, does not encompass the right to take all actions in regard to our person, then the right to life is not valid. If so, it cannot generate and support the right to ownership.

Thus, to arrive at ownership and then go back to bolster the concept of the right to life by adding “self-ownership” is circular and violates the hierarchy of concepts.

My brother, Roger, has a brief reply but along exactly the same lines. He writes: "I would say that we need the concept "ownership" to assert our right to control something even when we are not currently exercising control over it. And since we are always currently exercising control over our own actions (even if we are thrown in a sack and carried off, it is we who control our body), it is not the concept of "ownership" that states our claim to exercise control over our actions. It is the right to liberty."

So the penny just dropped as to why self ownership was defined as a conservative conspiracy. I'd bet my eye teeth that those who shun the term "self ownership" and prefer talking about the right to life are proponents of big government.

I need to track down Piekoff's podcast, because I find it hard to believe that he made the arguments that Mr Halling claims he made. Surely, he can't be serious. So what if ownership is a relationship between you and an external object? Everything, including Mr Peikoff, is an external object to me, you and everyone else. I am an external object to Mr Peikoff. So is he saying that it's impossible for me to own myself, but he or someone else can own me?

Ownership is not about possession. If I own a car but lend it to a friend, that car is no longer in my possession. Yet I still own it. Ownership is about the ultimate control of an object. Who decides to what use the object is put?

If you follow the idea of self-ownership to it's logical conclusions then you may start to raise awkward questions about the role of government in your life. Maybe a smaller government is better? Etc. But talking about the right to life, well now that just opens up the door for more government intervention. Don't wear a seatbelt in the car -- well, the government's there to force you to wear that seatbelt to protect your right to life. Starving kids in an oil-rich region? Send in the troupes and foreign aid. It's to protect their right to life.

As an Objectivist, I am asked if I object to the words “In God we trust”.
I say no.
Of course because I believe there is no higher being than myself, then I must be God by my definition.

I am very interested in finding a rationale for the non-enforceability of a contract of slavery. I'm not sure that failure of consideration applies because, like the kidney, one could derive pleasure from the contract, or performance could be a gift. And I don't think lack of capacity works either; again, with the kidney (or any property), you could say that the moment you contract to sell or give it, you no longer own it, so this would mean we all lack capacity to sell or give any property by contract.

So what then can be the justification for not allowing or at least not enforcing a contract for slavery? Is it an unalienable right or property of self-ownership itself? I think it must be. Can anyone else think of an explanation why a contact for slavery should be invalid?

the fact that I own my own body does *not* imply
that someone else may own it. . at one time, I owned
my own virginity, and no one else could have. . I know;
my body is material and virginity is an attribute.
but this kind of ownership is different.....
people are not eligible to be property.

at one time, I advocated a theory of dependency:::
in order to deserve, in moral terms, to make the choices
which I make for myself, I must not be dependent
on others, else *they* may choose for me. . I know
that it is ridiculous, but how else can one come to
the conclusion that a woman may abort her fetus?
difficult argument. . it did help me learn to
fight hard to become as independent as possible.

but I own me. . and if you try to own me,
I will make it a very bad time for you. . -- j