the only place I would disagree with you about that is the conservative mantra "right to life" regarding abortion.

The link is in the article but it does not show up well. Here it is http://www.peikoff.com/2008/05/19/is-the...

Yep, and that's why I responded... sort of along the same lines as 'arguments' as to "where the soul lives" or if the 'soul' exists as some separate entity inside (or outside?) one's body.

Just like 'how many angels...'
But some folks just LOVE that rabbit hole!
:)

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.

No a right to life is not an individual right. An environmentalist would mean the right to life on earth for every organism but man. A utilitarian would mean a collective right to life of man and then maximize the number of people who are alive by stealing the efforts of other men.

Self ownership is the right to act on your own behalf without the claims to your life or energy. Once you add all the right to act on one’s behalf as an individual, you have defined self ownership. It’s a simple definition. What I cannot understand is why you fight not only the clear definition but the historical basis.

By the way the fact that people are rational animals does not lead to a right to life, it leads to a right to your OWN life.

And to add one thing, I don't see how "man's right to his own life because he is a rational animal and must think for himself" is a definition of self-ownership. The right is not a matter of ownership; it is a matter of a moral principle defining and sanctioning his freedom of action. (Or, in Rand's other formulation, a condition of his existence required for his survival as a rational being. Again, not a definition of self ownership.) It is FROM this freedom of action that we derive the right to property, the concept of ownership. If an individual's right to his own life were not valid and comprehensive, we could not legitimately derive the concept of "ownership" that results from his actions.

I do not really follow this response to my argument, I'm afraid. Saying that every animal works for a right to its life is using "right" in an entirely different sense; in fact, I cannot fathom why one would use the word in this context. Every animal act to sustain its life. There is no general right to life: whose right? To what life? The right to life as a more concept IS an individual's right to his own life: the moral right to take all the actions required by his rational nature to sustain his life over its natural span. This right to liberty of all actions leads logically to the right to property created by action. To then apply ownership BACK to bolster the right to life violates the hierarchy of concept, but, most of all, adds nothing to the legitimate right to one's life. The concept simply is not needed cannot be applied backward after being derived genetically from the right to ones own life.

what's up with "zen" on mind/body? You are an integrated whole. you cannot disembody yourself. A is A. The defining characteristic here is rational thinking. Even for those severe cases of someone trapped inside their body or normal body abnormally functioning brain, these are all still attributes of the whole. To parse "self" into levels of self-realization etc is to go down rabbit holes in psychology. How is that germane to a discussion of ownership and rights?

Oh, THAT clarified everything for me....

NOT.

:)
but you made my point for me.
Thanks.

self is all those things.

I am sure that our brains are not exactly wired the same way and we would not be the same person if we had different bodies

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

Zen, I thought I asked the same question already on a similar thread... "If you don't start the discussion with a Definition of 'Self" right at the start, the 'discussion' will devolve into meaningless chatter."

Is "self" your mind, body, ego, brain, thoughts, 'soul' or WHAT?!

May I suggest some concepts like "being responsible for the maintenance and repair of your own body"? and "Being responsible for your own actions and their results"?

Where's my "self"? Does it live in or near my "soul"? How do you know and how can you rationally or experimentally prove your answer?

By the way, after some est Training, I DID figure out the answers to "if a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?" AND "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Answer #1: "First, accurately define 'SOUND' "
Answer #2: "As many as can fit, silly!"

Now back to your regularly-scheduled discussion.
:)

db; I understand and pretty much agree, but I wonder whether the color I see that I'm taught is red is the same color you see that you're taught is red. We can agree on the wavelength per color, but what do our eyes see. An example is the difference in the number of rods and cones in a females eyes vs. that of a male. Biologically and genetically, the reasons for the differences make sense, but it remains that a females eyes see a different range of colors than a male sees.

What affect would that have if as suggested above by Jan that we move our brains to a different body and how much else is filtered in some manner by the biology of the body providing sensory input to the brain? I can agree that the mind of I, is solidly connected and a part of the brain in which I arise, but I think it must also be connected (tied to) the purely biological mechanism that provides out sensory inputs.

Maybe not, and this is possibly just a think exercise, but it floats in my mind. Thanks for putting up with these thoughts.

Every animal in evolution works for its right to life as a species. What makes man unique is that he has a right to his own life because he is a rational animal and must think for himself. This is the very definition of self ownership.

Respectfully, A right to life is not a right to one's own life. A right to life leads to the utilitarian concept of the greatest good for the greatest number, which makes us just like every other animal. We will keep the most people alive by taking your property. As Rand states:

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

The Virtue of Selfishness “Man’s Rights,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 94

The right to action is the right to one's own life - self ownership.

Human's are rational animals. As a rational animal I have to think for myself. I have a right to MY life because that is my nature. I have to think and act for myself, which means I own myself.

Every animal acts for its right to life as a species. Humans act for their individual right to their own life because of their unique nature

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."

Pleasure is not consideration. A slave has no right to argue they did not receive the pleasure they bargained for, so the pleasure angle still fails. You must be able to enforce the contract.

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.

A is A. The sensation may not be the same but it has to provide essentially the same information or we would not be able to have this conversation.

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?

I should clarify. Last week I fielded these ideas in the group For The New Intellectual. I was banned for heresy against the "heir"
Several other groups did accept the article once Dale wrote it. But reactions are VERY strong. I find that curious. It seems something reasonable Os could disagree on.

yes. You are the sum of your experiences and thoughts and they are different to where "you " are at what time and in what body.

Am I misunderstanding you? Are you saying that the Objectivist groups on FB are not posting the article because it's too controversial? If so, that's a real shame.

As Objectivists, Reason should be our rose. The more controversial the idea, the more we should be discussing it so that we may come to a greater understanding of the issue. If there's a controversy, is reason being applied? No one argues that 1 plus 1 equals 2.

I was just sitting and thinking on the concept, that the I, the me evolves out of my mind, that evolves out of my brain--but that brain's only connection and input with the environment and reality is through the senses provided by the body.

The question in this context, then becomes are the senses provided by all bodies identical between bodies or are the perceptions developed by the brain of the various sensory organs unique to the individual. I've got a feeling that it's not all so mechanistic, but instead is individualized within a broad range of perceptive ability and environmental adaption.