≡ Menu

Against the Non-Aggression Principle and Self-Ownership? Run!

Ayn Rand had Francisco d’Anconia say in the “Money Speech” from Atlas Shrugged, “Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter.” Love that line.

I feel the same about people who denigrate the libertarian notions of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. The alternative to my being a self-owner is that someone else–maybe the person objecting to the “coherence” of self-ownership–owns me instead. That’s slavery. Those who object to the NAP must favor some kinds of aggression–or what we libertarians quaintly call “crime.”

Share

{ 34 comments… add one }

  • Francois Tremblay November 22, 2010, 2:12 am

    A new fantastic piece of nonsense from you, Kinsella. The wonders never cease.

    Self-ownership or slavery? Hardly, Kinsella. Hardly. For one thing, if bodies cannot be owned (as I argue), then the notion of slavery itself is supremely incoherent. Neither of the two blackwhite options you present make any sense to me.

    But you keep believing whatever you wanna believe.

    • Stephen April 9, 2013, 11:13 pm

      Bodies cannot be owned? And I thought I had heard it all. So who else has a right to your body, Francois?

  • Divided By Zer0 November 22, 2010, 4:38 am

    The alternative to my being a self-owner is that someone else–maybe the person objecting to the “coherence” of self-ownership–owns me instead.

    Come on, this is such a blatant false dilemma that I’m surprised you made it.

    • Stephan Kinsella November 22, 2010, 8:14 am

      One’s body is a scarce resource, conflict over the control of which is possible. There must in society be at least an implicit rule specifying who gets to control who uses this resource; this property right is called “ownership”. Libertarians favor that right being held by the person himself. If you oppose this, you have to think someone else has the right–i.e. slavery.

  • Divided By Zer0 November 22, 2010, 8:30 am

    conflict over the control of which is possible.

    That’s simply not true. Nobody can control your body the way your body controls itself.

    You are your body, nobody can challenge this short of killing you. People can force you to do things you do not want, but that’s a challenge to self-determination, not to “ownership”.

    • Stephan Kinsella November 22, 2010, 9:34 am

      We don’t need pettifogging metaphysical questions like whether “you” “are” “your body” or not. I think there is a distinction between the person and his body just as there is between the mind and one’s brain; the brain is an organ, the mind is not, although it is tightly linked with and dependent on the brain. We must not get too hung up on our conceptual and communicative nature–the way we understand the world in functional units and concepts, and attach words and names to these things for ease of understanding, manipulating, and communicating. The fact that we find it mentally useful to conceive of things like the mind and the person and that these things have conceptual differences from bodies and brains is not some magical, spooky thing–it’s just how we understand things about the world. No need to get all wiccan and attach a lot of import to magical naming words and such nonsense. This is all a distraction and irrelevant. By recognizing that I have a body and that I am or can be its owner does not require any sort of mystical or religious assumptions.

      The point is sometimes someone other than the person-who-“is”-the-body wants to use that body over its “occupant’s”/”his” consent. Sometimes this is justified, sometimes not. For example if A tries to rob B, B has the right to invade the borders of A’s body to repel him–even if A does not consent. But unless A is committing aggression against B (say), B does NOT have the right to invade the borders of (use) A’s body without A’s consent. This is just another way of saying that the default libertarian norm pertaining to bodies is that the person who has the say-so over its use is that person himself (or as some might say, the person whose body it is).

      I do not object to the idea that I “am” my body, in some sense, though I object to the needlessness of this pettifogging insistence. Pettifogging like this only serves to obscure the real issue and kick the can down the road. The scarcity of one’s body is undeniable. This means sometimes others want to use it when its occupant/owner/controller/”the person” does not consent. It is true that the person whose body it is, is the only one with direct control over the body. That means that the way others can enslave or control you is via threats and coercion. But so what? Slavery is possible, just as animal ownership is possible even though animals, too, can only be indirectly controlled by means of external force used as a lever. And slavery is sometimes justified, namely when external coercive force is used against an aggressor by his victim (in certain cases). Slavery is possible and is sometimes justified. But the default case is not other-ownership but ownership by the person himself. This is libertarianism.

  • db0 November 22, 2010, 9:47 am

    We don’t need pettifogging metaphysical questions like whether “you” “are” “your body” or not. I think there is a distinction between the person and his body just as there is between the mind and one’s brain;

    Well, why didn’t you come right out immediately and say you support mind-body dualism already? It would have saved us all a lot of hassle with useless debates.

    Just in case, the mind-body dualism theory is thoroughly debunked both scientifically and philosophically. If you wish to support mind-body dualism so that your pet-theory on which you base your whole reality does not collapse, you have quite a trip ahead of you. I suggest you start here.

    We must not get too hung up on our conceptual and communicative nature

    We should get hung up when your whole theory is based on linguistical twistings. Your attempt to hand-wave this away this is quite teling.

    The point is sometimes someone other than the person-who-”is”-the-body wants to use that body over its “occupant’s”/”his” consent.

    Surely you realize that B can never use A’s body in the same way that A is using it. Surely you realize that A is still in control of his own body, no matter who’s orders they’re following.

    • Stephan Kinsella November 22, 2010, 10:14 am

      My comments have nothing to do with any position on the mind-body duality issue. It holds whether you view a person as “being” his body, or as “having” a body conceptually distinct from his body. Either way, the same analysis. That’s why I don’t go into the nonsense that distracts grad students who debate these matters over pizza and pot into the wee hours. It’s just a distraction. The real issue is that sometimes B wants to use A’s body without A’s consent, and the question is whether this is justified or not. The libertarian answer is NO: unless the use is some kind of justified response to aggression. That is, the default libertarian position is that a person himself has the right to decide whether or how or who can use his body. We can refer to this concept by a “word” (self-ownership) and we can contrast it with ownership-by-others, commonly called “slavery.”
      “Just in case, the mind-body dualism theory is thoroughly debunked both scientifically and philosophically. If you wish to support mind-body dualism so that your pet-theory on which you base your whole reality does not collapse, you have quite a trip ahead of you. I suggest you start here.”

      My theory does not depend on the mind-body dualist position. Say I am “the same as” my body–fine by me. Same analysis.

      But let me axe you. You say you “reject” mind-body dualism, and that this rejection implies you don’t want to think of, say, the mind as “distinct” from the brain. Is that right?

      So does that mean you think if someone gets brain damage it’s “mind damage”? Interesting. So if someone is crazy, they “lose their mind,” and they also “lose their brain.” Wild. And let’s take memories. Are they “the same as” the brain? Only an idiot would think this.

      “We should get hung up when your whole theory is based on linguistical twistings.”

      The libertarian idea is that my body is mine to control, and not yours. That’s not linguistic.

      “Surely you realize that B can never use A’s body in the same way that A is using it.”

      Yes, and so? B wants to use A’s body in a way that B wants to use it, in a way that A objects to. A clear example is rape: B pins A down and molests A’s body. Libertarians object to this, and I am sorry that you do not.

      • db0 November 22, 2010, 10:28 am

        or as “having” a body conceptually distinct from his body.

        lolwut?

        Are you trying to say that the body own the body? Does your table own your table? Come now, surely you can see that this is nonsense and you’re just trolling me.

        The real issue is that sometimes B wants to use A’s body without A’s consent, and the question is whether this is justified or not

        It doesn’t matter how much B wants to use A’s body. They can never control it. And we’re talking about control here, not using the body as an inanimate object. In short, you’re equivocating egregiously.

        My theory does not depend on the mind-body dualist position. Say I am “the same as” my body–fine by me. Same analysis.

        Not really. Because if you don’t have a “you” and a “body” distinct from “you”. Then “you” cannot own “you body”. Do explain to me how you can make this connection without mind-body dualism. Or will you stick with the original stuff above where you arbitrarily split your body into two metaphysical concepts in order to prove that “your body owns your body”?

        The libertarian idea is that my body is mine to control, and not yours. That’s not linguistic.

        It’s not linguistics. It’s axiomatic. I have no means by which to control your body the same way you do. Therefore it’s irrelevant to speak about control in this way since there’s no alternative.

        Yes, and so? B wants to use A’s body in a way that B wants to use it, in a way that A objects to.

        Again, using a body as an inanimate object is not the same as “controling” them. Come now, you’re grasping at straws.

        A clear example is rape: B pins A down and molests A’s body. Libertarians object to this, and I am sorry that you do not.

        Do you really take this argument seriously?

        So if someone is crazy, they “lose their mind,” and they also “lose their brain.” Wild. And let’s take memories. Are they “the same as” the brain? Only an idiot would think this.

        Again with the linguistical twistings. Just because language phrases these concepts this way, does not provide any legitimacy. As for memories, yes they are in fact a function of the brain, which is why when you brain gets damaged, you can lose memories. It’s called “amnesia”. Wild concept, I know.

        • Stephan Kinsella November 22, 2010, 10:37 am

          “Are you trying to say that the body own the body? Does your table own your table?”

          I am not saying this. I don’t care about such linguistic pettifogging. I only say that you get to say who can use your body. For example if you consent to a kiss it’s not aggression; if you don’t, it is. Who gets to decide? To consent or not? You. The person whose body it is. These games you are playing are annoying and stupid.

          “It doesn’t matter how much B wants to use A’s body. They can never control it.”

          yes. Tell us something else irrelevant and trivial.

          “And we’re talking about control here, not using the body as an inanimate object. In short, you’re equivocating egregiously.”

          What was wrong with antebellum chattel slavery was precisely the application of force to slaves’ bodies against their consent: used to trap or jail or coerce them into submission. Treating them like means.
          “Not really. Because if you don’t have a “you” and a “body” distinct from “you”. Then “you” cannot own “you body”. Do explain to me how you can make this connection without mind-body dualism. Or will you stick with the original stuff above where you arbitrarily split your body into two metaphysical concepts in order to prove that “your body owns your body”?”

          This is too retarded to reply to. I’m sure that if someone threatens to chop your arm off you will be unable to object since it’s not “your” arm. Whatever.

          “As for memories, yes they are in fact a function of the brain, which is why when you brain gets damaged, you can lose memories.”

          Memories are a function of the brain, but that does not mean they ARE the brain. I can jog and jogging is a function of my body. Is jogging the same thing as my body? My body is an activity? really?

          this is amateur hour, truly. Pathetic.

          • Divided By Zer0 November 22, 2010, 11:23 am

            Ah linguistics again.

            The activities you mention are a function of a living body. The “use” you’re talking to, is about an inanimate, or dead human body. A living, conscious human with no bodily malfunction, can do all these activities. There is no need to talk about that person “controlling” their body to do these activities. Again, you’re just using language, which allows you to say stuff like “jogging” to prove your pet theory. This stuff is so weak, it wouldn’t even pass philosophy 101 (which is in fact why philosophers don’t take it seriously).

            Once again, your body can do various stuff. Jogging and memorize among them. If your body gets damaged, it might not be capable of doing that stuff anymore. See how I can phrase it in a way that has no relation to any concept of ownership whatsoever?

            For example if you consent to a kiss it’s not aggression; if you don’t, it is. Who gets to decide? To consent or not? You.

            Where does ownership come in again? I get to decide what happens to me, sure. I don’t need a concept of ownership for this. I don’t need some “self-ownership” construct to stop people from doing something to me I do not want.

            What was wrong with antebellum chattel slavery was precisely the application of force to slaves’ bodies against their consent: used to trap or jail or coerce them into submission. Treating them like means.

            yes. It is wrong to claim ownership over humans. This doesn’t follow because “they own themselves”. I mean, the fact that you can’t think of a moral condemnation of slavery without creating a crutch on self-ownership says much more about the shallow morals you espouse than anything else. If you can’t imagine any counter to slavery except self-ownership, I suggest wikipedia. You’ll be amazed on how many ways there are to prove that it’s morally wrong.

            This is too retarded to reply to. I’m sure that if someone threatens to chop your arm off you will be unable to object since it’s not “your” arm. Whatever.

            Of course, because there’s no other possible reason why I might ever object people harming me. Here’s a novel idea: I don’t like losing bodily functions. How does that work for you?

  • Francois Tremblay November 22, 2010, 3:28 pm

    “I don’t care about such linguistic pettifogging.”

    Funny, that’s exactly what I think about your position. It’s semantics nonsense. The actual reality of it is that you don’t even control 10% of what happens in your own body, let alone your brain. You are a king claiming property over a land of which you can’t even reach 10%! Now that’s quite a case of the “emperor’s new clothes.”

    If you claim self-ownership on that basis, then your concept of ownership is so vague as to encompass pretty much anything. If you are some kind of Buddhist monk that has achieved a high level of control over his body’s functions (I know some of them can change their body temperature), then we’ll talk again.

    Until then, your claims are pure, absolute nonsense. Bodies are not part of the kinds of things that can be owned. You do not “own yourself.” It is meaningless drivel.

    • Francois Tremblay November 22, 2010, 5:02 pm

      And just so you don’t misinterpret my message, because I know you will, I am NOT saying that the 10% point is my argument against self-ownership. My arguments against self-ownership have already been posted in the articles I linked to from my own entry. The 10% point is just a proof of the absurdity of your position, but it would still be semantic nonsense even if you somehow were in control of 100% of your body.

    • Stephan Kinsella November 22, 2010, 5:31 pm

      Dude, I don’t give a damn if you want to denigrate my superior rights over my body vis-a-vis a third party as “semantic nonsense”–so long as you agree that rape and murder are wrong, and that it’s up to the person himself to consent to force being used against his body, you have my position, even you rebel against clear concepts and language. And that is no crime, so qua libertarian, and as an anti-thicker, I don’t care if you want to be semantically confused. All I care about is the substance.

      • Francois Tremblay November 22, 2010, 5:43 pm

        Actually, your position is so incoherent that I don’t even know what it would mean for a self-owned body to be raped or killed. What is the subject and what is the object of ownership, so we know what or who is being raped? Never mind, I don’t think you have the answers to that one either. You have no answers at all. All you have is an empty belief. I know, I used to be a razor-thin “ancap” like you.

        And your BFF Hoppe has himself said clearly that sexual harassment is all right as long as it’s part of a contract.
        http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/more-on-walter-blocks-lunatic-ravings/
        So insofar as slippery slope goes, you guys certainly have the lead. In the voluntaryist view, ANYTHING is ethical as long as people agree to it at some point. Including rape and murder.

  • Dwork November 23, 2010, 2:42 am

    “Run for your life from any man who tells you that discrimination is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching statist.”

  • Richard December 7, 2010, 1:43 pm

    Ok, So Im currently writing an essay on Self-Ownership (2nd year of University) and somehow have stumbled on this hell-hole of an argument. I think both you Francois and you divided by Zero are missing something.

    Ok so self-ownership is no longer a valid term because it seems to piss you off

    How about I guide my body with my thoughts… I think that I want my arm to move and then it does. Admittedly I cant change my body temperature, but thats by the by. If someone tries to make me do something due to threats or force, they do not stop me from guiding my body. I still decide what my arms do. I decide to do what they demand because I don’t want to receive the force behind the threats.

    HOWEVER the point Stephan is making (I think) is that the person who invades your right to control/self-determination is immoral as long as what you want to do doesnt impinge on other peoples right to self-determination. Yes he dresses it up in Libertarian terminology, but when you get down to the root of it, YOU ARE BOTH SAYING THE SAME THING.

    Please correct me if I am wrong

    • Francois Tremblay December 7, 2010, 1:53 pm

      “Ok so self-ownership is no longer a valid term because it seems to piss you off”

      No… you haven’t read anything we’ve written on the subject, have you? We haven’t declared it invalid because “it pisses us off.”

      “HOWEVER the point Stephan is making (I think) is that the person who invades your right to control/self-determination is immoral as long as what you want to do doesnt impinge on other peoples right to self-determination. Yes he dresses it up in Libertarian terminology, but when you get down to the root of it, YOU ARE BOTH SAYING THE SAME THING.”

      Calm down buddy, and no we’re not. Kinsella doesn’t believe in “not impinging on self-determination.” He is a voluntaryism-fetishist. Furthermore, he is a capitalist, and therefore most definitely does believe in impinging on people’s self-determination, as long as it favors his social position and place in the world. He also openly supports racism and sexism by defending his BFF Hoppe’s racism and sexism, which is an attack against the self-determination of individuals who happen to belong to unfavoured categories.

    • Stephan Kinsella December 7, 2010, 1:55 pm

      Francois is a troll and a complete idiot with nothing worthwhile to say whatsoever.

      • Francois Tremblay December 7, 2010, 2:25 pm

        That’s weird, every time I see a blog entry of yours, I think the exact same thing about you. I guess we all have different opinions of other people’s worth, huh?

        • Richard December 7, 2010, 5:15 pm

          Ok, I apologise let me be more clear, although If your argument just comes down to “Obvious troll is obvious” then there is no point. I not suggesting that self-ownership is just wrong because it pisses you off. What I should have said is that just because you don’t accept a cartesian mind/body solution therefore the term self-ownership (for how can you say I own myself, when myself is myself… or whatever) doesn’t mean you cant take the base point that My rights should not be impinged upon unless I am impinging on the rights of others as correct. Any time force or threat is used is a form of slavery and illegitimate

          I mean, neither of you will accept this probably because you both seem quite dogmatic

          • Stephan Kinsella December 7, 2010, 5:25 pm

            Trembly has a history with me–he used to think he was anarchocapitalist, and now he’s a member of the voluntary human extinction movement and hates what he thinks is “capitalism” now, probably for personal or psychological reasons; so naturally he attacks me, as one turns on someone thye used to agree.

            People like him play games wiht words.

            I am very clear with words because I have nothing to hide.

            I don’t give a damn about the stupid grad student dorm room debates about whether you “are” your body “or not”. IT’s irrelevant. All that matters is that you have (or “are”) a body, and it’s scarce; and sometimes other people than you want to use it. The question is simply: who gets to decide: you, or the other person? My answer is: you do. You have the rihgt. And we are conceptual beings so we have a concept for this, and we use language so we use a word to denote that concept. That is self-owenrship. But to quibble over this is pettifogging and equivocation because it tries to take a tedious semantic argument and establish something semantic with it: in Tremblay’s case, he is trying to make a dig at capitalism or has some other ulterior motives. In any case, his argument makes no sense. Either he thinks he has the right to control his body, or he thinks others do. I don’t give a damn what word he uses to describe the former position, but if he holds itk it’s the same as mine. If he doesn’t, he has a confused or abominable view, however you label it–I’d call it slavery.

            It’s frankly embarrassing to have to explain this due to trolls like him; he’s not worth it but i take the time for any lurkers who might be confused by the intentionally pettifogging and misinformation spread by former libertarians/capitalism-hating lefitsts.

          • Francois Tremblay December 7, 2010, 11:53 pm

            Actually I do accept it (that rights should not be impinged upon except to prevent such an impingement). I’m just saying Kinsella doesn’t. That’s why I don’t think both positions can be reconciled.

          • Richard December 13, 2010, 8:40 am

            Thank you very much Stephan, Your clarification has worked wonders to removing the problem of the mind-body dualism argument against Self-ownership
            If you don’t mind, Im referencing this conversation in a footnote

            Also saw on one of your own posts that You were a fan of Ayn Rand’s philosophy once upon a time. I used that to argue against Rawls the other day, and frankly I find her very convincing

            Thanks again

  • jones March 28, 2011, 6:59 pm
  • bagworm April 18, 2012, 12:07 pm

    Francois has said more than once that the purpose of a blog is to be controversial. He is just a lonely bitter person crying for attention in a world that ignored him. He is really nothing that he claims to be.

  • Abfvxhke May 3, 2012, 6:49 pm

    I don’t like pubs http://taledypuliy.de.tl free bbs little pearls nice titis plus amazing ass equal great movie (the only down on the movie was the black guy he couldn’t keep a fucking erection geeez)

  • Ykluxrsc May 6, 2012, 5:26 am

    I’ll call back later http://auuikub.de.tl preteen world models Nice girl but again the frustation is just dripping of this guy’s face. A real turn off. cock for brains he has and thinking with it !!!!

  • Ziyprcpn May 7, 2012, 6:42 pm

    I have my own business http://tahucerualid.de.tl all index of loli not such a nice looking girl..but i reckon she could scrub up well with a minor makeover..fabulous body. great set of tits and awesome areola.nice frontal riding sequence. cum to body would of been better than shooting the sofa!! lol.great clip.

  • Fefwbjbx April 9, 2013, 11:03 pm

    I’ve only just arrived ceweknakal
    Lots of asians sound like that even when the sex is timid. Annoying. Ugh.

  • Nnfztyab April 9, 2013, 11:03 pm

    Nice to meet you gaybodyblog
    how du guys now that he is fucking his own wife?

  • Qiubebvq April 9, 2013, 11:14 pm

    Excellent work, Nice Design http://community.parents.com/asumouooi/blog/2013/04/04/lolita_kingdom_nude_pics young shaved pussy lolitas There’s just nothing like it, or them – love to see big soft titties, georgeous curves, super suckable suppers, beautiful women!

  • Vumktwmi April 9, 2013, 11:14 pm

    A few months lolita kingdom nude pics oh thats hot she is getting so nice cocks and cum, would love that my self and hubby would like to slide his cock in to that filled pussy and ass

  • Calnoevamul April 9, 2013, 11:18 pm

    valacyclovir hcl buy online acyclovir 800 mg cold sore [url=http://wbrp.webs.com/apps/profile/108302032/#obat-salep-acyclovir]acyclovir generic for valtrex[/url] acyclovir 400 mg review [url=http://www.freewebs.com/riseoffire/apps/profile/108301944/#buy-aciclovir-tablets-400mg]valacyclovir hcl generic[/url] acyclovir 400 mg three times day [url=http://jettamandanrctech.webs.com/apps/profile/108301771/#generic-name-for-acyclovir]acyclovir 400 mg often take[/url] acyclovir zovirax price [url=http://www.freewebs.com/littlekittywitty/apps/profile/108301473/#generic-drug-acyclovir]can you buy acyclovir over the counter in uk[/url] cost acyclovir injection [url=http://saclan1.webs.com/apps/profile/108301629/#cost-of-acyclovir-canada]valacyclovir generic for[/url] acyclovir 800 mg 3 times a day valacyclovir hcl 1 cost

Leave a Comment

Bad Behavior has blocked 13348 access attempts in the last 7 days.

© 2012-2014 StephanKinsella.com CC0 To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to material on this Site, unless indicated otherwise. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a  Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.

-- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright