The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism

Self-ownership

7 (19.4%)

Choice

2 (5.6%)

Both, you can't have one without the other

20 (55.6%)

Both, they have to be equally honored

5 (13.9%)

Neither

2 (5.6%)

Total Members Voted: 11

[gandhi2]

it matters not a whit to my argument whether or not self-ownership includes sentience.

Huh, what?  Suuuuuure.  I suppose that you will argue next that rocks have self-ownership.  They've got all the necessary qualifiers, eh?

it matters not a whit to my argument whether or not self-ownership includes choice.

And now robots have self-ownership, too?  What if I put a jack in your brain and controlled your motions and emotions with electricity?  Would you still have self-ownership?  Please, child.  Be reasonable.

none of this has any relevance at all to my argument...

Once more we see that blissful ignorance is refuge of the insane mystic.  You ignore what the purpose of the post was: to make you understand that differing opinions on the definition of self and self-ownership exist and co-exist in the global and libertarian community.  Now, will you concede finally that differing opinions, many widely different to yours, on the definition of self-ownership, exist here on these forums?  Now that you've conceded, will you please stop calling something by a name which none of us can recognize, and come up with a more palletable term for it?

[BenTucker]

I suppose that you will argue next that rocks have self-ownership.

rocks are not "self" as rocks pre-exist human labor

now robots have self-ownership to?

robots are not "self" as they are result of human labor and thus the absolute property of those who labored (or paid to labor) to produce it.

What if I put a jack in your brain and controlled your motions and emotions with electricity?  Would you still have self-ownership?

presumably I did not agree to this so my absolute right of self-ownership would be violated and I would no longer control my choices...

You ignore what the purpose of the post was: to make you understand that differing opinions on the definition of self and self-ownership exist and co-exist in the global and libertarian community.

that was not the purpose of this post...

the purpose of the post was to take a poll to see who agree that the right of self-ownership was the fundamental tenet of libertarianism...

will you concede finally that differing opinions, many widely different to yours, on the definition of self-ownership, exist here on these forums?

I don't know - that is not what the poll was for.

I know from the poll that a significant number of people here on the forum believe the fundamental tenet of libertarianism includes the right of self-ownership.

I happen to believe like Ayn Rand that everything else like choice is either a corollary or a consequence of self-ownership.

apparently you believe they are one in the same and many people believe that they are both the fundamental tenet of libertarianism.

why don't you start another poll to see if people believe that choice is a corollary or consequence of self-ownership or one in the same?

[ladyattis]

now robots have self-ownership to?

robots are not "self" as they are result of human labor and thus the absolute property of those who labored (or paid to labor) to produce it.

No, because if a robot can state Cognito Ergo Sum and mean it by resisting your actions, any attempt by to make it obey is enslavement and criminal. Period and End of Story.

I happen to believe like Ayn Rand that everything else like choice is either a corollary or a consequence of self-ownership.

apparently you believe they are one in the same and many people believe that they are both the fundamental tenet of libertarianism.

why don't you start another poll to see if people believe that choice is a corollary or consequence of self-ownership or one in the same?

Nope and nope since you cannot sell yourself, you cannot own yourself. Get it, stupid?

-- Bridget

[gandhi2]

rocks are not "self" as rocks pre-exist human labor

robots are not "self" as they are result of human labor and thus the absolute property of those who labored (or paid to labor) to produce it.

Do all sentient things have self?
Are all things with self sentient?

presumably I did not agree to this so my absolute right of self-ownership would be violated and I would no longer control my choices...

That's backwards, as described below.

that was not the purpose of this post...

You are misunderstanding the context.  The purpose of the singular post which you are referencing, as opposed to the purpose of this topic/thread of discussion.

I know from the poll that a significant number of people here on the forum believe the fundamental tenet of libertarianism includes the right of self-ownership.

Or you could also concede, as the stats show it, that most people believe that it impossible to separate self-ownership and choice.   If you did concede that, then perhaps you should re-examine your assumptions that you can be deprived of choice(when the mutualist stormtroopers come to extract your economic rent payment, thereby depriving you of the choice to adhere to and belong to the society which sets the terms thereof) and retain self-ownership.

I happen to believe like Ayn Rand that everything else like choice is either a corollary or a consequence of self-ownership.

Well, I happen to disagree with both you and Rand.  I believe that everything else, like self-ownership, is a corollary or a consequence of choice.  Which is why I think that animals deserve some rights as well, being sentient entities to a lesser degree than man.  I think that I could get a bit of support for this idea(Brian Wolf, feel free to chime in)...some people feel that it is a violation of some natural law for man to kill any animal for whatever purpose he desires, because they recognize that this lesser degree of sentience affords some of the same rights that man has.

why don't you start another poll to see if people believe that choice is a corollary or consequence of self-ownership or one in the same?

Have at it.  But be sure to add the option that I would vote for:

X. No, self-ownership is the consequence of choice.

Still checkmate, boy.

[bonerjoe]

I think of libertarianism as people not having to comply with undeserved force.

[BenTucker]

Do all sentient things have self?
Are all things with self sentient?

only human beings have rights therefore "self" can only apply to living persons.

If you did concede that, then perhaps you should re-examine your assumptions that you can be deprived of choice(when the mutualist stormtroopers come to extract your economic rent payment, thereby depriving you of the choice to adhere to and belong to the society which sets the terms thereof) and retain self-ownership.

having your right of self-ownership violated means you are being forced to do something against your free will (choice).

so the collection of economic rent by the landowner COMPELS or FORCES those they exclude to LABOR against their free will (choice).

what initiates that is the CHOICE that a landowner makes to exclude others from the specific location that they occupy which is more than the 3D space their body occupies...

I believe you should be able to territorially secede with other contiguous landowners if you are out voted on being forced to contribute to the socially created economic rent (we want to build a road, bridge, school, etc which increases your UNIMPROVED land value) but that everyone must share the natural economic rent (no exceptions).

I believe that everything else, like self-ownership, is a corollary or a consequence of choice.

please explain to me how you can have choice without self?

Which is why I think that animals deserve some rights as well, being sentient entities to a lesser degree than man.

legal rights that they can argue in a court of law in questioning their accuser?
our system of laws are set-up based on an understanding that we all have the human capacity to act equally moral...

I disagree that an animal can act equally moral but what doe this have to do with my specific argument?

be sure to add the option that I would vote for:

X. No, self-ownership is the consequence of choice.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=10880.0

[BenTucker]

If I've used myself in the form of my labour to perform a task in exchange for wealth, then that wealth is as much and extension of self as your labour as you have made a voluntary exchange of one for the other. Land is no exception from the rule.

in the system that I advocae there would be no purchase price to land just the requirement that for the privilege of exclusive use you must share the economic rent.

so where exactly is the right of self-ownership being denied of the landowner?

1. he doesn't produce the land with his labor
2. he does't create the UNIMPROVED land values by defintion
3. he doesn't purchase the land with his labor product

why has no one ever been able to answer this question?

There is a finite amount of oxygen on this planet, should we limit the degree of breathes people take?

no, just stop cutting down trees and start planting them...

There's a finite amount of food at any given time, shall we limit how of that people are permitted to eat?

food is produced via labor and thus absolute private property.

you're restricting use of a valid extension of self by force.

where specifically as it relates to the landowner...

1. he doesn't produce the land with his labor
2. he does't create the UNIMPROVED land values by defintion
3. he doesn't purchase the land with his labor product

All because you can't accept the idea that it's choices that are making people have problems 'occupying 3D space.'

if all lands are already legally owned and to exist one must occupy land somehwere then I have no choice but to purchase (buy or lease) or be gifted a place to excercise my absolute right of self-ownership only which landowner to contract with...unless of course you believe a right must be purchased or gifted - do you?

[BenTucker]

I don't want to give my property to a collective and charging economic rent on something I own is taxation and thus force.

what collective?

you are sharing your economic rent with your neighbors as individuals to uphold their individual absolute right of self-ownership.

in anarchy, your collecting of the economic rent from those you exclude by COMPELLING them to labor (backed by your private thugs) for what defines their existence is different than taxation in what respect?

What I'm doing with my property is none of your damn business.

it is if it is involuntarily COMPELLING others to labor violating the right of self-ownership...

You're still forcing someone to adhere to your view of the world Ben, the circumstances don't apply unless they violate someone’s rights.

the force is defensive as I have shown in anarchy the same exclusion COMPELS the excluded to work.

Despite what you believe, you don’t have the right to exist where-ever you damn well please.

not anywhere I please just somewhere to uphold my absolute right of self-ownership...unless of course you are a closet authoritarian - are you?

You are not purchasing the right; simply a place to exercise it. There's a difference.

how can I have a right to something without actually having any place to excercise it (to exist is to occupy land)?

please explain in more detail...this ought to be educational.

The landowner can’t prevent you from exercising your right; they can simply eject you from their property if they don’t agree with it.

and am I required to purchase this right from the landowner or are they gifting it?

If you’re doing something that everyone wants to remove you from their property over, maybe you should take the damn hint.

maybe you should take the hint and stop being a hypocrite and change the fundamental tenet of libertarianism from something other than "the right of self-ownership" unless of course you don't believe it is - do you?

[BenTucker]

by your logic, my neighbours are gifting my my right of self ownership by giving me "my fair share" of economic rent, aren't they?

no because the economic rent remains owned in common as an individual equal access right of those you exclude it is not the landowner's to "gift"

Compelling someone to do some thing isn't force though.

please explain - this ought to be interesting!

You can own a lawnmower without having a lawn to mow.

yeah but I can't exist without occupying some land *somewhere* and if all *somewheres* are legally owned then, well, you know the rest of the story...

you have the right, just nowhere to use it.

then what good is it if someone can involuntarily compel me to labor?

you can't have choice with self ownership, but nor can you exercise self ownership without choice.

sorry, you have to have self before choice...

[ladyattis]

by your logic, my neighbours are gifting my my right of self ownership by giving me "my fair share" of economic rent, aren't they?

no because the economic rent remains owned in common as an individual equal access right of those you exclude it is not the landowner's to "gift"

Fallacious use of the term common and ownership. You do not own the nature of being a human animal, nor do you own the property of existing in 4d space. Stop misusing a metaphysics term and get with the program.


-- Bridget

[bonerjoe]

If I hear "economic rent" one more time I'm going to fist someone.

[BenTucker]

Being compelled to do some generally means you have a great motivator to do something. Ambition, for example, is compelling, but not force.

well let me give it to you straight then you are FORCED to labor for something that defines your very existence.

You can continue to exist without food and water either, but that doesn't mean you should have the ability to force others to provide you with food, nor should others be forced to provide you with land.

that's right - you can't CONTINUE to exist without food or water.

but you don't need land to CONTINUE to exist - it is synonomous with EXISTING.

here in NH, everyone has an individual equal access opportunity right (meaning owned in common) to all lakes over 20 acres and all groundwater - so you need not force anyone to do anything to have access to the water which is not produced by anyone's labor...some lakes have triple A quality water so that you can drink it right out of the lake (Sunapee).

it is the exclusive use of land that initiates the force and thus requiring the sharing of economic rent is purely DEFENSIVE

But if I don't have choice I can't exercise self. So having self without choice is irrelevent.

all true - but you must have self before one can "excercise self" via choice

[BenTucker]

Maybe we should have all food held 'in common' as well.

food is produced via human labor land is not...

Need water to live as well, all drinking water should be held 'in common.'

it is in NH...

And hospitals, nursing homes...

hospitals and nursing homes are produced via human labor - the land upon which they sit is not.

I believe when you're born the hospital is fairly welcoming, so are parents in most cases and adoption centres.

you are being gifted the right to occupy the space in those cases...

You are free to chose not to work, but I'm not obligied to keep you alive if you suffer from your own laziness and stupidity.

"to keep you alive" is TO CONTINUE TO EXIST

existing is to occupy land *somewhere* - they are one in the same.

The excussive use of land is defensive force as one aquired said land via the use of choice and self ownership.

inorder to have continued existence it is not necessary to have exclusive use of land - man survived for hundreds of thousands of years as nomadic hunters and gatherers.

'Sharing' (communism!) 'economic rent' is removing choice from the eqation and thus antiquating the abilities of a person to exercise said rights.

communism is generally known as the collective (joint) ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital).

common ownership is an individual EQUAL right

you do not have the choice to violate the right of self-onwership of those you exclude...

As has been said before only negative rights apply. You have to right to land only in the sense that you are free to aquire your own or access to someone elses; you can't force others to grant you 'your right' to land

use of land is an equal right within a negative liberty framework - your use is just so long as you do not infringe by economically disadvantaging anyone else...

if by "aquiring" one has to purchase or be gifted the right to access land then no amount of opinion can overturn the fact that you are buying or being gifted your right of self-ownership...

do you believe a right of self-ownership has to be purchased or gifted?

you can JUSTIFY force upon those who are excluding others and denying their right of self-ownership because it is DEFENSIVE and that is why governments are constituted - to protect the absolute rights to life, liberty, and labor-based property.

So without choice, self ownership means nothing.

the concept of choice is embodied within self-ownership...it is a consequence or corollary.

[BenTucker]

both are aquired through human labour.

yes but only one is produced via human labor...

in the system that I advocate there would be no purchase price price to land (your "aquiring") only the requirement to enforce the exclusive use via title that the economic rent (unimproved land value) by shared to uphold the right of self-ownership of your neighbors.

slaves were aquired by labor too...does that make it justified?

I'm still not obliged to make you continue to exist at my expense.

I agree...anything PRODUCED via human labor that would allow another TO CONINUE TO exist is a violation of the absolute right of self-ownership of those being FORCED to contribute the sustenance to another.

governments as legitimate agency are constituted to protect individuals from this type of positive liberty...

I'm not allowed to defend myself to prevent me from being stolen from

you are allowed to defend yourself from having labor-based property stolen from you that is why governance as legitimate agency is constituted to insure that those being excluded from land by privilege are not FORCED to labor inorder to pay those who are excluding which VIOLATES the absolute right to self-ownership of the excluded to their wages (return on labor).

in the system I advocate the rights of self-ownership are NOT violated because:

1. they do not produce the land itself with their labor - correct?
2. they do not create the economic rent with their labor by definition as it is called UNIMPROVED land value - correct?

and as I said there would be no purchase price to aquire land - just the sahring of economic rent directly and equally between neighbors within a community.

and I'll ask again...where EXACTLY is the landowner's right of self-ownership being denied in this scenario that I describe??

Read communist theory,you're advocating the same premises,everyone has 'equal right' to collectivesed property

I have thank you....very, very carefully!

collective property is joint ownership that inevitably becomes unequal because if any owner wants to acces/use they have to get permission form EVERY OTHER joint owner (consensus) PRIOR to use or their delegated authority (state).

common ownership is individual equal ownership where any individual owner can take action to access/use so longas their use does not INFRINGE on any other individual's equal right to the same.

these are very, very different concepts which takes very, very careful study and analysis...

taking my money against my chosing is violating my self ownership, economic disadvantage has nothing to do with it.

the "money" you are referring to being "taken" is called economic rent.
economic rent is a legal and monetary obligation forced upon those being excluded by privilege which COMPELS them to labor for what defines their very existence which they have no choice in the matter (not something that allows them to continue to exist that is a good or service produced by the labor of another) and violates their absolute right of self-ownership.

therefore it is a JUSTIFIED use of DEFENSIVE force for the OFFENSIVE force that is exclusive use of land backed by force and granted via a title.

Stealing my money against my freewill so that you can have your right gifted to you isn't defensive.

the right of self-ownership isn't "gifted" to the excluded as you are making an assumption that is not supported by fact - the economic rent does not belong to the landowner as the landowner contributed no labor towards it's creation.

All property is albour based. I worked, earned money and bought the propert with said money as a product of my labour. It is now an asset of mine, I'm not required to do anything with it.

no...there is:

a. labor-based property via human exertion
b. law-based property via government granted privilege

you could not have "bought the property" in my scenario because there is no purchase price to land just a requirement to uphold exclusive use via a title backed by force that the unimproved land value (econoic rent) be shared between neighbors in a community.

you can't disambiguate one theory and perport it as fact and entirely dismiss the other.

what other "theory" of rights am I dismissing?

a theory of rights based on choice?

please cite a reference to this theory for all to see an analyze...

[BenTucker]

Humans can produce land. There are hundreds of man made-islands.

Humans didn't produce most of the land, but they can do, where do you stand on the land people have created themselves, can that be privately owned and traded?

and by definition any "land" produced by human labor and thus IMPROVED land value would by definition be outside the scope of my inquiry.

land (the non-labor type) can be privately owned and traded just conditional upon sharing the economic rent.

does the computer on your desk require you to pay a communal charge for not giving people public access to it?

why should they - it is justly owned private property having been produced via human labor...the materials that make up the computer may be another story.

Self ownership is violated when choice is violated, you are preventing people from chosing to entire into voluntary arrangements to trade land as the commodity it is.

because it is not a voluntary contract if all lands are legally claimed and to exist I must occupy land - now is it?

I don't want to own anything 'in common' nor do I wished to be taxed to pay for it, and taxation is theft if you believe there is no legitimate reason to take the money I earned or slavery if you think you do have the authority as then you clearly own me

move to NH and the water is owned in common, you will pay property tax (on land and capital)...requiring the sharing of economic rent PREVENTS a theft and thus PREVENTS the violation of the right of self-ownership of those being excluded by law-based property (privilege).

Are all humans owned 'in common,' Ben?

no - that is why I am advocating the system I do because youobviously believe some of them are (those being excluded).

Ownership of land isn't force Ben; it's a voluntary transaction between the two parties of individuals.

how can it be voluntary if in order for self to exist one must occupy land and all inhabitable land is legally owned?

is prison voluntary because the warden let's the inmates choose which cell to occupy?

You, a third party, not involved in acquiring or selling of the land are now forcing these people to adhere to your view of the world. There is nothing defensive about that.

you have to refute it using logic...

As for the "legal and monetary obligation"; show me the contract I signed obligating me to give you money and bow to the authority of your law? Or are you going to resort to the level of 'social contracts.'

you mean the same sort of contract that one "voluntarily" enters into in having to purchase or be gifted land to occupy?

That was the point Ben; you're taking something that doesn't belong to you.

labor is the basis of ownership as the natural extension of self...what labor did you contribute to justify ownership of the economic rent whereas it is easy to show that the positive externalities of my neighbors' labor creates the economic rent?

Or for it to be a theory to you does it require a long complex manuscript by a dead philosopher?

just a link will do...just like global warming theorists have to submit their evidence to peer review scientific journals - not too much to ask...no?