Is Man Entitled to the Sweat of His Brow?
Do people own themselves? If so, when are they able to take claim of themselves? Before birth, a mother can kill her child without legal repercussions, perhaps rightly so. Who has the right to "oneself"? The child or the mother? From birth to adulthood, a child is legally dependent on their parents and so are a form of property. In societies which allow slavery (which are the majority across all time, keep in mind), someone can spend their entire life as property of another. Clearly the claim to own oneself can not be an absolute one, but perhaps a guideline when dealing with (responsible?) adults.
What is the alternative? On average, each person owns one person, no matter what. For you not to own yourself, someone else must own you. What is the basis of that claim? The oldest and hardest to refute counterargument to self ownership is a simple one: might makes right. If I can force you to do something, you must do it. It is the relationship between government and subject, between master and slave. To have freedom, you must earn it through violence and prove yourself physically capable of being independent. Next is paternalism, which is based on mental or moral superiority. If one person is smarter and more morally good than another, they can and should impose restrictions on the lesser person for their own good. Occasionally, paternalists also claim to help with time-consistency problems, as well. By creating restrictions on other's behavior, they claim to be helping them with self control issues. Collectivists claim that we are owned by those less fortunate than us. The rich and powerful are owned by the weak for moral reasons. Usually this takes the form of an obligation within the boundaries of a nation-state. There are religions which claim God's ownership of man, and so people should live their lives in service to God. Social Contract theories are a form of implied self ownership, since they emphasize the mutually beneficial arrangements of incomplete self ownership.
I believe that self-ownership is far from an absolute and is at most half right. I believe that God can reasonably claim ownership of all life. What does that imply for human affairs? Pretty much nothing except God damn it, you've got to be kind (#4). There's no way to argue with violent coercion except 1) you can argue it's wrong to those doing it 2) You can fight them off or 3) You can exit. Coercion is part of the human experience, and groups who attempt not to do it are quickly killed by those who do. Survival of the fittest ensures that humans must be able to fight. Trying to argue otherwise is naive. Note that I said "able", not do. Like most people, I believe violence is mostly wrong, but capacity for violence is useful in deterring those who would oppress others. My ideal world would be one where capacity for violence is evenly spread.
Beware self interested people who would enslave you! (Slavers? Immoral? How could you think that?!) JFK once said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Well, guess who was president when he said that? Who embodied "your country"? He's saying ask not what I can do for you, but what you can do for me. It's the ultimate selfish statement, interpreted through collectivism as the ultimate selfless statement. One person's selfishness is another's selflessness. Humans able to work together killed those not able. We are genetically programed to respond to powerful leaders asking us to sacrifice ourselves for the tribe. As long as there is war, such impulses are not atavistic, but they can be subverted. Having said that, I do agree with progressive taxation and that smarter, more able members of society should contribute to those less fortunate/hard working. Just be aware that for every Baptist, there's always a Bootlegger.
There are a few arguments in favor of self ownership. Each person knows more about themselves than anyone else. If I spent all my time trying to make someone else happy, and they spent all their time trying to make me happy, we'd both be less happy. Presents tend to be valued less by the person who gets them than things they buy for themselves, not including the sentimental value. We also have more incentive to improve our own condition than others' conditions because we reap the benefits of our own improvement. This is especially true for strangers. No one cares more about a stranger's welfare then their own. People derive meaning from following their own moral compasses and achieving their personal goals. Every bit of non-self ownership, taxation, communal demands on your time, etc. takes scarce resources people have for achieving their personal goals and living life the way they want to. I think coercion is morally wrong in and of itself. People should in general be allowed to pursue their own ends, so long as they don't harm others.
What is the alternative? On average, each person owns one person, no matter what. For you not to own yourself, someone else must own you. What is the basis of that claim? The oldest and hardest to refute counterargument to self ownership is a simple one: might makes right. If I can force you to do something, you must do it. It is the relationship between government and subject, between master and slave. To have freedom, you must earn it through violence and prove yourself physically capable of being independent. Next is paternalism, which is based on mental or moral superiority. If one person is smarter and more morally good than another, they can and should impose restrictions on the lesser person for their own good. Occasionally, paternalists also claim to help with time-consistency problems, as well. By creating restrictions on other's behavior, they claim to be helping them with self control issues. Collectivists claim that we are owned by those less fortunate than us. The rich and powerful are owned by the weak for moral reasons. Usually this takes the form of an obligation within the boundaries of a nation-state. There are religions which claim God's ownership of man, and so people should live their lives in service to God. Social Contract theories are a form of implied self ownership, since they emphasize the mutually beneficial arrangements of incomplete self ownership.
I believe that self-ownership is far from an absolute and is at most half right. I believe that God can reasonably claim ownership of all life. What does that imply for human affairs? Pretty much nothing except God damn it, you've got to be kind (#4). There's no way to argue with violent coercion except 1) you can argue it's wrong to those doing it 2) You can fight them off or 3) You can exit. Coercion is part of the human experience, and groups who attempt not to do it are quickly killed by those who do. Survival of the fittest ensures that humans must be able to fight. Trying to argue otherwise is naive. Note that I said "able", not do. Like most people, I believe violence is mostly wrong, but capacity for violence is useful in deterring those who would oppress others. My ideal world would be one where capacity for violence is evenly spread.
Beware self interested people who would enslave you! (Slavers? Immoral? How could you think that?!) JFK once said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Well, guess who was president when he said that? Who embodied "your country"? He's saying ask not what I can do for you, but what you can do for me. It's the ultimate selfish statement, interpreted through collectivism as the ultimate selfless statement. One person's selfishness is another's selflessness. Humans able to work together killed those not able. We are genetically programed to respond to powerful leaders asking us to sacrifice ourselves for the tribe. As long as there is war, such impulses are not atavistic, but they can be subverted. Having said that, I do agree with progressive taxation and that smarter, more able members of society should contribute to those less fortunate/hard working. Just be aware that for every Baptist, there's always a Bootlegger.
There are a few arguments in favor of self ownership. Each person knows more about themselves than anyone else. If I spent all my time trying to make someone else happy, and they spent all their time trying to make me happy, we'd both be less happy. Presents tend to be valued less by the person who gets them than things they buy for themselves, not including the sentimental value. We also have more incentive to improve our own condition than others' conditions because we reap the benefits of our own improvement. This is especially true for strangers. No one cares more about a stranger's welfare then their own. People derive meaning from following their own moral compasses and achieving their personal goals. Every bit of non-self ownership, taxation, communal demands on your time, etc. takes scarce resources people have for achieving their personal goals and living life the way they want to. I think coercion is morally wrong in and of itself. People should in general be allowed to pursue their own ends, so long as they don't harm others.