If you subscribe to the theory of self-ownership, who do you think has it? Do infants have it? Do the mentally ill have it? What criteria determine who has it?
In terms of self-ownership. Any rational animal has it. That may include chimpanzees, certain kinds of birds, and maybe even dolphins if tests are developed well enough to validate cognition. I would say infants and the mentally ill have self-ownership for the same reason as non-human animals (that were rational) would: possession of a degree of rationality. Rationality in this case implies the ability to make plans, even if these plans are wholly absurd in the face of reality. The fact that the given agent can construct such plans and attempt to act on them is proof enough, atleast for me, of rationality (and thus self-ownership).
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
But such self-ownership would not prohibit putting chimpanzees in zoos, correct?
say why it wouldnt
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: say why it wouldnt
well, people with moral sense and knowledge of the moral issue would be prohibited by their own values, from caging chimps.
Individualist: But such self-ownership would not prohibit putting chimpanzees in zoos, correct?
Depends on if we can definitively prove they're rational. Most say they are rational, so maybe yes it's immoral? But that depends on if it would be better if they lived in the wild, where they're hunted for food and trophies. *shrugs*
My perspective on the matter is thus: The degree of self-ownership (and hence rights) varies with the ability to reason of an individual entity. I can see an argument for chimpanzees, dolphins and the like having limited rights, while I cannot see the same for bacteria and fungi. Children and the mentally ill or disabled possess a limited degree of rights in accordance to their capacity to reason.
Yeah, I'd rather wild animals be in the wild, but I do see modern zoos becoming a refugee for near extinct species and zoos have been able to save certain animals from becoming totally extinct and have managed to reintroduce these animals back into the wild, too.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
I would also like to add, rights are a justice issue that humans have factually derived in human societies. Animals not having rights is a category application, thus meaning, people can still care about animals. It's the same as saying what goes in box A are all the toys and what goes in box B are the car parts - category applications.
I partially agree, but I preface my agreement on the fact that I do suppose that when either we encounter an alien species or produce an AI that is rational in some undetermined future, then our conception of rights will shift to incorporate rationality as the more important demarcation for rights. But until then, you're correct.
ladyattis: I partially agree, but I preface my agreement on the fact that I do suppose that when either we encounter an alien species or produce an AI that is rational in some undetermined future, then our conception of rights will shift to incorporate rationality as the more important demarcation for rights. But until then, you're correct.
I agree. I think rights would need to be understood and judgmental decisions based upon rights, thus, making the rational choices to not only understand rights but be able to apply rights is a necessary condition of a potential alien species or AI. If they (anybody) can understand and make judgements accordingly, then they would be able to follow such boundaries. Rights do involve an intellect that can grasp such rights.
My current position: animals besides humans do not have property rights unless they defend themselves. I suppose and example would be: if you attempt to domesticate a chimp, and the chimp pees on your face in resistance, then that chimp has exercised its property rights. Go ahead, destroy my view.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Do infants and the mentally ill have rights equal to all other humans just because they are people?
*bump*
ladyattis: In terms of self-ownership. Any rational animal has it. That may include chimpanzees, certain kinds of birds, and maybe even dolphins if tests are developed well enough to validate cognition. I would say infants and the mentally ill have self-ownership for the same reason as non-human animals (that were rational) would: possession of a degree of rationality. Rationality in this case implies the ability to make plans, even if these plans are wholly absurd in the face of reality. The fact that the given agent can construct such plans and attempt to act on them is proof enough, atleast for me, of rationality (and thus self-ownership).
No, rationality is not enough. The factor in self-ownership is moral agency. Ability to act and understand the consequences of one's actions is the first part, which you have described more or less. The second part is using that ability to not hurt other agents (and their property) who can reciprocate this respect. In other words: to be able to live in society peacefully.
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/
Daniel:Go ahead, destroy my view.
I can't.... I am laughing too much....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Anyone who is strong enough to claim it or anyone in an envrironment accomodating enough to allow it. Either that, or you (and everything else) always have self ownership, you just chose to subject yourself to other peoples will due to you finding favor in it or you not being strong enough to oppose it, take your pick. Outside of that, what ever self ownership your god may have granted you, or whatever self ownership your absolute true and 100% logical "greater good" theory states.
Rules and regulations may vary.
ensuring ownership requires an enforcer, as does ensuring no one owning anything, or any other "one true" system to work. If you want to state you always have self ownership regardless, and you just bend your will due to being overpowered, well, you not being overpowered requires an enforcer too (I think that is self evident due to the situation you would be in). Personally I consider the difference nit picking, unimportant, and academic.
As far as to what your God may state, that is completley up to your religous beliefs, one person can not tell you what that is unless you state your religion. I would also suggest looking into more (insert religon here) based sites, as to learn more about your belief system, and to learn why they use that line of reasoning. That would seem much more appropriate and useful than a political/economic site.
As far as to your what your secular "one true natural greater good system" is , well that depends on your greater good, one person can not tell you what that is unless you state your religion. If you want to give humanity as a whole self ownership (other than enforcing their will) as opposed to the cat struggling and fighting to avoid death/ capture/ protecting their young so be it: your great cause is humanity; learn it, love it, preach for it, die for it..
I tend to take things with a Benjamin Tucker viewpoint. Our lives are pretty much based off contract. If we take this to the most extreme: If I make a contract with myself I own myself, there may be no one to enforce it but you, but that is your problem. If for whatever reason I do not make a contract with myself nor do I have any societal contract (no family, law of custom, etc) to protect me and I got shot; that man put a claim on my life. If in that scenario I did claim my own life via a contract with myself and there was nothing else to enforce it (including family), yes he violated my contract, but who cares? The impracticality of a one man "government" manifests itself right there in that situation, if you believe self ownership is inherent or not. Personally I hope humans would be "better off" and keep from barbarism in an anarchist, individualistic, type environment, but one thing is clear: our claims are nothing without some way to enforce our contracts. The rest is really arguing over semantics.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
Isn't anything reacting to it's environment to survive in a way trying to perserve self ownership? Dumb non rational fish, insects, plants, and mybe even certain bacteria exert territory claims and try to self perserve or at the very least perserve themselves for some "greater good function". I don't understand how "self ownership" or "property ownership" doesn't imply to everything that has the ability to make an effort to self perserve, or anything that tries to exert some territorial claim. I don't think a certain degree of rationality has anything to do with it, just a primitive will to survive and stake a claim on one's life.
Besides that, are you suggesting we set some form of rationalization at an objective level that can be measured? Is there some instant easy cut off in determining what is and what is not rational? Is there any reason why we should objectivly value this cut off?
Is it not more simple/ correct and more clear to say anything trying to survive/ self perserve while reacting to something hostile is displaying "self ownership", anything that does not submit to another being trying to impose it's will is displaying an act of "self ownership" ? Likewise anything trying to make a claim on any environment and makes at least some attempt to defend such a claim is claiming property correct? Once again I don't think a measure of being rational has much to do with it.
Example: If you as a human want to protect a certain plant or bumble bee's "property rights" and at the same time claim that humans have no "property rights" I would certainly think that person would fall below your line of a rational being, yet they are still technically capable of "self ownership" despite being slightly dumber than the cooked bacon I had for breakfast.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap