The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Possible exception to self ownership axiom

rated by 0 users
This post has 5 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 388
Points 7,405
MatthewWilliam Posted: Wed, Jul 23 2008 1:59 PM

A soon-to-be lawyer friend of mine tells me that self-ownership is a misconception. We only have what the law calls 'self-autonomy'. I proved to him that this is self-ownership in all but name, as the same laws that protect property are the same that protect people. What we call 'malicious damage to property' is called 'assault' when applied to people. 'Kidnapping' is analogous to 'theft'. 'Trespassing' applies to both people and objects. He conceded there was a 'fine line' between self-ownership and self-autonomy.

We then agreed on the definition of 'ownership' as full control of the object in question. However he claimed that there are persons who can't exercise 'full control' of themselves, like the mentally ill, dementia patients and the incontinent, therefore they don't own themselves.

Lawyers.

   Irish Liberty Forum 

"The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property" -Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,654
Points 56,830
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

No, they do own themselves - however, like children, a custodian might be appointed to aid them.

-Jon

The chill that you feel is the herald of your doom! Irenicus' Diaries.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 826
Points 13,480
MacFall replied on Wed, Jul 23 2008 5:49 PM

Jon Irenicus:

No, they do own themselves - however, like children, a custodian might be appointed to aid them.

-Jon

Knowing lawyers (in particular, one on this forum), he would object to that on the principle that it doesn't involve the invocation of positive law words written down on paper by a government violent gang of thugs.

Pro Christo et Libertate integre!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 1,495
Points 23,810

Jon Irenicus:

No, they do own themselves - however, like children, a custodian might be appointed to aid them.

-Jon

 

Im wary of the word appointed, guardianship would be homesteaded, thus self-appointed.

Homesteading is applicable here because it prevents someone from holding the claim solely to exclude others from exercising it. (The same problem that homesteading prevents in land ownership)

Peace
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,654
Points 56,830
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Yeah, good point.

-Jon

The chill that you feel is the herald of your doom! Irenicus' Diaries.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 3
Points 60

What if you owned an animal you could not control? Even if you had it in a cage you cannot 'fully control' its actions. Does that mean you don't own the animal?

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (6 items) | RSS

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