Subnostr

Property is, to me, the exclusive right to prevent others from the use or enjoyment of a *thing*. Up to including using physical violence to protect that thing.

Now, I think someone has a right to use physical violence to defend themselves from physical harm or coercion. But this is only a skin-deep similarity with property, in the sense that, usually property is a transferable thing, which can be exchanged, ownership can be subdivided and structured by contract and such.

Now, if you are just your own property, can you sell the right to yourself to someone else, and lose title over yourself? And if not, why not?

I think self-ownership is just playing with words.

HoloKat 3y ago

I don’t think you can sell the right to yourself - you are merely playing with the definition of selling. To own implies you can do as you please but this is not the case with life. No one can own other life -but can obvious exert control over it.

In terms of non-life property, humans have always had to right to enforce theirs with violence and have done so since the age of dawn. Luckily we got some legal rails in place and violence is no longer necessary but even today that doesn’t stop people from forcefully taking property. Heck, there’s eminent domain.

I guess you could say nothing can truly be owned other than your own body.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Mike Brock 3y ago

Then why insist your body is a form of property at all, if it doesn't have all the same characteristics as ordinary property?

HoloKat 3y ago

I don’t imply it as property by the most accepted definition. Maybe we need other terms - I don’t know. Maybe we need not define it at all.

Mike Brock 3y ago

But that *is* the argument that I'm disputing. That self-ownership is the basis for deriving all other human rights. I don't believe you have to own yourself in order to qualify as a moral agent that has rights. It's much easier to believe those rights are socially-derived. That claim is at least consistent with everything we see in the world, and anthropologic history. Claiming something is metaphysically, and objectively true, when everywhere we look, we find innumerable violations of this, including the fact that nation states exist, which are apparently immoral and illegal under this objective truth, just seems like pounding metaphysical sand to me.

HoloKat 3y ago

It does bring up an interesting question - would AI have rights if it were in human or even robotic form. It wouldn’t have personal agency but you could argue it is morally wrong to abuse AI / robots. In that sense you’re be right that rights are socially derived.