Self Ownership

[The following post is by Redmond Weissenberger, Managing Editor of the Dollar Vigilante and Director of the Mises institute of Canada]

"...the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person."

Murray Rothbard, 1982.

Having absolute jurisdiction over his own body gives the right to abuse his body and as a result someone else (The State) ends up footing his medical bills. The human race is interdependent with each other and individual freedom was and never in reality absolute. Freedom carries responsibilities and thus are monitored for the greater good of humanity. Corrupt governance and policies adopted by the post WW2 Rulers of USA have caused death and economic destruction to its people and beyond. Perhaps one should look for the root cause for such a behaviour. Liberalness might work in an Utopian society where we are are all perfect Human beings. http://hussain-fahmy.blogspot.com/2012/01/shariah-islamic-law.html

February 29, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

"Having absolute jurisdiction over his own body gives the right to abuse his body and as a result someone else (The State) ends up footing his medical bills."

Incorrect.
A person having his own body as an absolute property certainly can abuse his own body. This has nothing to do with others. Let me break it into 2 commonly believed myths regarding Hussain's statement:

1. A person under influence of drugs can commit a crime of aggression against someone else's body or property. True? Yes. Tell me how is this different from a person not under influence of drugs that commits the same? As you might know, the government enforcement officers TYPICALLY commit crimes of aggression against someone else's body and property while not being under influence of drugs. So, there, is the proof that it is incorrect to assume that the influence of drugs has anything to do with crime. Secondly, on this same point, a crime is a crime, and a person committing it had decided "premeditated" to commit it, whether on drugs or not, and shall be dealt with in exactly the same way, do you object?

2. A person abusing his own body ends up consuming the state resources for two reasons and no others:

a - because that person was VIOLENTLY FORCED BY THE STATE to contribute to the state resources. Are you saying that while being VIOLENTLY FORCED BY THE STATE to contribute, he has no right to consume them back? Do you personally save for retirement with an intent to not spend it sometime?

b - because the state decides to spend it's resources to "help" this person who had abused his body. This decision to waste resources is a VOLUNTARY one, a person in trouble DOES NOT FORCE the state to do anything about it.

February 29, 2012 | mava

@ Hussain:

Some quick thoughts:

"Having absolute jurisdiction over his own body gives the right to abuse his body and as a result someone else (The State) ends up footing his medical bills."

Since the state produces nothing of value, it can foot no bill without stealing money from those who actually do produce something of value--i.e., the entrepreneur, tradesman, farmer, artisan, etc. If someone wishes to abuse their own body, that is their business--not yours or mine, but neither should we be forced to pay for the consequences.

"The human race is interdependent with each other and individual freedom was and never in reality absolute."

"[I]nterdependent" is a statist's dream-word, connoting an infinite number of totally imaginary relationships, to all of which can be attached an infinite number of equally imaginary responsibilities. Instead, try thinking in terms of voluntary interaction. The only reason individual freedom isn't "absolute" (yet) is that the state got the jump on us.

"Freedom carries responsibilities and thus are monitored for the greater good of humanity."

The only "responsibility" of freedom is not to infringe on the freedom(s) of others, which would also automatically secure "the greater good of humanity," Or, as the Spanish (language) saying goes: Vive tu vida, y no la mia! (Yes, I know the punctuation isn't right.)

February 29, 2012 | Jaybird

@mava – Please apply the power of Critical Thinking. My point is: if a person in his right Mind (Sane) commits a crime on himself or others, they are equally punishable by law. Are you disputing this? If you are then we have a serious issue with our belief system. If you mean and believe paying Taxes is a VIOLENTLY FORCED BY THE STATE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE STATE REVENUES then as human beings we have the birth right to migrate to a safer zone as we all did many years ago. Most Tax payers pay their hard earned money as taxes for the common good, to support the needy, the destitute and a correctional institution to the self abuser. Now taxes are collected to wage War. As for your grievance with the so called elected Democratic Government please read my statement - Corrupt governance and policies adopted by the post WW2 Rulers of USA have caused death and economic destruction to its people and beyond. Wonder why no comments on this statement. 

I have all the right to spend my saving for retirement on anything I please as long as I do not harm myself or anybody else and in compliance with the tenets of my belief system. 
If your intention behind paying taxes is to secure the welfare of the self abuser. By promoting this ideology you are opening a can of worms. Perhaps you should look at the birth place of Democracy. (Greece) The US being the richest country in the World does not have the resources to HELP the millions of homeless who have no opportunities because their Elected Governments chose to spend Trillions on Death and Destruction in faraway lands, let alone for those who abuse themselves. We should refrain from wasting valuable resources and direct all available resources to those who believe that self abusing is COOL.

March 1, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

@Jaybird – As for the state produces nothing of value defers from country to country. Mine produces and spends it on the welfare of its citizens. Let me get this right, what you are stating is that the self abuser has the right to destroy himself with no consequence to us as long as we do not pay. What about our conscience? Can we watch a human being destroy himself even if it is his choice. My conscience will bother me a great deal for the sake of humanity. Don’t you think that we should make every effort to prevent that rather than promote. False belief leads to False conclusions. We have approximately 50 to 70 Trillion cells in our body. They are not a Statist Dream-Work. They co-operate and communicate to keep us fit and healthy. Individual Freedom is a Pipe Dream and no state can jump on to absolute Rule, Focus on Human Rights.

March 1, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

@ Hussain Fahmy

There are several problems that I have with your statements.

First, is the one where you put forward that I should force you to not harm yourself, because if you do, then I will suffer, in my conscience, for the sake of humanity.

I am not very clear on who do I care about, you or myself? If I my conscience is suffering by seeing you harming yourself, then it is clear that I only care about myself. If I cared for you, then I should feel happiness instead, seeing you doing self harm, because this is what you want to do.

The way I understand caring for someone, is to see to it that that someone does what he wants, not what is good for him. It may or may not be the thing that harms him. As long as it is what he wants, I am happy.

Why do I say this? Because, my friend, you are tossing objective and subjective together. These are separate things, and the distinction has been put forth by many Austrians. Before we can find who is right or wrong about this, you should let me know if you reject the distinction between objective and subjective or not. If you new to this, just see further on "objectivism". Also, Gary North (Religious writer, but in this case the writing is completely secular) has a great short paper on Price Stability, which explains objective vs. subjective through economic devices.

Now, let me assume for a second that you are familiar with the distinction, and wholly reject it. In this case, I can not continue talking to you, because we can not understand each other. For instance, I believe that I always shall let the other person to make choices, because the choices are subjective, and there is no way for me to make them. You, on the other hand, would say that some choices you can make for me, because you know no such distinction. Thus, we can not agree, and guess what, we will have to each mind our own business, or go to war against each other.

Each minding our own business to keep the peace, is, incidentally, the objectivistic outcome. Now, you have mentioned Islam. I have to say that I do not know much about Islam, so whatever I say below, do not take it as an offence, but as a mistake.

It seems to me, that Islam rejects objectivism. As a consequence, it has to want war. Think about it. If you are unable to trust me that doing something that you think is bad for me, is actually good for me, then you must stop me. And I do not want to be stopped, so you must use force. Since you use force, I will have to respond with force, - I have no other choice. You might say, yes I do have the choice, just do what you want me to do. But, will you also do what I want you to do? No, you will not, because it will not be what you think is good for yourself. Now, we are at the dead end. How are we going to decide who knows best? You will say: let us read from the holy book, and whatever it says on the subject, must be true, and we both shall accept it. But, my friend, you are a follower of Allah (PBUH) and Mohamed who was his prophet, true, but I am not of your religion. I have my own views on things that are in your holy book. And thus, we can not have one single judge. So, we are back to war. Is the war good for you? I know it is not good for me. I do not want to fight to make you do what I think is right. I only want to fight to stop you making me do what you think is right. And, I suspect, you think the same thing. Because of this reasoning, we can agree that what is really good for both of us, is not to make war, and allow each of us to do what he believes is right.

Come full circle and back to an objective truth: It is good for both of us to mind our own business. As you can see, once an objectivist, always an objectivist. Pretty much as with Islam (or so I been told).

What do you say?

March 2, 2012 | mava

Hussain,

Thanks for your followup.  Some further thoughts:

"As for the state produc[ing] nothing of value[, this] d[if]fers from country to country. Mine produces and spends it on the welfare of its citizens."

I fear we are using different definitions of "the state."  The definition I prefer is Murray Rothbard's "a gang of thieves writ large."  (Cf. St. Augustine, et al.  You Austrian scholars feel free to correct!)  A state may appear to "produce" something of value, though I cannot imagine what or how, since, at least theoretically, the only capital a state "owns" it acquired from someone else--i.e., a "citizen" and that "from the barrel of a gun."  Rothbard (following, I believe, Etienne de la Boetie) also speaks of the state as "a monopoly on the use of force in a given territory," and, if you doubt this definition, go ahead and try to compete with your friendly local SWAT team.  Moreover, as you say, your state "spends [what you allege it produces] on the welfare of its citizens"; therefore, your state is by definition a "welfare state," which leads to the problem with your next point(s):   

"Let me get this right, what you are stating is that the self abuser has the right to destroy himself with no consequence to us as long as we do not pay.  What about our conscience? Can we watch a human being destroy himself even if it is his choice. My conscience will bother me a great deal for the sake of humanity. Don’t you think that we should make every effort to prevent that rather than promote."

Our God-given natural rights encompass our life, liberty, and property, which includes our individual body and what we choose to do or not do to/with that body.  I realize that last clause may strike some as odd, though it shouldn't when properly understood.  The basic idea is that just as no one has (or should have) the right to take your life or liberty from you, neither has anyone the right (without your permission) to do anything with your property--including those "50 to 70 Trillion cells" between a homey's hoodie and the soles of his Timberlands.  If he wants to tattoo his armpits or staple his buttocks shut, let him knock himself out.  Again, it's no business of mine, not because I think it's "good" and not because I want to "promote" that sort of thing and not because I lack a conscience.  If the guy were later to accost me from a park bench saying, "Hey, Dude, help me out, I stapled my buttocks shut!" of course, my conscience would dictate that I call him an ambulance, but only because he asked me to help him and not because I wish to save him, in particular, or "humanity" in general.  Whatever our moral or religious persuasion, on a purely pragmatic level, shouldn't we let live simply because we want others to let us live too?  But in any case, you're darned right, I'm not willing to pay a penny of it.

As for someone's choosing to "destroy himself," the same approach applies.  This doesn't mean you wouldn't try to talk him out of it--e.g., A hot babe gives your buddy the cold shoulder and he  falls into a deep funk, so you say: "C'mon, Bro', there's plenty good fish in the sea--let's go down to the strip club!"  Or, as a friend once advised, "Look, Man, no chick is worth this!"  ('Took his advice to heart and, hey, still got her in the end!)  But, by not "preventing" him--i.e., by not intervening in what has to be the most important decision in a person's life--"to be or not to be" (See Hamlet, Act III)--you are allowing that person to exercise his free will, which is the sine qua non of natural rights.

"False belief leads to False conclusions."

You're scarin' me here, Hussain . . .  Just like the word "humanity" gives me the willies.  Can you really believe this stuff?  A heckuvalotta bad's been done in the name of "belief" and "humanity."  One often hears these slippery kinds of words dripping off the forked tongues of "our leaders," usually right around the time they are preparing to use yet more violence to quell ongoing violence that they themselves incited in the first place.  Beware "humanity," Hussain, especially when "crimes" are being committed "against" it!  Ever hearda Libya or Syria?  Or maybe Eye-WRECK or Af-GONE-istan?  

As for "[f]alse belief lead[ing] to false conclusions," since anything we might believe, as opposed to knowing through reason, depends on faith, which is unproveable (at least in this existence), it follows that all conclusions based on belief (alone) will be more or less false. Your statement would make more sense as follows: False premises lead to false conclusions. Remember: ¡Vive tu vida, y no la mia!  ("Live your life, not mine."  But is sounds more beautiful in Spanish.)

And now, I reascend to my normal state of snarkily brooding cynicism.  Until next time, Selam!    

"We have approximately 50 to 70 Trillion cells in our body."

Yes, but a great blue whale's probably got quadrillions.  Not to mention, his "manly hydraulics" are twice as long as your car. What's more, he can hear more acutely than you can think. So? (Incidentally, I do believe that the cetaceans and pinnipeds, in general (perhaps along with all the "great fishes?"), "should be protected," and I applaud whenever Sea Shepherd scores against the Japanese or other whale-hunters, er, "researchers." I imagine a sort of "jubilee" year or decade for the seas, especially after Fukushima. It (i.e., a fishing moratorium) has worked for various species such as the striped bass. And, yes, I freely admit, this reveals an inconsistency in my "anarcho-capitalist" thinking. DIscussion anyone? Jeff must surely have an opinion on this, hailing as he does from marine-resource-rich Canada.)

"They are not a Statist Dream-Work."

Who said they were?

"They co-operate and communicate to keep us fit and healthy."

Which ain't easy for those of us who hate to work up a sweat!  (Sorry, Hussain, my morning coffee's done wore off . . .)

"Individual Freedom is a Pipe Dream and no state can jump on to absolute Rule, Focus on Human Rights."

"Individual Freedom" may be a "Pipe Dream" for those afraid to light up. By definition, the state's goal is "absolute rule." And, once again, the only "Human Rights" are (or should be) our natural rights--i.e., to life, liberty, and property.  All the other supposed "rights" are for sale--cheap!--to the lowest . . .

common . . .

denominator. FADE TO THE SOUND OF BLEATING SHEEP . . . . 

March 3, 2012 | Jaybird

@mava - A healthy discussion is based on a dialogue with facts and not assumptions. First I never used the words FORCE and ISLAM. This is a serious defective assumption. If you are thinking of diverting this discussion: Sorry. Let’s stick to having absolute jurisdiction over his own body gives the right to abuse his body and as a result someone else (The State) ends up footing his medical bills.

Seeing someone doing self harm brings you happiness. So if you see someone harming him/her self, it will make you happy as long as that is what they want. This is a self preserving belief. ME, I. Is this applicable to a Stanger like me or someone you deeply care? There is a difference between what someone wants and what’s good for them. Sometimes, what we want may not be good for us. I am sure you have heard of “Life’s full of Choices”.

I personally do not believe that I have the right to make choices for anyone. However, my belief is that if someone does make an incorrect choice which will harm them: only then, I have an obligation to point out the fact of its evil consequences. It’s entirely up the person to make his choices, but I will never ENCOURAGE it by PROMOTING it. For example, if you have someone who you care deeply is self abusing with drugs and you see them destroying their life in front of your very eyes and if YOU can live with the CONSCIENCE that’s OK because that is what that person really wants. Then my dear friend you have made a choice you will have to live by it. 

CONSCIENCE IS A SPIRITUAL QUALITY THAT BIDS MAN GOOD ATTITUDE AND THOUGHT AND HELPS HIM THINK STRAIGHT AND TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG. ONE OF THE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF CONSCIENCE IS THAT IT IS COMMON TO MOST PEOPLE. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT FEELS RIGHT TO THE CONSCIENCE OF A MAN ALSO FEELS RIGHT TO THE CONSCIENCE OF MOST OTHERS PROVIDED THAT THE SAME CONDITIONS PREVAIL. THE CONSCIENCE OF ONE MAN NEVER FALLS OUT WITH THAT OF ANOTHER. THE REASON LIES IN THE SOURCE OF CONSCIENCE. 

In conclusion, I do not agree with what you say about a self abuser but you have the right to believe and make choices as you wish. This discussion is solely to enlighten the effects of promoting an EVIL act which of course you have the freedom to label or give it a another meaning as you please. You don’t have to believe that WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS until that day arrives.

March 3, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

Alright, Hussain.

So, I want to use drugs. My conscience tells me this is the right thing to do. Since conscience of all men, according to you must tell them the same thing provided the circumstances are the same, then explain to me how you came to conclusion that I am harming my body rather than helping it. Are you capable of examining my consciousness without trying to put yourself in the same circumstances first?

Main question: how do you know what is right for me?

March 3, 2012 | mava

@Jaybird - Your statements reminds me of Proof by Verbosity. Warning: Application of Excessive knowledge takes us nowhere. Finally, a statement to reflect on or you could call it a shocking statement - Every soul will taste of death. And we will be paid on the Day of Resurrection only that which we have fairly earned. Whoso is removed from the Fire and is made to enter paradise, he indeed is triumphant. The life of this world is but comfort of illusion. Believe or Not.

March 4, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

@mava - Conveniently you have replaced CONDITIONS with CIRCUMSTANCES. Bravo. Your statement: want to use drugs and your conscience says it is the right thing to do is remarkable. A conversation is to learn from each other not to win over the point of view at all cost. We have made our positions of each other very clear. We part company with; to you is your way and to me is my way. Ponder very hard on this - When truth is hurtled against falsehood, falsehood perishes, for falsehood, by its nature bound to perish. I know you have the conscious capacity to prove this wrong however, I wonder if you could convince your subconscious Mind.

March 4, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

Sorry, I did not mean to replace it. This was how I understood "conditions" in the context of your post.

I am now restating my question, with your correction, and wait for your answer.

Alright, Hussain.

So, I want to use drugs. My conscience tells me this is the right thing to do. Since conscience of all men, according to you must tell them the same thing provided the CONDITIONS are the same, then explain to me how you came to conclusion that I am harming my body rather than helping it. Are you capable of examining my consciousness without trying to put yourself in the same CONDITIONS first?

Main question: how do you know what is right for me?

Where my question is going: it is fair for me to ask this, since you are stating that I have no freedom to harm my body, and therefore you then must know how to tell when I am harming it. If you do not know, then you can not apply the restriction to my freedom.

March 4, 2012 | mava

@mava – Our CONDITIONS are not the same. I chose to live my life in accordance with the Last Testament. I believe we have the freedom to harm ourselves as long as we are prepared to face the consequences. My position is to promote the good in the form of advice to those who I care. At times this could also be to a total stranger like you. No compulsion or force applied. Now we could pick on the nitty gritty of what is good and beneficial to the human kind and take a philosophical route for the sake of winning. Sometimes, a win is not the correct solution. My intention was to respond with my belief on the subject as you did with yours. I like to keep Life simple and stupid. I feel about your affirmation – “So, I want to use drugs. My conscience tells me this is the right thing to do” – If I could switch off my emotions I will not find any harm with your affirmations. Obviously we follow different belief systems and what makes it interesting is we can discuss openly and agree to disagree peacefully and by this process we sow the seed to change whenever our hearts open up. End of the day what counts is happiness. If you are happy with your affirmations, SO BE IT. Thanks and my sincere respects for being a good debater.

March 5, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

Rev. Hussain,

The extra words were deemed necessary because you didn't appear to get "vive tu vida . . ."

As for what you characterize as "debate," your contribution is more like a sermon from a would-be bully pulpit.

And speaking of "paradise," TDV has a new overnight passport program you might want to look into.

Cheers!

March 5, 2012 | Jaybird

@ Hussain,

Yes, I too, treasure people around me who can talk peacefully, and are willing to allow me to do my own things. I am glad we have come to agreement.

The reason I argued was that it appeared to me for a second that you would want to stop me from harming myself, even if it was my intention.

My point was, that the road to peace with everyone is not to insist that others follow your beliefs. We can, and may-be should offer our assistance, but we can never insist on it. This is the core of peace.

As to the state taking a loss, I am glad it does, and I am guiding my life in such a way as to inflict biggest losses possible. This is because the state INSISTS on enslaving me "for my own good", leaving me no exit, nor room to stay away from it's goodness. Please, contrast this to my absolute indifference towards any private charity for example. Since they don't force me, I can ignore them and we both, I and them, remain in peace.

Right now, there is a war heating up against the so-called "Tax Heavens". Huge, obsessive - abusive states do not like the fact that some people prefer to escape the "inevitable paradise" that those states are building. My forecast is as follows: If they succeed and there is no more room left, they they are going to start paying big time, because all those cornered people will too try and succeed in inflicting the biggest financial damage possible.

March 5, 2012 | mava

@mava - I was fortunate to have got advice; after sifting the good from the bad to the best of my knowledge through the process of trial and error: the application has resulted in tremendous happiness. I try to impart advice that works without any coercion, force or in expectation of any reward. My Motto: I expect to pass through life but once. If therefore, there be any kindness I can show, or any good thing I can do to any fellow being, let me do it now, and not defer or neglect it, as I shall not pass this way again.

Road to Peace can be achieved from different routes depending on someone’s belief and the environment that person is bought up. What works for me will not necessarily work for someone else. The man with the money consciousness is constantly attracting money. The man with the poverty consciousness is constantly attracting poverty. Both fulfil the exact conditions by thought, word, and deed that make the path for the thing of which they are conscious, come to them.

In my long experience, fighting a State system never paid any dividends. Rather it drains ones resources and creates depression/anxiety. So rather than inflicting loss to the State/Country; move to a friendlier location and focus with faith and abilities to generate wealth rather than be dependent on any State/Country. Yes, some countries have misused public funds and have linked themselves to the force of evil. Their absolute power will not last long. It puzzles me how these people get voted in through the Democratic process. I do not agree with Senator Ron Paul on some issues; however he is probably the only POTUS candidate who could bring some solutions to the economic woes. Then again he does not stand a chance of winning as long as the Zionists Masters/Bankers have control over the manipulation of governance.

Salaam in my lingo means, Peace.

March 6, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy