What Is At The Root of Self-Ownership?
"What is at the root of self-ownership?"
Self-ownership is the assertion that one is responsible for one's actions and the direct consequences of one's actions. This is a both a tautological redundancy and a self-evident statement. If one is to rationally function in the real world one must inherently accept the idea of self-ownership. If I strangle a hobo, it is commonly understood that I get punished and not my hands, as I own my hands and all the actions they perform. Moreover I also must own the death of the hobo as that is the direct result of my actions.
To state "I do not own myself" is to be committing a performative contradiction. One must first claim self-ownership in order to then claim one rejects self-ownership. Furthermore, if one claims to reject self-ownership or that humans do not possess it, who does? That is, who is responsible for the actions of immoral and wicked actions if not the individuals who are committing the actions? God, Mother Nature, the collective, Shiva, Buddha, Jesus Christ? Someone must be held accountable for evil. Diffusion of responsibility is one of the greatest scourges to plague humanity and has allowed for the most horrific atrocities. When everyone is to blame, no one is to blame. The assumption of individual self-ownership is the foundation of a civilized society.
"Whose property is my body? Probably mine. I so regard it. If I experiment with it, who must be answerable? I, not the State. If I choose injudiciously, does the State die? Oh, no." Mark Twain
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Danilo Cuellar. Follow me at Peaceful Anarchism. I also run the Peaceful Anarchism Facebook page and produce many YouTube videos. You can support and donate to my work through Patreon or PayPal. I’m a practitioner of Eastern Healing arts with degrees in Acupuncture and Chinese medicinal herbs, I have always questioned the status quo, a path which led me to peaceful anarchism. Through my journey, I have worn many hats, that of a classical pianist, avid chess player, philosopher, comedian, and now father of two little anarchists. My wife brands me as a Cultural Critic, but I am simply following my thirst for knowledge and passion for writing.
Beautiful article :) This is an opinion I haven't heard of before! I've heard people say that god owns them, But never heard of someone who gives up their ownership completely.
@linny Yes another strange statement is when someone says "I voluntarily chose to be a slave to someone else." This is not logically consistent either. One must first claim self-ownership to then give oneself to another person entirely. A true slave is someone who is involuntarily coerced into that position of servitude against their will. One cannot be robbed, assaulted, raped, or murdered voluntarily. These are all performative contradictions.
Self-ownership should be a continuation of all other viewpoints on ownership. How we view the ownership of a house or a car needs to be applicable in the same way we own ourselves.
Not contradicting anything that you've written, more like I'm adding to it. Like when you say self-ownership is about being responsible for our actions, the same is true about being responsible for a house or a car. Ownership of any property is accomplished by tracing who is responsible for something.
Great comment :)
@aletoledo Well said. I think I understand where you're coming from. You remind me of a debate I conducted with a Christian Distributist. At one point he was arguing the idea of self-ownership. His assertion was that we cannot own ourselves in the same way we own a chair or a car because we are separate from the chair and car. We are not the chair and car. Contrariwise we cannot separate our mind from our body. It's kind of a semantic argument. It's an interesting position to take but it doesn't really alter my understanding of self-ownership. Here's part 2 of the debate in case your interested in hearing it fleshed out. Cheers! :-)
I was actually just working on a post on this topic, but I take it from another angle. I think they'll compliment one another well. Whenever we examine a philosophical concept, we have the concept itself to explore (which you've done here) and then two directions to explore from it: forward and back, or "extrapolation" and "derivation". When we look at what it means to own something, specifically self, I think it's crucial to understand both directions. So, from what do we derive self ownership? Why do only you own you? Because you are the only one that inhabits you. You exist in time (self-evident), and you are the only one who inhabits this existence. This informs the concept of self-ownership greatly and gives foundation to the notion that you are responsible for this existence and what you do with it.
Great post, Danilo. :-)
@voluntaryelle Well said! I entirely agree! Cheers! :-)
Cool post. Novel idea. Food for thought.
@blue1950 Thank you for reading. Cheers! :-)