Self-Ownership: Demystifying Nebulous Misconceptions
The concerted effort within the "Liberty movement" to divorce the concepts of property and ownership through deconstruction of flawed Lockean property norms is prima-facie evidence of post-modernist infiltration.
Property and ownership are interdependent concepts that are meaningless when separated. By insisting that "self-ownership" means something other than having the highest claim to one's own body in the event of a physical conflict over its use, post-modernists hope to define exclusion, discrimination, and mean words as immoral acts of trespass for which physical retaliation is justified.
By allowing them to present the provocation of physical conflicts with anyone they deem to be a racist, Nazi, xenophobic bigot as acts of defense, the ethical standard they propose renders the concepts of ethics and property -- and even logic itself -- entirely meaningless.
Donny: "Are these the Nazis, Walter?"
Walter: "No, Donny. These men are nihilists, and there's nothing to be afraid of."
Post Modernism is a funny thing. I debated someone a while back who was going around saying there is no objective morality. I tried to explain to him that he was taking words out of context and trying to apply some absolute standard makes words meaningless. When that didn't work I applied his same logic to the idea of objective reality, he then, unironically made a remark that I was a post-modernist, when all I was doing was using his same argumentation against him.
If you take any words out of context, of course you can disprove them, but then you just made the word useless and meaningless.
Like the word 'voluntary', they will tell you that nothing is voluntary, they will tell you that markets are not voluntary because people are forced to participate because they will starve, there fore it is not voluntary. But here they are trying to apply voluntary out of context. Voluntary has to do with human social interaction, that is it's context, it is not something that describes our relation to nature itself, that would be misuse of the word.
I read an article recently that tried to make an argument against freedom of speech, by doing effectively the same thing. Taking the meaning of it and taking it to an extreme high standard (that we can't have real free speech because of money and property rights) and because what he have doesn't meet that standard we need speech to be controlled.