Posted on 01/13/2005 6:12:08 PM PST by NMC EXP
One of my favorite quotations comes from Thomas Pynchon: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don´t have to worry about answers." Our world is in the mess it is in today because most of us have internalized the fine art of asking the wrong questions.
Contrary to the thinking that would have us believe that the conflict, violence, tyranny, and destructiveness that permeates modern society is the result of "bad" or "hateful" people, disparities in wealth, or lack of education, all of our social problems are the direct consequence of a general failure to respect the inviolability of one another´s property interests!
I begin my Property classes with the question: "do you own yourself?" Most of my students eagerly nod their heads in the affirmative, until I warn them that, by the time we finish examining this question at the end of the year, they will find their answer most troubling, whatever it may be today. "If you do own yourself, then why do you allow the state to control your life and other property interests? And if you answer that you do not own yourself, then what possible objection can you raise to anything that the state may do to you?" We then proceed to an examination of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.
The question of whether Dred Scott was a self-owning individual, or the property of another, is the same question at the core of the debate on abortion. Is the fetus a self-owning person, or an extension of the property boundaries of the mother? The same property analysis can be used to distinguish "victimizing" from "victimless" crimes: murder, rape, arson, burglary, battery, theft, and the like, are victimizing crimes because someone´s property boundaries were violated. In a victimless crime, by contrast, no trespass to a property interest occurs. If one pursues the substance of the "issues" that make up political and legal debates today, one always finds a property question at stake: is person "x" entitled to make decisions over what is his, or will the state restrain his decision-making in some way? Regulating what people can and cannot put into their bodies, or how they are to conduct their business or social activities, or how they are to educate their children, are all centered around property questions.
"Property" is not simply some social invention, like Emily Post´s guide to etiquette, but a way of describing conditions that are essential to all living things. Every living thing must occupy space and consume energy from outside itself if it is to survive, and it must do so to the exclusion of all other living things on the planet. I didn´t dream this up. My thinking was not consulted before the life system developed. The world was operating on the property principle when I arrived and, like the rest of us, I had to work out my answers to that most fundamental, pragmatic of all social questions: who gets to make decisions about what? The essence of "ownership" is to be found in control: who gets to be the ultimate decision maker about people and "things" in the world?
Observe the rest of nature: trees, birds, fish, plants, other mammals, bacteria, all stake out claims to space and sources of energy in the world, and will defend such claims against intruders, particularly members of their own species. This is not because they are mean-spirited or uncooperative: quite the contrary, many of us have discovered that cooperation is a great way of increasing the availability of the energy we need to live well. We have found out that, if we will respect the property claims of one another and work together, each of us can enjoy more property in our lives than if we try to function independently of one another. Such a discovery has permitted us to create economic systems.
There is no way that I could have produced, by myself, the computer upon which I am writing this article. Had I devoted my entire life to the undertaking, I would have been unable even to have conceived of its technology. Many other men and women, equally unable to have undertaken the task by themselves, cooperated without even knowing one another in its creation. Lest you think that my writing would have to have been accomplished through the use of a pencil, think again: I would also have been unable to produce a pencil on my own, as Leonard Read once illustrated in a wonderful, brief essay.
Such cooperative undertakings have been possible because of a truth acknowledged by students of marketplace economic systems, particularly the Austrians about human nature: each of us acts only in anticipation of being better off afterwards as a result of our actions. Toward whatever ends we choose to act, and such ends are constantly rearranging their priorities within us, their satisfaction is always expressed in terms inextricably tied to decision making over something one owns (or seeks to own). Whether I wish to acquire some item of wealth, or to give it away; whether I choose to write some great novel or paint some wondrous work of art; or whether I just wish to lie around and look at flowers, each such act is premised on the fact that we cannot act in the world without doing so through property interests. It is in anticipation of being able to more fully express our sense of what is important to us, both materially and spiritually, that we cooperate with one another.
"Property" also provides a means for maximizing both individual liberty and peace in society. For once we identify who the owner of some item of property is, that person´s will is inviolate as to such property interest. He or she can do what they choose with respect to what is theirs. If I own a barn, I can set fire to it should I so choose. If I must first get another´s permission, such other person is the owner. Individual liberty means that my decision making is immune from the coercion of others, and coercion is always expressed in terms of property trespasses.
At the same time, the property principle limits the scope of my decision making by confining it to that which is mine to control. This is why problems such as industrial "pollution" are usually misconceived, reflecting the truth of Pynchon´s earlier quote. A factory owner who fails to confine the unwanted byproducts of his activities to his own land, is not behaving as a property owner, but as a trespasser. Economists have an apt phrase for this: socializing the costs. He is behaving like any other collectivist, choosing to extend his decision making over the property of others!
But not all of us choose to pursue our self-interests through cooperation with others. Cooperation can exist only when our relationships with others are on a voluntary basis which, in turn, requires a mutual respect for the inviolability of one another´s property boundaries. Those who seek to advance their interests in non-cooperative ways, create another system: politics. If you can manage to drag your mind away from the drivel placed there by your high school civics class teacher, and look at political systems in terms of what they in fact do, you will discover this: every such system is founded upon a disrespect for privately owned property! All political systems are collectivist in nature, for each presumes a rightful authority to violate the will, including confiscation, of property owners. One can no more conceive of "politics" without "theft" than of "war" without "violence."
Every political system is defined in terms of how property is to be controlled in a given society. In communist systems, the state confiscates all the means of production. In less-ambitious socialist systems, the state confiscates the more important means of production (e.g., railroads, communications, steel mills, etc.). Under fascism, "title" to property remains in private hands, but "control" over such property is exercised by the state. Thus, fascism has given us state regulatory systems, in which property owners, be they farmers, homeowners, or businesses, have the illusion of owning what they believe to be "theirs," while the state increasingly exercises the real ownership authority (i.e., control). In welfare state systems, the state confiscates part of the income of individuals and redistributes it to others.
As stated earlier, property is an existential fact. Whatever the society in which we live, someone will make determinations as to who will live where, what resources can be consumed by whom (and when), and how such property will be controlled. Such decisions can either be made by individual property owners, over what is theirs to control, or by the state presuming the authority to control the lives of each of us. When such decisions are made by the state, it is claiming ownership over our lives.
It is at this point that I let the students in on the secret the political establishment would prefer not to have revealed: the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did not end slavery, but only nationalized it! That most Americans acquiesce in such political arrangements, and take great offense should anyone dare to explain their implications, has led me to the conclusion that America may be the last of the collectivist societies to wither away. Most Americans, sad to say, seem unprepared to deny the state´s authority to direct their lives and property as political officials see fit. The reason for this, as my first-day question to students is designed to elicit, is that most of us refuse to insist upon self-ownership.
We may, of course, choose to accept our role as state-owned chattels, particularly if we are well-treated by our masters. We may be so conditioned in our obeisance that, like cattle entering the slaughterhouse, we may pause to lick the hand of the butcher out of gratitude for having been well cared for. On the other hand, we may decide to reclaim our self-ownership by taking back the control over our lives that we have long since abandoned.
Perhaps the insanity of our social destructiveness, including the Bush Administration´s deranged declaration of a permanent war against the rest of the world, will bring about an examination of alternative ways of living together in conditions of peace and liberty. Our political systems cannot bring about such harmonious and life-sustaining ways because they are premised on a rejection of the principle of self-ownership. In a society of self-owning individuals, there would be no place for politicians, bureaucrats, and other state functionaries. Like the rest of us, they would have to confine their lives to minding their own business, and deriving whatever benefit they could from persons who chose to cooperate with them.
There is one person who can restore you to a state of self-ownership, however, and that person is you. To do so, you need only assert your claim, not as some empty gesture, but in full understanding of the existential meaning of such a claim, including the willingness to take full control of and responsibility for your life. While your claim will likely evoke cries of contempt from many, you may also find yourself energized by a life force that permeates all of nature; an élan vital that reminds us that life manifests itself only through individuals, and not as collective monstrosities; that life belongs to the living, not to the state or any other abstraction.
A.J. Nock said it first: There are two ways to make a living. By economic means or by political means.
"Inasmuch as it can be said that a man has a right to his property, it can also be said that he has a property in his rights."
If you do not own your body, who does? We are each sovereign individuals.
Nice quote.
The state?
The Selective Service System would agree.
I know personally of a case in NC where social services told a father that "the state OWNS your child". He had to be phycically restrained by his friends after that statement was made.
Roger that - still have my card somewhere.
I know what you mean. The govt has some Latin legal term for that claim of ownership.
I am not my own. I was bought with a price.
Too many people are happy houseslaves.
Voluntarily is a key word.
Is this the future of the left? Now that they have discovered they can no longer sell the idea of redistributionist class warefare?
The left isn't so much in love with one particular ideology. They merely use an ideology as a tool to emotionally attract followers that will give them the power they want. They've swindled the poor for 75 years with their promises. Now it's looking like they may try to swindle people with a libertarian bent (which is most of us, whether we admit it or not).
I hate to defend government, but there is an appropriate amount of government that will provide the most favorable and wealthy of living conditions.
The author touched on this by claiming that if we will respect the property claims of one another and work together, each of us can enjoy more property in our lives than if we try to function independently of one another. Such a discovery has permitted us to create economic systems.
The trick is "working together". Virtual anarchy has existed in a great many societies over the years. But the wealthy societies have some level of control over the people.
We "own" our government (because any government could be overthrown if enough people disagree with it). So our choices about how we use our property of government can be to our advantage. Or not. Depending on how smart we are.
It's not a coincidence that the most "free" parts of the world are also the most destitue. The south sea islands, or Alaska wilderness, for example.
It takes coordination to make that pensil, or computer system. When positive economic "coordination" crosses over into ego centric totalitarianism, then governments have gone too far.
The fact that this country is the richest the earth has ever seen gives me confidence that George Bush and our government system is just about right.
I hope that I am as well.
:o)
Pretty good definition of freedom.
The author almost touched on the answer, but not quite. If you "own something", then you have total control over it. You have final decision over what you can do with it.
So, can you put heroin into your body legally?
If not, then you don't own your body.
Now I'm a registered libertarian (no flames, read further), but I've come to doubt a great deal of their philosophy. I plan on re-registering Rep soon. I do think there might ought to be some limits on what we can do with our bodies. Drugs that cause many people to become dangerous (PCP), I think should be illegal. But I do think they should lighten up on some of the drug laws.
Things that infringe on the rights of others (stealing, violence, etc.) obviously ought to be illegal, as they violate the property rights of others. But to the extent that you cannot do just anything with your body that does not violate others, the state owns you.
Now if I can just find out where they hid my registration number.
Per Walter Williams: "If you can't sell it, you don't own it."
Perhaps the insanity of our social destructiveness, including the Bush Administration´s deranged declaration of a permanent war against the rest of the world, will bring about an examination of alternative ways of living together in conditions of peace and liberty.
I was interestedly reading along, detecting a particular build-up. Bingo. "Permanent War against the rest of the world?" Is this author for real? He's just shredded his own "seeming" platform with this pithy, ridiculous, bias-laden assertion. How stupid of him to include this miasma in an otherwise thoughtful column. Tooo Baaaddd.
The author is not a leftist. I believe he considers himself to be an anarcho-capitalist.
As to your observation re: the left and its fondness for the redistribution of wealth via the govt I remind you that Bush has grown govt faster than any pres since FDR. Remember "free" drugs for seniors?
Regarding economics the govt is and will always be a parasite consuming resources from the citizens. The only legitimate purpose for govt is to protect the lives and property of citizens. With such a govt in place the citizens would thrive at a modest cost of govt. Unfortunately the govt was never content with the "night watchman model" so we have Leviathan.
Is the US the "richest country" when you balance the books and subtract out both private and public debt? I don't think so. Not long ago the US was a creditor nation, now it is one of the biggest debtors.
Government by man, as defined in the Bible in the book of Daniel ... is the "beast" and ... is faulty at best. God owns us, and will judge us, ... whether those against Christ ... choose to believe it or not.
My statement is that "We are our brother's keeper", but the Bible also tells us ... how to provide for ... the ones who won't work. It's in detail in the old testament, for anyone to read.
I look forward to ... Christ's return and ... the coming KINGDOM of GOD.
I like this one:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
~ Thomas Jefferson
Then they will claim that they know *God*s will, and therefore, they can tell you what to do, because if you are not doing what *God* wants you to do, you should not be allowed to do it.
VERY interesting read:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1279555/posts
The "war on terror" will not be over as long as one potential terrorist remains on the planet.
The statement is certainly not ridiculous unless you have a method to defeat an "ism" that you're not sharing with us.
I owe my soul to the company store. Weeeee ooo ooo ooo oh whoa oh oh.
Thanks for the link - looks interesting but I'll need to get to it later.
Got to catch some rack time so I can go to work so I can:
" Work! Earn! Buy!" like the good little epsilons in "Brave New World".
Oh and Huxley forgot "Pay Taxes!"
I do not know which is worse, the secular blue nosed busybodies of the left or the religous blue nosed busybodies of the right.
So, can you put heroin into your body legally?
If not, then you don't own your body.
I think you need to work on that concept a bit. That same logic means you don't own your house, your car, your wallet...
I don't see any contradiction there. So far as I'm concerned, if you take heroin, it's your own businiess. If you kill yourself doing it, thatr is also your own business, and an object lesson in Darwinian winnowing of the unfit. If you cause harm to others in taking drugs, those who you threaten have every right to speed up the Darwinian process in their own defense.
I don't think the drug makes the offense either. The drug problem that costs the most innocent lives is drunk driving. When you change your registration to Republican, do you intend to re-impose Prohibition?
This guy posts regularly on Lugnut Rockwell. 'Nuff said!
I see. Lincoln didn't free any slaves at all, he enslaved everyone to the federal government.
That's why we live in slavery today instead of freedom. That's why we live in squalor and misery instead of being the greatest richest country in the world.
Human beings aren't property in this country anymore. No thanks to your kind.
If people were property then we could buy and sell them.
Exactly my sentiments, I thought this was an interesting way to look at problems and decision making, then we see some Libertarian blast and I see my interest stopping at the point where his fist meets my chin.
In the 80's there was a case where a man's pancreas had a genetic mutation which the doctor turned into a very profitable treatment.
The courts treated DNA property as selling humans. If your DNA turns out to be an industry you don't get money.
I don't remember the exact case citation. However, it was in the early days of genetic patenting.
All this nonsense goes back to John Locke and his pernicious theories of possessive individualism. No we don't own our bodies, as in that classic textbook of feminism, "Our Bodies, Our Selves." We don't own our bodies, we ARE our bodies.
Traditional Christian belief, and classical philosophical belief as well, is that a human being is both body and soul. We aren't souls driving bodies around like cars, we are souls AND bodies. For Christians the Incarnation further emphasizes this reality, or if you like there is Paul's remark about the body being the Temple of the Holy Spirit.
The state doesn't own me, but neither do I own me. I am me.
These things called dollars and accounts are merely artificial representations of wealth. They are tools of wealth manipulation.
The only real way to measure the "wealth" of a culture is to measure their standard of living. Basically, how much stuff they have, and what they are able to do.
The US definitly has more "stuff". But if you value things like free time, the Euros aren't doing too bad. Any such measure of "wealth" between different cultures is subjective.
The point is that the measure of "owning" something, is the ability to control it totally. To a certian extent, I control my house, car, and wallet.
And to a certian extent, I control my body. But since I cannot put herion in it legally, I don't control it totally, so I don't own it totally.
Likewise, I can control my house to a certian extent. But I can't burn it down without getting my mortgage holder mad. And I can't land helicopters on my roof without getting the city mad. So I don't totally own my house either.
I could move away from this town and have more control over my house, but my chances of finding a good job are less. I could move away and into a shack and not have a mortgage and thus perhaps completly "own" my house. But with no job, and a lousy house, I've acquired my freedom and property rights at a cost I don't want to pay.
Living under a government and with voluntary restrictions on my property rights diminishes my freedom by one measure. But I don't think I really want total freedom, if I must suffer the full consequences of that lifestyle.
Like most things, it's the balance that is important.
I didn't figure this guy was leftist, but I can imagine that the rage of "not having full property rights" could be a sales pitch that might replace the current leftist products that are having difficulties.
My point is that the leaders of the left don't really care about ideology. They merely want power and control and job at our expense. Whatever it takes to get it, they'll do it. Sell out their country? Sure. Destroy the economy? Absolutely. Keep an underclass in the ghetto? You betcha.
bump
I just about agree with you on this stuff.
I don't use any kind of drugs. But I rather resent government telling me I can't.
ROFL
Those damn busybodies on both sides think they own us!
You've got it exactly right. I live in a cabin in the mountains. I have no mortgage, but still have to pay taxes.
I have more freedom than you, but you have a more comfortable life than I.
None of us are truly free, but we are a hell of alot better off than most on this planet.
As long as good men have a conscience, war against evil and evilness against innocents will ALWAYS be going on -- thank goodness.
Were I to take the view that President Bush suggests that he is going to live forever and go after bad guys; then I'd say your author has a serious point to make. Otherwise, the author's opinion asserted here is ludicrous and makes himself sound quite ridiculous. Again, I say "too baad" as he makes excellent, reasonable other points.
I read at Rockwell; I've found some excellent articles, usable articles, once I've discounted the sheer "absolutism" inherent in many of these articles. It's the same problem Ayn Rand had -- an absolutist point of view. It did her in. Still, she wrote superb books. Some people cotton to an absolutist worldview. I think it makes them feel more secure. Certainly, in themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.