Posted on 09/16/2002 11:56:43 AM PDT by logician2u
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:31 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Senior Editorial Writer.
The last in a weekly series of 12 essays about aspects of liberty. All 12 essays can be found on our Web site.
Nat Hentoff, whose columns the Register sometimes runs, titled his 1980 book on the history of free speech in America "The First Freedom."
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.ocregister.com ...
Not relevant. Of course you can transfer ownership of yourself. Self surrender is as much a protected right, as self ownership. The problem occurs, when one chooses to reassert ones self ownership after once surrendering it to another. This is because the restriction is not upon the slave claiming self ownership, but upon the master who chooses to enforce the slavery.
A market economy might grant the purchaser of such acquired ownership a civil award for contract violation, and could under certain circumstances go as far as laying a criminal penalty for fraud upon an individual reclaiming self ownership after once surrendering it (or selling it). But the condition of slavery can not be enforced.
I would suggest that in a libertarian society, only a fool would purchase another's self ownership, as no means would exist to collect, except by way of a continual voluntary transfer on the part of the surrenderer.
Saying one can not own, that which they cannot transfer, is like saying one cannot own their imagination, which they cannot transfer in full. Only the state can legally lay claims to such immoral and impossible ownership.
It is that kind of state that needs to pass into history.
Self surrender is as much a protected right, as self ownership.
My question wasn't about surrender. My question was about transfer of ownership.
The problem occurs, when one chooses to reassert ones self ownership after once surrendering it to another.
Yes, going back on terms of surrender generally causes problems. But I am not asking about a surrender. Reasserting ownership after it has been transferred is called theft, unless the transfer was fraudulent or otherwise defective.
Saying one can not own, that which they cannot transfer, is like saying one cannot own their imagination, which they cannot transfer in full.
That at least, is more responsive to my question. But you need to expand on it. And you need a better example.
I don't distinguish a difference. Transferring the ownership of ones self to another, regardless of the situation which instigates such transfer, I view as a surrender of ones self. I concede that under certain circumstances such a transfer can even be profitable to the person who no longer has the self ownership. But that in and of itself, does not make the transfer any less a surrender.
Reasserting ownership after it has been transferred is called theft, unless the transfer was fraudulent or otherwise defective.
This may be quite true. But only where such ownership is recognizable by society at large, or by the state. Surrendering your self to your husband may be legally permissable in our society, but it is not legally enforceable. Thus no legal theft has occurred. At best, only a contract violation. The political concept of self ownership as a first principle, may allow non-self ownership, but by definition cannot recognize that ownership as legal.
"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country." --Thomas Jefferson
I see the transfer of self ownership as defective.
The master can never really own the slave's self. He can't will the slave's arm to move. He can't will the slave to love him. He can't know the slave's thoughts unless the slave shares them.
Pretend the slave sells himself to a master. If a potential master should buy another's self, he has no one to sue should this purchased self "reassert" itself. The slave could always say he had no will once he transferred same to the master.
Obviously the master has unconsciously willed the slave's body to "escape". In fact, the master has assumed perpetual responsibility for whatever future actions the zombie might take. For example, should the zombie kill the master, the master has merely committed suicide.
I see more promise of a unity of rights here - all rights to property then derive from the right to liberty. Seems much more sensible to me than trying to derive the right to liberty from the right to property.
Somewhat overly vague..."vision has the capacity to inspire"---anarchy is a prelude to the police state!
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.