Replies

This argument is contradictory to the premise that natural rights are derived from property rights. Rather than recognizing property rights as inalienable, this argument seems to view property rights as an arbitrary legal concept, derived from law. If that is the case, then I think that we have a fundamental disagreement in this respect.

You've got that right.

I have not seen "the premise that your body is your property" substantiated nor have I seen a case made to take it as a first principle.

That being the case, I can only maintain that one is not born into the natural state possessing property and that property rights are not natural or unalienable.

Property rights are contingent upon the ability (in terms of sentience, resource availability, etc.) to take possession of something as property.

Think in terms of prehistory and people living in the forest or jungle to get the picture. You pick up a stone, you put out some effort and sharpen it against another stone, and it's your tool, your property by the sweat of your effort.

In regard to real property, which I believe generally means land: Having land as property is initially achieved by staking off the piece of it you want and keeping others off of it by use of force, or losing it to them through their use of force.

Again, think in terms of prehistory and people living in the forest or jungle to get the picture. Somebody clears off a piece of land that everyone had or could have had the use of, declares it to be his property, and keeps the others off by force or loses it to superior force. Laws regarding land as property are a product of organized societies. Differently organized societies have different laws in this regard.

As to the rest of your post, I have first impressions, but I'll think about your words for awhile and not respond based on those first impresssions, which could change.

The comments I have made here I have already thought about in the context of other things.

“I have not seen ‘the premise that your body is your property’ substantiated nor have I seen a case made to take it as a first principle.

That being the case, I can only maintain that one is not born into the natural state possessing property and that property rights are not natural or unalienable.”

I believe that all people are born in the natural state possessing property. Furthermore, by definition, a person’s property rights are natural and inalienable. Below is my rationale:

A person is a human body with the capacity to have consciousness. A human body without the capacity to have consciousness is not a person. A person who loses the capacity to have consciousness becomes a human body and ceases to be a person. Therefore, a person’s body is an object that he or she has an inalienable right to. For a person to exist without both consciousness and a human body is impossible. To separate the consciousness from the body would be for the person to cease to exist, thus so long as a person exists, that person has a right to own his or her body.

All people have natural rights. Human bodies lacking the capacity for consciousness do not have natural rights. Because a person cannot exist without a human body or without the capacity for consciousness, a person’s natural rights are contingent upon possession of his body and the capacity to have consciousness.

A person has rightful possession of his or her body. It is by this inalienable right to possession of one’s body that people have natural rights. Our natural rights include the exercise of all activities except those that initiate coercion or fraud against any individual's property. The only exception to this being that coercion may be initiated in self-defense against those who initiate coercion or fraud against one’s property.

If property is defined by what objects are inalienable, then your body is your property. If property is only defined by law, then your body is only your property if the law deems it to be. Furthermore, if the law deems other things to be property, then it is so. If we define property as what is inalienable and as what law defines it as, in addition to this, then a person can rightfully claim his body, and whatever other objects are deemed by law to be his property.

This brings forth the need to define what property is. If property is defined as objects that we have a rightful claim to, through law, then you are correct. If property is defined by what objects are inalienable, then I am correct. If both are considered property, then we may both be correct. I see the definition of property as one of the fundamental principles upon which a society is founded. Whether or not it chooses to clearly state those principles or not is secondary to whether or not it abides by them.

A society can define property as objects that are inalienable. It can define property as object(s) in addition to what is/are inalienable. It cannot define property in a way that excludes object(s) that is/are inalienable, because this would, by definition, make the society cease to exist, in principle. Why? If people do not have ownership of their body, then they are not people, and thus do not have natural rights, and thus do not have the right to enter into the society. Rather, what would exist would be a collective of functioning human bodies that toil for the benefit of some other entity.

Likewise, the society cannot abide by any principle that includes denying self-ownership of one’s body. Such ownership is an inalienable right. The only way to truly destroy the natural rights of the people is to kill them, but this nullifies the ability of the people to form the society, in which case the society cannot exist.

“Property rights are contingent upon the ability (in terms of sentience, resource availability, etc.) to take possession of something as property.”

“Having land as property is initially achieved by staking off the piece of it you want and keeping others off of it by use of force, or losing it to them through their use of force.”

That is likely how it was first determined who owned what land, since a big chunk of land did not accompany us out of the birth canal. I agree that, more or less, we obtain land as property by what you typed above. I retract my earlier statement regarding what you typed in response to an earlier post as“…contradictory to the premise that natural rights are derived from property rights.” It is an alternative, but not mutually exclusive.

However, do we not have the ability to maintain possession of our person?
Do we not achieve the sovereignty of our individuality by way of defending ourselves against aggression from other individuals?

If your body is your property, then the following applies to your body and your land, among other things:

The bounds of an individual’s natural rights are that he may not initiate coercion or fraud against any individual's property. The only exception to this being that he may initiate coercion in self-defense against those who initiate coercion or fraud against his property.

This does not necessarily apply to your body, if your body is not your property. What, in that case, would be the justification for self-defense? Is this description of natural rights inadequate and/or incorrect?