Property Rights are self-evident

[Distruzio]

This thread is an explanation of how property rights are an axiom - irrefutable and absolute. In order to explain this, we must consider the following options:

Either Man has no ownership of his physical body, man has partial ownership of his physical body, or man has full ownership of his physical body.

Obviously, we AnCaps believe the third option is the only valid option - that man has full ownership of his physical body, is valid.

The first option is inconsistent (hence the useless verbiage and explanation present in my original post) with itself for it essentially declares that there is no concept of ownership over physical bodies at all. The inconsistency lies in the fact that to even argue this perspective is to invalidate its assumption. To assume that control is determined by the physical ability to control is to adopt a rule of force, a might makes right approach, which is in contradiction to the most basic point of the act of communication - amicable exchange of information. If an amicable exchange of information is not desired, the violence is preferred. Since the first option boils down to a simple rule of violence we see that it is self-contradictory and inconsistent.

You cannot say that no one owns their physical body without abusing them in some way. Even saying that they do not own their physical body contradicts the intent of the comment. In order to force someone to see that they do not own their body, you must force them to act as you desire. Therefore, you cannot speak to them in any fashion, for the act of communication is itself non-violent. The presupposition of the argument that no one owns their body is invalidated when you make that argument at all instead of just committing acts of violence against the person with whom you communicate to. If you assert your control over their body, and no one is controlling you, you are guilty of a performative inconsistency and your argument is self-contradictory.

As for the second option, partial ownership can, in all honesty, be interpreted any number of ways. An infinite number of ways, I think. All of which would be completely arbitrary and nonsensical (i.e. what percentage of your body do you control vs own?). What if, however, we assume that each person shares with each other person in the world, an equal amount of ownership and control over everyone else and themselves? What if, in a room of 5 people, each of those 5 people had 1/5^th the amount of control and ownership over the other people in the room? This would satisfy the requirements of the second postulate but it too fails. It fails b/c to assume this is to assume that each person cannot act without permission from the others as well as himself. He cannot use his body to even ask for permission to use his body without violating the parameters of the postulate.

The second option is, therefore, clearly as absurd, inconsistent, and contradictory as the first option. To even assert the second option is to violate it for you have not consulted the other people with whom you share ownership and control over your physical body.

Therefore, we must deduce that the third option, that man has full ownership of his physical body, is the ONLY viable option and that, therefore, property rights are axiomatic and "obvious."

To deny the existence of property rights, is to affirm them.

[helio]

It really boils down to what ownership means in a physical sense.  I believe it simply means first control.  I 'own' my corporeality because my will was bound to it through my development prior to anyone else's claim. 

For the logical positivists, the theory of self-ownership is falsifiable if it can be demonstrated that human bodies can be telepathically controlled from non-connected brains.

[Anonymous Infowarrior]

It's not that simple.
Individual property rights are completely self evident. But I'm not such a fan corporation's claiming "property rights". Maybe it's my inner leftist. But I don't think that anything but the individual has property rights.
The problem with collective property rights is it intereferes with individual property rights. If a store owner hires a person and that person works 5 hours, and produces $100 worth of stuff, he no longer owns that $100. The store owner owns that money. He can give the worker part of that, and he has to, otherwise it is slavery, but that doesn't mean that the worker owns that money, because he doesn't.
Another problem with collective property rights is the fact that workers have to work for a corporation in order to survive, therefore forfeiting their right. Therefore any work a worker does is coerced, because they had to forfeit their individual property rights in order to survive.

I hate to sound like a leftist, but I don't believe in collective property rights. I believe in individual property rights. I think it is one or the other. You can't have both, Because if you have collective property rights, their will be no individual property rights.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Obviously this is borrowed/adapted from Rothbard. The first part I completely agree with. But the second part is incomplete. In order to prove a claim that there is an infinitely large set of distinct propositions which are all false would require more than what has been presented here.

I believe Rothbard prefaced the second part by saying something about how he assumed that the conclusion you draw about human self ownership has to be consistent across people. As nice as it sounds, it isn't a fair assumption. In reality, partial ownership does exist. I own part of myself, but I'm also part slave. There exist other people who own themselves and parts of others. I'm not making a normative claim about this fact, simply pointing out the reality.

[Anonymous Infowarrior]

Obviously this is borrowed/adapted from Rothbard. The first part I completely agree with. But the second part is incomplete. In order to prove a claim that there is an infinitely large set of distinct propositions which are all false would require more than what has been presented here.

I believe Rothbard prefaced the second part by saying something about how he assumed that the conclusion you draw about human self ownership has to be consistent across people. As nice as it sounds, it isn't a fair assumption. In reality, partial ownership does exist. I own part of myself, but I'm also part slave. There exist other people who own themselves and parts of others. I'm not making a normative claim about this fact, simply pointing out the reality.

I have not read any of rothbards stuff, to be quite honest. My views are not influenced at all by Rothbard. My views are influenced by five people, and Rothbard has nothing to do with them.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Obviously this is borrowed/adapted from Rothbard. The first part I completely agree with. But the second part is incomplete. In order to prove a claim that there is an infinitely large set of distinct propositions which are all false would require more than what has been presented here.

I believe Rothbard prefaced the second part by saying something about how he assumed that the conclusion you draw about human self ownership has to be consistent across people. As nice as it sounds, it isn't a fair assumption. In reality, partial ownership does exist. I own part of myself, but I'm also part slave. There exist other people who own themselves and parts of others. I'm not making a normative claim about this fact, simply pointing out the reality.

I have not read any of rothbards stuff, to be quite honest. My views are not influenced at all by Rothbard. My views are influenced by five people, and Rothbard has nothing to do with them.

I was referring to the OP.

[Anonymous Infowarrior]

Obviously this is borrowed/adapted from Rothbard. The first part I completely agree with. But the second part is incomplete. In order to prove a claim that there is an infinitely large set of distinct propositions which are all false would require more than what has been presented here.

I believe Rothbard prefaced the second part by saying something about how he assumed that the conclusion you draw about human self ownership has to be consistent across people. As nice as it sounds, it isn't a fair assumption. In reality, partial ownership does exist. I own part of myself, but I'm also part slave. There exist other people who own themselves and parts of others. I'm not making a normative claim about this fact, simply pointing out the reality.

I have not read any of rothbards stuff, to be quite honest. My views are not influenced at all by Rothbard. My views are influenced by five people, and Rothbard has nothing to do with them.

I was referring to the OP.

Sorry, I got confused. I thought you were talking about me.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Obviously this is borrowed/adapted from Rothbard. The first part I completely agree with. But the second part is incomplete. In order to prove a claim that there is an infinitely large set of distinct propositions which are all false would require more than what has been presented here.

I believe Rothbard prefaced the second part by saying something about how he assumed that the conclusion you draw about human self ownership has to be consistent across people. As nice as it sounds, it isn't a fair assumption. In reality, partial ownership does exist. I own part of myself, but I'm also part slave. There exist other people who own themselves and parts of others. I'm not making a normative claim about this fact, simply pointing out the reality.

I have not read any of rothbards stuff, to be quite honest. My views are not influenced at all by Rothbard. My views are influenced by five people, and Rothbard has nothing to do with them.

I was referring to the OP.

Sorry, I got confused. I thought you were talking about me.

No problem. It's my fault. I should address people by screen name on a public forum!

[Distruzio]

Obviously this is borrowed/adapted from Rothbard.

How so?

The first part I completely agree with. But the second part is incomplete. In order to prove a claim that there is an infinitely large set of distinct propositions which are all false would require more than what has been presented here.

I agree, but I'm not writing a magnum opus or a research paper. ;P

I believe Rothbard prefaced the second part by saying something about how he assumed that the conclusion you draw about human self ownership has to be consistent across people. As nice as it sounds, it isn't a fair assumption. In reality, partial ownership does exist. I own part of myself, but I'm also part slave. There exist other people who own themselves and parts of others. I'm not making a normative claim about this fact, simply pointing out the reality.

Unless you are a ward of your parents, then this is patently untrue. Wardship is, however, not a negation of property rights. It is a delaying of the manifestation of property rights. A person is not born a person. His environment and education make him into a person. A person is one who understands that he is entirely separate from another person - you are not me and you know it. The child and the animal (generally speaking) do not understand this but can, nevertheless, manifest self-evident property rights. Trying to take a bone from a dog is a bad idea. Taking a toy from a baby is, likewise, a bad idea. They understand what we have been trained to ignore. Upon attaining enough maturity and growth, the ward can take his self-evident property rights back from his parents - thus suggesting that they were never ceded but merely submitted.

[Distruzio]

I hate to sound like a leftist, but I don't believe in collective property rights. I believe in individual property rights. I think it is one or the other. You can't have both, Because if you have collective property rights, their will be no individual property rights.

RW, that makes you a rightist, not a leftist. The left believe in collective property rights. The Corporation is a creature of the left, not the right.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Obviously this is borrowed/adapted from Rothbard.

How so?

Ch 8 of Ethics of Liberty.

The first part I completely agree with. But the second part is incomplete. In order to prove a claim that there is an infinitely large set of distinct propositions which are all false would require more than what has been presented here.

I agree, but I'm not writing a magnum opus or a research paper. ;P

Fair enough, but making a claim that something is indisputably true is usually followed by something pretty airtight. Obviously we have no quarrel here.

I believe Rothbard prefaced the second part by saying something about how he assumed that the conclusion you draw about human self ownership has to be consistent across people. As nice as it sounds, it isn't a fair assumption. In reality, partial ownership does exist. I own part of myself, but I'm also part slave. There exist other people who own themselves and parts of others. I'm not making a normative claim about this fact, simply pointing out the reality.

Unless you are a ward of your parents, then this is patently untrue. Wardship is, however, not a negation of property rights. It is a delaying of the manifestation of property rights. A person is not born a person. His environment and education make him into a person. A person is one who understands that he is entirely separate from another person - you are not me and you know it. The child and the animal (generally speaking) do not understand this but can, nevertheless, manifest self-evident property rights. Trying to take a bone from a dog is a bad idea. Taking a toy from a baby is, likewise, a bad idea. They understand what we have been trained to ignore. Upon attaining enough maturity and growth, the ward can take his self-evident property rights back from his parents - thus suggesting that they were never ceded but merely submitted.

What fraction of your yearly production do you get to use as you please? If it's less than 100%, then you are at least partially owned.

[Distruzio]

Obviously this is borrowed/adapted from Rothbard.

How so?

Ch 8 of Ethics of Liberty.

Ah... Well, honestly, I wasn't invoking anyone in particular. Like I said in my introduction thread, I've been in the libertarian anarchism game for nearly a decade so if I seem to parallel something similar to one of the greats, it's b/c I've read that junk so many times its how I think.

The first part I completely agree with. But the second part is incomplete. In order to prove a claim that there is an infinitely large set of distinct propositions which are all false would require more than what has been presented here.

I agree, but I'm not writing a magnum opus or a research paper. ;P

Fair enough, but making a claim that something is indisputably true is usually followed by something pretty airtight. Obviously we have no quarrel here.

I believe Rothbard prefaced the second part by saying something about how he assumed that the conclusion you draw about human self ownership has to be consistent across people. As nice as it sounds, it isn't a fair assumption. In reality, partial ownership does exist. I own part of myself, but I'm also part slave. There exist other people who own themselves and parts of others. I'm not making a normative claim about this fact, simply pointing out the reality.

Unless you are a ward of your parents, then this is patently untrue. Wardship is, however, not a negation of property rights. It is a delaying of the manifestation of property rights. A person is not born a person. His environment and education make him into a person. A person is one who understands that he is entirely separate from another person - you are not me and you know it. The child and the animal (generally speaking) do not understand this but can, nevertheless, manifest self-evident property rights. Trying to take a bone from a dog is a bad idea. Taking a toy from a baby is, likewise, a bad idea. They understand what we have been trained to ignore. Upon attaining enough maturity and growth, the ward can take his self-evident property rights back from his parents - thus suggesting that they were never ceded but merely submitted.

What fraction of your yearly production do you get to use as you please? If it's less than 100%, then you are at least partially owned.

That I cannot comment on. ;P

[Rothbardian]

You're an Anarcho-Monarchist too! Nice!

I can say, that I know about two other Anarcho-Monarchists (including you) at this point. We're quite uncommon.

Say, have you made any anarcho-monarchist groups previously that I might have seen online? Just wondering if I've already seen you somewhere or another.

And Right-Wing Libertarians for the win!

[Distruzio]

You're an Anarcho-Monarchist too! Nice!

I can say, that I know about two other Anarcho-Monarchists (including you) at this point. We're quite uncommon.

Say, have you made any anarcho-monarchist groups previously that I might have seen online? Just wondering if I've already seen you somewhere or another.

And Right-Wing Libertarians for the win!

I've met quite a few AnMon's on the internet and in my interactions at LvMI. It's quite easy to reveal an individuals AnMon tendencies when I explain the philosophy and point to the Orthodox and Latin Church as real world expression of it. This causes them pause and I explain how the Spanish gov't is also a psuedo-AnMon organization as well (psuedo in that the Spanish State does exist, but it is attributed to the King alone and regulated by the spanish democratic institutions, and the political divisions voluntarily submitted to the new national gov't).

I always use this name, so if we've met, you'd know.

[Mark Stoval]

... I've met quite a few AnMon's on the internet and in my interactions at LvMI. It's quite easy to reveal an individuals AnMon tendencies when I explain the philosophy and point to the Orthodox and Latin Church as real world expression of it. ...

I am an anarchist and so don't believe in any form of State, but when Dr. Hoppe explained that a monarchy was much preferable to a democracy I believed him and already knew it in my gut. He validated what I knew to be true from studying history. Plus I spent a semester in college with a professor who hammered the "tyranny of the majority" every class meeting and every assignment. (It was supposed to be an English class)

What I see here is two evils. One much better than the other but still evil. Am I an "AnMon" since I find it a better government than democracy even as I would work to overthrow the King?