Lockean property rights

Overview The Pro and I have a lot in common on the surface. We are both classically liberal, believe in self ownership and property rights, etc. We disagree on methodology and reasoning behind these axioms. The debate should be judged based on who can provide the best reasons for their positions, not the positions themselves (since they're basically identical). ====PRO CASE==== (1) Attribution ownership through work A) Insufficient definition of Life Pro defines a living being as something that is self producing. However, many abiotic things are "self producing", such as contained nuclear reactions [1]. A natural, non man-made example is the sun [2]. Since the sun is not alive, we should disregard pro's definition of life. B) Infinite Regression of Self Creation I would argue that no man created himself, but was created by another man, who in turn was created by another man, etc. Therefore, under Pro's logic, no man existing today owns himself because no one was the agent of their own creation. C) Performative Contradiction of Self Creation If I create myself, then I exist. But by definition, I do not exist before I am created. Therefore, I cannot create myself, and, according to Pro, this means I cannot own myself. D) Self Creation is Irrelevant We can imagine life forms that do not reassemble themselves. They either do not decay, or simply die without repairing themselves in any way. From hypothesis, rights should apply to living beings, but according to Pro, they do not even own themselves because no work is required to sustain their being. (2) Control Ownership Through Work in Humans A) Rights are Anti-Social The point of having a theory of rights is to guide dispute resolution. State Communists do not become Neo-Lockean Capitalists while playing Monopoly. If a privilege is granted unanimously and voluntarily, it does not become a natural right. In fact, rights explicitly guide when you can use violence. In this respect, they are anti-social. B) Argument from Biological Happenstance Pro thinks that because we are biologically social, we automatically respect eachother's creations. i) True or false, this only demonstrates that human beings have a preference. It does not build the case for natural rights. ii) Human beings are not always social. We attack each other frequently [3] [4]. Following Pro's argumentum ad populum, we would conclude that there are no rights because every conceivable right has been violated at some point in history. iii) Anti-social humans can still have theories of mutual respect. Even if people are narrowly self interested, they can still respect each other's rights out of pragmatism and self preservation. This is how psychopaths are able to navigate society [5]. 3) Mixing Labor with Nature Pro did not explicate a theory of appropriation, only of creation. Since I cannot actually create land, this would seem to imply that I can never own it. Fair enough, but the Lockean Theory of Homesteading advances the labor theory of property [6], and I would be remiss in my duty if I did not critique it. Simply, the theory is just a bad metaphor. In reality, we do not see little bits of "Farmer John" mixed into soil. But even if we did? So what? The purpose of property rights is to exclude others from use. So why can I exclude you from using a resource just because I am mixed in with it? As Robert Nozick pointed out, you can do work on the whole ocean if you pour a can of soup in it, but do you come to own the whole ocean? Can you exclude everyone from its use? Of course not. So "mixing" is utterly irrelevant. ===== Con Case ===== 1) Theory of Self Ownership A theory is an argument. That is, it is intended to convince someone to agree of their own volition. Therefore, one cannot coherently argue against the consent of others. For example, if I convince you to become a slave, you will be a "voluntary slave", which is a contradiction in terms. As such, I can never coherently argue for slavery. If I try, I will only succeed in convincing you to perform voluntary labor. This does not demonstrate that self ownership is a metaphysical underpinning of the universe, but it does show that it flows organically and necessarily from argumentation. 2) Extension of Self Ownership Ownership can be extended only as far as the self ownership principle. Actions are an extension of the self, and as such, actions which do not conflict with other "selfs" are protected by self ownership. For example, if I begin farming unused land, no one has a right to stop me. I have a right to stop other people from interfering with me, because they'd be attacking me for doing something peaceful. Once we view farming as an ongoing process of cultivating, harvesting, and utilizing crops, it becomes clear why others can be excluded. Someone who takes my crops is interfering with my farming, my actions. This view of ownership makes a lot more sense, because rights are extended OVER property, rather than somehow being mixed into it. It is also strictly non-aggressive, and unmaterialistic. Two people can use the same physical object without interfering with each other. For example, radio waves can be broadcast over and through the land I am farming without any conflict. ===Conclusion=== Pro's conception of self ownership is accidental, stemming from the happy coincidence that most organisms grow by constantly creating new cells. The Voters should prefer my derivation of self ownership because it appears naturally in argumentation. This is why it is a natural right. Even if Pro is right about the biological justification for rights, my use-theory of ownership is entirely compatible with "human nature". It is very similar to Lockean Homesteading, except it stems rationally from self ownership. It is less arbitrary in that one cannot own land or the ocean merely by spilling some soup in it. For practical and philosophical reasons, Voters should also prefer the use-theory of ownership. [1] http://www.osti.gov... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.legalnorms.com... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...