Self-Ownership Libertarianism

Round 2 REBUTTALS SP1: "Self-ownership conflicts with Pareto-Optimality...[S]ince self-ownership is construed by libertarians as an absolute right, it follows that it cannot be violated even in small ways and even when great benefit would accrue from doing so." Thus...absolute rights of self-ownership seem to prevent us from scratching the finger of another even to prevent the destruction of the whole world." Granting citizens with absolute rights rewards positive behavior with personal freedom and prosperity, but also punishes negative behavior, albeit not directly. Let's say drug use as an example. If a person abuses the rights of self-ownership and harms their own bodies, then that person has caused their own suffering and is paying for the consequences. However, if one were to avoid narcotics and make good use of their freedom, then they have been rewarded with the benefits of self-ownership. This should foster a wholesome sense of personal responsibility among the nation's citizens. SP2: "Recognizing rights to full self-ownership allows individuals' lives to be objectionably governed by brute luck in the distribution of natural assets, since the self that people own is largely a product of their luck in receiving a good or bad genetic endowment, and being raised in a good or bad environment." Self-ownership does not interfere with the affairs of individuals and leaves them unhindered by the government to achieve their goals. Of course, there are other factors that might hinder an individual from "climbing up the ladder" so to speak, such as the markets, employers, dumb luck, or sometimes unfortunately gender/race. However, these things also happen in societies not founded on the principles of self-ownership, so the point is moot. SP3: "Property is something that can be sold or exchanged. If I own myself, then can I not sell myself? There are some who might be desperate enough for money or to escape their situation that they might sell themselves in exchange for food, money, clothing, shelter, etc. This leads to three issues:" "---SP3.A. Coercion is present. If I choose to sell myself into slavery because my situation is so dire that slavery is the only viable way to escape it, I have been coerced by my circumstances to take an action I would otherwise never even contemplate. The absence of a reasonable alternative negates choice. For instance, if my options were to (a) starve to death and (b) to sell myself into slavery, I haven't been given a meaningful choice, and have been coerced by my circumstances to sell myself to slavery. Now, Pro might respond that I could have chosen option (a), but that response raises additional concerns. If I was kidnapped by slave traders, I could probably be defiant enough that they would just kill me rather than sell me, so I have that same choice again: die, or become a slave. Surely, Pro is not going to say that I wasn't coerced if I gun was pointed to my head and I was told to do something. Similarly, it is absurd to say I wasn't coerced if that gun was instead starvation. In other words, selling myself into slavery is not necessarily un-coerced, and thus violates self-ownership." Yes, under self-ownership one could in theory sell themselves into slavery. However, there is no reasonable incentive to do so. Under slavery, an individual is stripped of all freedom, which is the only thing granted and assured to them under self-ownership. It would be their choice to become a slave, and it would be a negative decision. As I stated in my SP2 rebuttal, a self-ownership based society rewards positive decisions and punishes negative decisions. "---SP3.B. Selling myself into slavery, even if it wasn't uncoerced, still invalidates self-ownership. Self-ownership is the idea that we inherently own ourselves and are always our own owners. I cannot give up my self-ownership, because it is innate within me. If I always own myself, than no one else can own me--my right to self-ownership is inviolate. Therefore, I cannot sell myself into slavery because to do so would be to say that someone else can own me, which they cannot. So, I always own myself. But, what I own, I should be able to sell. This creates a logical contradiction within the theory: if I own myself, I can sell myself, but yet, self-ownership says I can't do that." In self-ownership, you own yourself and control your own decisions. However, if you were to make the choice of becoming a slave, then ownership is stripped from you. You being stripped from control of yourself was caused by a choice you made. "---SP3.C. Slavery undermines autonomy. Even if you don't buy (SPA) or (SPB), the idea that I can choose to give up so much autonomy seems to undermine the very point of libertarianism. The idea of self-ownership is that it maximizes autonomy, but yet, with slavery, one decision (the choice to sell myself) prevents me from ever making autonomous choices again. That seriously minimizes autonomy, and seems to undermine the very principle on which self-ownership rests. In other words, this example shows how self-ownership cannot achieve its very own objective, and is thus self-defeating." As I said above, the ability to sell yourself into slavery is a choice that you made. You undermined your own autonomy by making that decision, so you must suffer the consequences of your behavior. SP4: "Nozick went on to say that the ability of one to shape his life in accordance with some sort of life plan is the very way one brings meaning to his life. This offers another perspective from which we can understand why human life is uniquely valuable. Only beings with the rational capacity to shape their own lives can have or even pursue a meaningful life." [2] Therefore, non-autonomous, non-rational humans (e.g. babies, the mentally handicapped) will not be permitted self-ownership, and thus would be denied rights under a SOL framework." A self-ownership society is based on the principle that all adult citizens have rights. Babies would not be granted self-ownership yet because they are being raised by their parents/guardians. The mentally handicapped would not be stripped of their rights by the government, but would most likely be kept by family members and/or a mental institution, just like it is in most modern First World societies. SP5: "Suppose that freedom is the absence of coercion, or, as Kant frames it, being independent of another's will. "If we take this definition of freedom then the amount of freedom a person has is the extent to which they can act without being coerced to do (or not to do) something against their will. In a libertarian society you cannot (legitimately) do anything with another's property if they don't want you to, so your only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property you have. This has the consequence that someone with no property has no guaranteed freedom, and that the more property you have, the greater your guaranteed freedom. In other words, a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom, as the libertarians themselves define it. Thus...the libertarians are saying that the best way of promoting freedom is to allow some people to have more of it than others, even when this leads to some having very little or even none. " The government cannot stop one from being coerced by outside sources. A self-ownership society only grants its citizens the right to be free from coercion by the government itself. The assumption that this also protects people from coercion in everyday life is preposterous. Freedom from coercion from any outside factors is an impossible goal to strive for, as there will always be involuntary factors of coercion. *Note: I'm running out of characters. Will be paraphrasing from now on. If something doesn't match, I'm not trying to put words in Con's mouth, it's just misinterpretation.* In his P2 about human rights, Pro states that since we have rights because we seek interest in liberty, property and life. Because we also have interests in healthcare and education, aren't those also rights? And if they are rights, and this government enforces all rights, then doesn't that contradict the system? Under self-ownership libertarianism, healthcare and education are tangible commodities in the economic system and not unalienable rights. The private market can provide healthcare and education, but it can not provide abstract, intangible values such as freedom.