Talk:Self-ownership/Archive 1

Abortion issue

This line certainly violates WP:NPOV "However even though self-ownership advocates civil rights, it does not extend these rights over others, which is exactly the pro-life campaigners issue with abortion." Wooyi 02:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How about specifying *why* you think it is a violation, instead of just stridently stating that it "certainly" is?

The pro-life argument is that the right of the baby to be born healthy trumps the right of the woman to control over her body. The argument of the self-ownership folks is that it doesn't. I don't see how either side can sensibly argue this point - both would agree with it. Since this is exactly what the sentence you have an issue with states, where is the problem with NPOV? AngryStan 04:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This line is basically implying that a person cannot be both an advocate for self-ownership and pro-life, which isn't the case.

Firstly, somebody has changed the NPOV tag to a "disputed" tag, which is much more appropriate;

I've met people who strongly believe in both. And pro-life people can argue that a baby's body, although apparently inside the woman, is not philosophically a part of the woman's body.

I can see what you are saying, but I cannot agree with it. I think it certainly is the case that someone cannot be both an advocate for self-ownership and pro-life, and I will give you my reasons. Let's look at the definition of self-ownership in the article: "the condition where an individual has the exclusive moral right to control his or her own body and life". The fact that people exist who "strongly believe in both" is no argument at all - they may be mistaken, or confused as to what either concept actually means. If a woman has an "exclusive moral right to control...her own body" then she has an exclusive moral right to remove anything attached to that body, regardless of whether that thing is considered to be part of her body or not. "Exclusive moral right" means just that, "exclusive". If the exercise of that right involves killing another person (even if we assume a fetus is a person) then the very exclusivity of that right renders the killing justified. If she has this "exclusive moral right" over her body, then her decision to remove something from her body cannot be questioned by one who accepts this definition of self-ownership. So, either self-ownership and pro-life views are incompatible, or the definition we are using is incorrect. But with the definition in the article, I cannot see any way in which these two views can be compatible, despite what some of the people you know may believe. If a woman has no right to remove a fetus from her body, then she cannot possibly have "exclusive moral right to control...her own body", so I think this statement is verifiable on logic alone. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how you see compatibility between these two views?

A person who both believe self-ownership and pro-life values would be deeply offended by this line.

Irrelevant. Some people may be offended by the idea that man evolved from apes, but this is no reason to remove all references to that idea from an encyclopedia.

Also see Libertarian perspectives on abortion for more info of what i am talking about here. Wooyi 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Libertarianism and self-ownership are two different concepts, so the fact that there may be some liberatarians who hold pro-life views tells us nothing about whether pro-life views are compatible with self-ownership.

I don't have much of an objection to the disputed tag for the moment - since there indeed appears to be a dispute here - but I cannot see any rational reason to give any weight to your position, so I feel a much stronger argument is required if this tag is to be retained in the long-term. AngryStan 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"However even though self-ownership advocates civil rights, it does not extend these rights over others, which is exactly the pro-life campaigners issue with abortion." As far as I am aware this sentence is saying that a woman cannot truly be an advocate of self-ownership and also be pro-abortion, as the individual has broken a key rule in the philosophy. This says that even though a woman has exclusive rights over her own life, she does not have any rights over others (including her foetus/baby). I guess the debate comes down to when is a new life formed i.e. at what stage does her action become murder. A big question which women must contemplate. nirvana2013 09:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this entire conversation thus far is missing a vital element to the conversation: treat the fetus/child as a separate entity, then consider from the position of self-ownership: does someone else have the right to force you to sustain them? As a hypothetical scenario: it is determined that someone with a rare genetic disorder that requires a specific kind of blood-protein will die if he does not receive a transfusion of this protein daily. As it is a chiral biological protein, it cannot be synthesized. It is discovered that you, personally, are the only other person alive whose body produces this protein in a form that won't be rejected by the patient. Is it your ethical obligation to provide daily blood transfusions for the extraction of this protein? The scenario of a pregnant woman is somewhat the same: self-ownership literally dictates that it is her choice to support another life with her own flesh and blood. The pro-life meme denies this line of reasoning, and dictates that the conversation ought be about the fetus: the standard pro-choice line is that the fetus is part of the body -- yet to the self-ownership ideology, neither of these two arguments is applicable. IConrad.

• * * * * * * *

The immediately preceding argument is cogent and persuasive. However, I think of a situation in which a boat containing two passengers, one of which can swim and the other cannot, capsizes and sinks, leaving one to cling to the other. Does self-ownership gives one the right to free oneself of the other who is avoiding drowning through "parasitic" attachment? It seems to me that if one reaches (or perhaps anticipates reaching) the point where one no longer has the energy to sustain oneself as well as the other person, then self-ownership would dictate that one had the right to free oneself from the clutches of the other, regardless of the force or the lethality required.

However, the issue extends beyond mere right to survival. Saving oneself is rooted in the innate biological motive for survival. This scenario is certainly similar to the situation of the pregnant woman whose life is threatened by her pregnancy. By this reasoning, surely she has the right to protect her own life, since all of her biology will be screaming for such. One's moral sense in both situations may be offended, and it will come down to what is the probability of one's dying, if the "parasitic" attachment is maintained. What is the probability of being rescued? What is the probability of the mother's dying as a result of the biological load on her system?

Of course, if there is no real threat of dying, i.e., help is coming and one feels strong enough to continue supporting the non-swimmer or if the mother is healthy and there is no threat to her health in carrying the fetus to term, does right of self-ownership still give the swimmer the right to cast off the other or the mother to cast off the "parasitic" fetus? Does not another moral consideration enter into the picture? Is a person free to exercise self-ownership (freedom) to the detriment of another's freedom?

Also, in the case of the pregnant mother, is her complicity in the act of intercourse, the determining moral factor, i.e., the matter of personal responsibility? If she was non-complicit, as in the case of rape, does she still have the right to remove the fetus? It seems to me that self-ownership must be couched in terms of freedom that is constrained by its impact on the freedom of another living being. If the swimmer casts off the non-swimmer summarily when his/her life is not imminently threatened, then isn't the swimmer exercising freedom to live as he/she sees fit in a way that affects the non-swimmer's freedom to live? In other words, isn't the former restricting rather than promoting the freedom of the latter to live.

Of course, the issues of personal freedom and liberty in the case of mother and fetus hinge on whether the fetus is to be considered as a person with rights. And, if so, when do those rights begin? And, is the physical health of the mother, the only consideration? What about a situation in which pregnancy is so traumatic that her mental stability is threatened and thus perhaps her survival?

--Likkerish, 6-30-07.

Anarchism Box

sincere respect to the anarchists among us, I am troubled by the inclusion of the anarchism box and logo in this article, which I fear will only serve to poison the well against the concept of self-ownership. I am sympathetic to the fact that anarchism has had its own well poisoned by its political opponents, but need we spread that poison around unnecessarily? If the concept of self-ownership were inextricably tied to anarchism, that would be another matter. But I find the connection to be rather shallow if not entirely dubious; quite frankly, I was shocked to find that the subject of anarchism had even been raised in this article.

I don't think it too extravagant a claim that to deny self-ownership is, in essence, to affirm slavery. Equating the concept of self-ownership to anarchism, or even strongly relating the two (as the prominent box and logo do), is to imply that the rejection of slavery is anarchistic. Most people are probably not in favor of slavery, but most people are probably not anarchists either, not even tangentially so.

If one political ideology can pretend to lay claim to the concept, it might be libertarianism, inasmuch as they base their ideology on the concept of liberty (hence the name), a concept which might reasonably be considered a close cousin to that of self-ownership, if not a synonymous one. Yet we do not see a libertarian category box, prominent or otherwise, nor that of any of the other political philosophies named in the article. I think the "freedom" category box is quite sufficient; it is certainly properly descriptive.

Considering all the above, would it be fair of me to request removal of the anarchism box and logo from this article? Not only are they not important to the understanding of the concept of self-ownership, but they leave ajar a door that others will no doubt follow them through, which would add nothing substantive but would surely detract from the intended focal point. I'm not asking that we remove all mention of anarchism, only its preferential treatment and prominence.

Thanks for indulging me, I hope I've made my case. Razor6 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But you don't have to ask. You can just remove it. I'll go ahead and do it for you. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Criticisms

I think it would be a good idea to add more to the criticisms to the criticism section, rather then just having a single iffy idea that more pertains to private property and economic models then to individual sovereignty. IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. However, I removed some of the criticism that was already there, after correcting rampant bias (you can't call a contractee a slave if that is the distinction being debated. Saying "surreally in the view of his opponents" is like George Bush editing his own page to say "many president-loving Americans found him to be awesome." Of course you find it surreal, or else you wouldn't be opponents. And the such like). But when proofreading, I analyzed this phrase: "...points out the inconsistencies of Rothbard's rejection of slave contracts on the basis of self ownership." Then the paragraph goes on to discuss slavery-like contracts, and Rothbard's support thereof. But I see no criticism of self-ownership itself. It asserts that Rothbard's views on contracts conflicted with his view of self-ownership, but the arguments all attack his view on contracts rather than (as the criticism section of the Self Ownership page should) his views on self-ownership. Perhaps this would be better placed in another section of this page? Maybe the first couple sentences (about the non/alienability of money) could be placed in the same section as the cyborg/abortion stuff (which should be renamed "Conflict within the Philosophy") If anything, I would think a better, more direct criticism would be self-ownership's possible support of *explicit,* old fashioned slavery, given the consent and contractual agreement of the slave (obviously this is a crazy offshoot interpretation, not the original Rothbardian view), and the resultant contradictory loss of self-ownership. 7:42, 14 August 2008, user Windragyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.229.142 (talk)

Done, the above. I moved stuff around, but some of it still needs to be cited. I also added a criticism, which seems common sense to me but also still needs to be cited, and I don't know of a citation for it. User: windragyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.229.142 (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the criticisms against section, I noticed a lot of unsubstantiated claims bordering on original research. I added citations needed to three different propositions that someone, if they have sources, can substantiate the arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms?

Could the criticisms be put back into this article please? I think its important because it seems very one sided at the moment. I understand that someone felt that the criticisms werent great but couldnt they have been improved instead of being removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.187.176.74 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Self-ownership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050802010353/http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html to http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)