The concept of self-ownership rears itself frequently in the writings of libertarians and freedom advocates. The notion of liberty, say some, is founded on the very concept of self-ownership. Some people argue that self-ownership is an invalid concept, since we are ourselves. Some have gone as far as suggesting self-ownership is an oxymoron.
I would like to posit that we do own ourselves - it is the very essence of our consciousness, however the concept is not an absolute; it has its limits. In this post I will investigate the different social situations that the notion of self-ownership might be evident, and to discover and discuss its scope.
Discovering Ownership
When we are born, we are pretty much helpless, and are absolutely dependent on our parents (or surrogate) for sustaining our lives. Slowly, we begin to be aware of the extent of our power to control things. We figure that that object that we see waving in front of our field of vision is in fact our hand, which is connected to our arm, which is connected to ourselves. We discover, over time, that we have the power to control the motion of our hand. At some point, we discover that by moving our hands and arms, and shifting our weight, we can roll over, and that vastly changes our field of view. We need not spend our time staring at the ceiling. And so it goes on. We continue developing an increasing awareness of what we can control. Is there a sense of ownership at this point? Well, we already know that we have near autonomy of our hands and arms. We own at least that much - even if we can't articulate that sense of ownership. We would also wrestle back control of our arms and hands if somebody attempted to restrain their movement. That, I posit, is the beginning of defending autonomy and control, and defense of control or autonomy is at the core of the concept of ownership.
So, ownership is the defense of, or expression of intent to defend control over something. Yes, there are complex agreements made that separate legal ownership and legal control, however these are contrivances that ultimately stem from an understanding of ownership. Let's step back from that complexity for a moment though, and work our way toward it again.
Some argue that ownership is of agreement between parties, of the "legal" claim of control. I would posit that agreement is not necessary, and is in fact absent for most of the time. I find it hard to construe any form of agreement between parties that have never communicated, let alone having an agreement with every other person on the planet. Let's investigate how else it could be:
Defending Control
If I assert that I own an item, such as a tool that I have cobbled together from pieces of natural substance that I have found lying around (we'll look at real property later - let's assume "the commons" at this point). I have spent time crafting this tool from the available natural resources, and now I have this new implement. I can use it for my benefit. I can also put it down on the ground and leave it lying around. Another person could come past, and pick it up and use it for their own benefit. Now, who 'owns' the new implement? If I happen to notice the other person take it, I can say to him, "no problem, you can borrow it for a while", or I could say, "that's mine, put it back". Either way, I am asserting the power to control — I am making a claim that the implement is in my control. Even if I allow it to be lent to another, it is still in my control, since I have decided to allow its loan. If the borrower fails to return it, or I discover an immediate need for it, I will approach the borrower and ask for it back. This is the first step in defending my power to control, that is, asserting my claim of ownership.
The borrower may, as a gesture of goodwill, return the implement to my possession. In doing so, the borrower will understand that he has access to a range of other items that the lender has. Alternatively, the borrower may decide that he likes the implement too much, and refuse to return it to me. Now we have a situation whereby ownership is being established by a battle of wills. Each party is asserting the right to possess and control the implement. The lender, because was the craftsman of the article. The borrower, simply because he has possession of it and refuses to return it. Who ultimately prevails in this battle depends on the extent to which one party chooses to go to defend their claim. The defense of ownership can start with mere words, progress to shouting, physical violence and ultimately escalate to deadly force. In that final event, there is one party who wins ultimate control over the item.
The same assertion and defense could be mounted if the item was taken by another person without the permission of the creator. Most likely the communication would start higher in the hierarchy of force.
Law of the Jungle
But we don't live by the "law of the jungle", you say? Well, I'll assert that we do. Our perception of civilization is merely our understanding of the extent that another will go to, in order to defend their claim of control. The use of physical force is implied in the defensive actions of the owner - including their likely willingness to enlist the help of others in their pursuit of the defence. This implication is institutionalized in the entities that are agencies of the state^.
So, to where does this get us with regard to the concept of self-ownership. If we can agree that ownership is the willingness to defend the power to control, then it shouldn't be too difficult to see how we can get to self-ownership. Do you have the power to control yourself, your actions, your thoughts? How far are you willing to go to defend that power? Herein lies the essence of self-ownership. It is, as I have asserted elsewhere in forum discussions, simply a state of mind. A willingness to assert and defend.
However, the encroachment on our self-ownership can occur even at very subtle levels. Have you ever had that nagging sense of obligation toward someone else? That reluctant, begrudging feeling of doing something for someone because you have to? Do you struggle to muster the fortitude to tell some demanding other to take a hike? It is here, I suggest, that we are running up against the limitations of self-ownership. Sure, we might be happy to acquiesce our time and resources to another, but the key point there is "happy". If we are doing something begrudgingly, there in lies a sign of our reluctance to defend our self-ownership. We have failed to muster the will to push back. Perhaps we are trading off present desires to do what we really want, for some future advantage. Perhaps we are spineless. Perhaps we have simply learned to love our captors.
Of course, defending those who would take from us, be it our life, liberty or property, is a symptom of the Stockholm Syndrome, which is...
...a real paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them.
Are we unwitting, deluded adherents to the notion of the state? Do we foster a (perhaps begrudging) partnership to the social contract? Have we been misled into believing in the greater good? The next question I would ask is; Is family the origin of this apparent predisposition to slavery?
Gaining Freedom and Independence
Our upbringing is a lengthy process of achieving a greater and greater sense of independence and autonomy. As a child, we are almost entirely beholden to our parents. As a teenager, we begin to assert an increasing level of independence and autonomy. When we finally fly the coop, we seek to take on all the responsibility for our own survival and wellbeing. At some point we can say we are independent. We have freedom. Well, at least we think we have. By comparison with our childhood years, we have infinitely greater freedom (and responsibility). But do we really own ourselves? Are we still beholden to our parents somewhat? As they say, you can choose your friends, but you can't choose your relatives*. In that old adage, lies an admission that we never really fully own ourselves. We cannot entirely cut our familial ties, and if we try to, there are other unforeseen costs that we will discover.
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
So says John Donne. We really can never be totally independent. As George Bailey discovers in his attempts to spread his wings and adventure from Pottersville. As much as he'd like his independence; to own himself, he discovers the frustration of being beholden to his set of circumstances, to his community.
I think this paradoxical juxtaposition is what trips us up. In some sense we want for our independence, but in other senses, we yearn for an association with something larger than ourselves. We join football clubs, political parties or churches. These associations are voluntary, entered into of our own volition. Sometimes, however, the associations are less than voluntary; particularly where it is the family itself that is the larger entity. This inability to break free from familial expectations can cover political persuasion to the brand of car we drive.
At a more intense level, the dynastic ambitions amongst certain family members is probably the origin of kingdoms and principalities - being the precursor to the state. But I often wonder how much self-ownership these kings and princes have. They too, are beholden to an entity (fictitious) much larger than themselves. This is no more apparent that the case of King Louis XVI of France. At fourteen, he became a pawn of the French political apparatus for the betterment of yet another (Austrian) political apparatus. So disinterested was he in his patriotic duty, that the guy allegedly couldn't even be bothered getting it up for his wife, Archduchess Maria Antoni. Who owned whom in this instance?
Self Ownership vs Selfishness
So does self-ownership transform, if ever, into selfishness? Definitions of selfishness typically form something like;
arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others.or;
exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness.This exclusive regard for one's own interest, or the corollary disregard for others seems to be the key. Such definitions readily appear to convey a distinct lack of empathy. So it entirely conceivable to say that one could have an entrenched sense of self-ownership, but still have ample regard for others. The regard for others is borne of a unilateral decision to consider the needs of others.
The Rise of Statehood
But, does a regard for the interests others, particularly a special interest group, or minority, entitle one to impose themselves upon a third party? I'd suggest not, but there are assuredly others who have differing opinion. It is almost without doubgt that most of these others are politicians. The snake-oil salesmen that offer panacea with no pain. I think it beyond reproach to say that deception is at the root of all evil. Every conceivable ill imposed on mankind is the result of some twisted and empty rhetoric that galvanized the gullible into action. This duplicitous persuasion and devious call to action caused the ignorant to let down their guard, to neglect the defense of their own sense of self ownership, and give over their alliegence to psychopaths. These careless folk are lured to aid the pursuit of the promised plunder.
In part 2, I'll discuss further, the means by which we own chattels and real property, and how that is perverted by the whims of politicians and those who believe in the state.
---------------------------
^I'll refrain from arguing this point in this post.
* Hi there Stefan Molyneux, I know you can deFOO by choice
No comments:
Post a Comment