5. “Man and Matter: How the Former Gains Ownership of the Latter”
by Per Bylund
Abstract: This study seeks to investigate the nature of ownership of land, and how the right to its control and use can be inferred from self-ownership as a premise. Hence, the question asked is how ownership (of land) can be justified considering the nature of man from a natural rights point of view. The starting point for the argument is self-ownership as being, where man is identified as an indivisible entirety with inalienable rights to his self emanating from his complex nature. This identification is the point of departure in examining the relation between man and the world, and the concept of ownership. Man’s right to self implies the right to use externals through choice, to “focus his consciousness” in order to achieve values beneficial to his being. The discussion on ownership, as inferred from self-ownership as being, ends in a discussion of the distinct features of land, and how ownership of such can be obtained. The conclusion is that man as a rights-bearer to self can obtain natural use-rights through possession and constructive use of resources, rights which are valid throughout the value-achieving process.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
[...] nytt grepp för synen på ägande, som kan bidra till intressanta diskussioner. Läs mer i artikeln ”Man and Matter: How the Former Gains Ownership of the Latter”. [...]
It has always seemed to me that self ownership is self evident. After all, whatever difficulties arise in demonstrating this principle, the difficulties are exponentially greater in demonstrating otherwise.
If I do not own myself, who does…. and are not all of the same difficulties revisited? If one argues for any form of social ownership…how can I own a participation in someone else without first an ownership in myself?
How does an ownership in property arise? In the first instance it arises in one of two ways: it arises by consent or it arises by force of arms. These are precisely the same ways in which I might establish my self ownership. It is acquired from others through their consent or with violence.
Although we imagine ourselves far superior to medieval notions of fiefdoms, the reality is more disquieting. Property taxes eliminate the unencumbered ownership of property and make the modern citizen the equal of the peasant tenant farmer of the remote past. The unencumbered ownership of property today is largely acquired through violence. Exceptions may be found of course, e.g. the Louisiana Purchase or the purchase of Alaska.
In a free market, land (like all other forms of property) will change from weak hands to strong hands, and from less productive purposes to more productive purposes.
There is no right inherent in land not to be used. For if it is difficult to demonstrate the rights of man who is a self conscious being, how could one possibly demonstrate the ‘rights’ of the inanimate world? Such an effort would also need to show how rights are inherent in a variety of laboratory samples.
Among the creatures less than man, fundamental disputes (such as the right to procreate, or the right to dominion or habitat) are resolved with violence rather than consent. It appears to me that the power of consent is itself an essential component of humanity.
“If I do not own myself, who does…”
No one.
To start with, the concept of self-ownership is logically malformed. Ownership is a relationship *between* entities, as we see from the verb “to own” being transitive and thus requiring a distinct subject and object.
Secondly, if you owned yourself, this would imply that you are owned by your property (i.e. you), which is another nonsense construction.
Thirdly, if you owned yourself, you could lose yourself in bankruptcy along with all your other property. You don’t want that to be possible, do you?
Nonsense.
Ownership is a relationship between man and something else material; the material is not necessarily an entity. Contrary to some philosophers, an agreement of the community is not required to substantiate this ownership. I possess and occupy said self to the exclusions of others, thus I own.
That I own myself does not infer that my self owns me. Myself, the direct object of “I own” means my corporeal object and infers the inclusion of all that which is interior to the body. Libertarians extend that inference to the products created by my body in concert with its interior systems, i.e., my intellect.
To lose my ‘self’ in bankruptcy suggests that the ownership of my self is a relationship granted by legislation, which, it being a natural right, is not. The courts have no authority over the ownership I enjoy of my self. The only way in which this relation can be altered is with the eviction of me, the agent. When you are dead, you own nothing.
Ownership is a myth, a fairy-tale. If the relation of ownership is not observable in a state of affairs, then it arises by ascription or utterance.
Simply ascribing ownership to B doesn’t establish the state of affairs where B owns this and therefore doesn’t establish the truth of the sentence “B owns this” just as simply saying “The cat is sitting on the mat” doesn’t establish the state of affairs where the cat is sitting on the mat and therefore doesn’t establish the truth of the sentence “The cat is sitting on the mat”. The process is one of magical incantation.
As far as self-ownership is concerned, I take it that the operative sentence is “I own myself”. However, I am myself and you are yourself. Ownership is irrelevant.