Sorry to differ. Tigers do create something: they create new tigers, as is their evolutionary program. They may not have human cognitive rationality, but they have their evolved drives and natural smarts to serve to maintain themselves alive. They do whatever they can to survive as predators.

One human versus one tiger on a desert island may well be at a disadvantage, unless the human figures out some defenses. But that's not a fair scenario; it's like Ayn Rand's critique of lifeboat situations.

Humans and tigers co-exist on the planet in their respective areas, and as long as neither encroaches on the other's territory, both can live happily ever after.

To say because humans are smarter and can arm themselves to be stronger, therefore might makes right and predatory relationships are all that will exist is a sad commentary on allegedly rational relationships. If smarter and stronger have a natural right to conquer and beat down weaker and less evolved fellow humans, we are back to pre-Enlightenment barbarism.

Self-ownership means individual personhood is not to be violated or transgressed against. Each person is a "closed system", a territory of its own who acts to preserve itself and interacts with others by mutual consent. As Rand said, there is no collective stomach. Each individual acts to serve one's own needs.

Of course, history is littered with social systems that conquer and enslave, sacrifice and exploit some people for the sake of others, using the "superiority" of some as a rationalization for tyrannizing others viewed as inferior. "Manifest destiny" and all that crap. Mankind's predatory tendencies are a throwback to earlier evolutionary stages.

Consider that half a million years of cognitive emergence struggled its way upward, one neuron at a time, before a mind like Rand's could happen and articulate mankind's next stage of evolution, namely a rational consciousness, let alone a volitional one.

We're still in the stage where the truth she's spoken will be "twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools"--a world where we debate the meaning of self-ownership and natural rights, splitting hairs and counting dancing angels on the head of a pin, and conflate the continuum between rational selfishness and unbounded exploitative greed.

Rational selfishness is required to obtain property, where the individual has paid for that property through investment of time and energy, i.e., productive work. We are fortunate indeed that the planet supplies much of the material we need for our survival, free for the taking (but not for heedlessly destroying). Greedy exploitation seeks to shortchange others, to get the better of them by hook or crook, a deviant remnant of nature's predatory algorithm.

No one out there seems to understand Rand's golden rule as formulated in Galt's oath.

Self ownership is helpful because it defines you moral and legal relationship with yourself and other people. It is also important because for historical reasons. Locke and the founders were arguing against the divine right of kings, which stated that people were owned by the king.

I must confess to be struggling with this whole discussion.

I am. I am sentient. I am rational (mostly :) ).

Nobody else can own me. Even if I were enslaved, I would be forced to do things against my own will but they wouldn't own "me" and I would hope that I would have enough courage to retaliate against my slavers when the opportunity arose.

I'm struggling to see why self-ownership is a useful concept. It only seems to me to be an attribute of my existence as a rational being. I can only give it up if I give up my rational mind. While that is possible, there have clearly been people in extreme situations in which their agency was limited by the force of others (POWs, Victor Frankl in a concentration camp, etc.) that did not give up their rational mind.

yes, and some well meaning soul PMed Db and told him he needed to start referring to himself as a little "o" not a big "O"
there's rules, you see...:)

Kicked out of this group for using Rand's own words? Isn't that contradictary coming from a group that embraces freedom of thought? It never ceases to amaze me. As long as we can present our ideas respectfully, let the differing thoughts flow. Intellectual heir is ridiculous.

Nope, not obvious (to me), any more than the phrase "essential being...) is any clearer, either!

Like "when does life begin?" discussions... the starting definitions are usually 'understood,' or universally 'assumed,' not defined. And then the usual fun ensues.

I just Googled "essential being".... if it were a simple issue, there might not be about 124 MILLION hits... :)

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...

Thanks for the quote conscious

Person s essential being that distinguishes it from any others. I thought that was obvious -

I claim that, while this is a fun thread, until someone begins to try to define what "self" and/or "myself" MEANS, y'all ain't gonna go nowhere with this chat.

Which is surprisingly normal amongst humans, as I've noticed for decades.

Enjoy! Carry on!
:)

And if the tiger is strong and smart enough, you're his/her next meal. "Ownership" per se is a nice intellectual concept, but irrelevant to that metaphor.

As I've remarked many times before, it's a lot like "who owns my country?" If a people can defend it from anyone and everyone who wants the territory, "they own it." If they can't, they forfeit "ownership" when the other side wins.

Ditto 'you and the tiger.'

Bad metaphor!
:)

Tigers do not create anything and they are not rational so they cannot own anything including themselves.

Why does un-owned imply own-able? Might something be not owned and never own-able?

That's a perfect example of a Randoid. I was in a Objectivist group and my wife had a terrific argument with the group's "leader." He and his compatriots decided that I should divorce my wife. I divorced them instead. It seems that zealots can be found everywhere, but especially when it comes to new thoughts, ideas, etc.

Intellectual heir, now there is label in search of a meaningful definition.

How does one qualify as intellectual heir?, brainwashing?, brain transplant?

Individual intellect is the individual mind you cannot inherit that.

Looks to me like a label for someone trying to trade on the intellect of someone else, rather then their own.

Your comments are very interesting. I was kicked out of a FB group for challenging his view on this. I only pointed to Rand's own words. The Rand quotes were ignored and I was told to respect LP's position as intellectual heir.

One contractual form of ownership of a person was indentured servitude, in which a person sold "himself" (his work) for a specific period of time. That contract could be sold again by the owner of the contract to another. Professional football players are in a like situation; their contracts can be sold from one team to another without the permission of the player, unless the player is a free agent.

Selling part of your labor is not ownership of the person, but a contractual right to their output. If you do not own yourself then you cannot enter into a contract, because a contract requires two parties who are free to fulfill their promises.

I too am in your camp khalling.
Self ownership is. It is not another form of ownership it is the foundation upon which all other ownership (property) is based upon.
I disagree with the Professor. He says “property is the primary not the derivative.” This seems a contradiction if one does not recognize that the primary property is one’s self. What is he arguing? Is it an answer searching for a problem? A didactic argument that goes nowhere in my mind...

Respectfully,
O.A.

Hear, hear!

Well clearly slavery is the ownership of one person by another. When slavery is abolished, where did the ownership of that same person go?

I see no point in drawing a distinction between owning something else, and owning one's self.

I have metal hip implants. I claim that I own them (unless I missed some kind of bailment at the hospital). To put them in, my hip labrum was removed and a small amount of bone was ground off my femur. When these are original parts are removed, who owns them? They are no longer "self". The same can be said of a finger, leg, eye, etc. I see no conceptual issue with owning one's body and mind? I can paint it, abuse it, groom it and even donate or sell parts of it (hair, kidneys...). Why then would ownership of one self be in question at all?

This guy is just wrong.

From Rand's essay, Man's Rights, in the VOS:

"A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action — which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)"
....

"The right to life is the source of all rights — and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God — others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature."


I think of this as follows: a man's right to life is a function of his nature—qua man...like a birthright. This birthright can only be exercised through self-generated, life sustaining action. Those actions are the source of property rights. Also, those self-sustaining actions, required by man's nature, fundamentally earn him ownership of his life.

Great discussion, KH.

Throughout history, in various ways, one person can be "owned" by another. The ownership can be outright, as in slavery; or it can be contractual, as in professional athletics or employment contracts. To say that I own myself is a way of saying no one else owns me and I am free to contract as I will with others.

Well said, khalling. Peikoff was wrong on this one, and you and AR are correct.

You are completely correct. Bullseye! While I admire Piekoff for his intellect, I always thought that he had an underlying feeling that he must deviate in some minor way from Rand. I' not a shrink, so I can't claim to know his motives for this, but perhaps it was a need to show that he wasn't a Rand hand puppet (what we used to call a "Randoid.")

Say you are on a deserted island. There is a tiger. The tiger is unowned. You own yourself. The tiger does not own itself, but behaves in a manner consistent with self-ownership – it will struggle to remain free, and resist any attempt by you to establish ownership of it. You must kill the tiger and eat it to survive. The reciprocal is also true. The tiger must kill you and eat you to survive. You do not recognize the tiger’s right to life because the tiger is not a rational animal. The tiger does not respect your right to life because such a concept is not possible to a tiger (and because it’s hungry). Are the concepts of rights, property and ownership meaningful in such a context? Or do these concepts apply only to relationships among human beings?