Self Ownership is The Fact That Defines Rights
I’ve often been challenged with the statement that Rights are opinions that only exist if the collective recognizes them. Well what if Rights were found through fact not opinion. Sure people can and will always have opinions about what rights are. This, however, has no effect on whether Factual Rights are real or exist, but does have an effect on whether or not they have been violated, if they exist.
All rights are derived from one fact. That fact is that the self owns the self. That might sound impossible or even crazy because if humans can be property they can be owned by another. Well if it’s fact that the self owns the self, even if that technically makes a human property, it is contrary to the fact of self-ownership for another to own the self. So that doesn’t justify ownership of others. That concern is just an acknowledgement that Rights can be violated even when factual.
So, how is it possible for the self to own the self and how is it fact? I explain it like this: the consciousness or soul of self has exclusive control(ownership) over the body of self. It doesn’t matter what someone does to you to get you to do or not do something. It takes the conscious self to decide to go along with the manipulation instead of resist. So even under manipulation the self has exclusive control of self. At no point does the self loose exclusive control in life until death. Only at that point does the self loose the ability to choose to go along with or resist attempts to manipulate them.
The next step is understanding what rights are and then finding them based on the fact of self-ownership. I wrote an earlier piece specifically on rights. In summary they are descriptions of actions that when taken do not violate the fact that someone else owns themselves. Thus making the action right to take not wrong to take.
Part of the key to unlocking all the extension rights of self-ownership is understanding that individuals own the consequence or product of their actions. Each individual has control(ownership) over the consequences and products of their actions based on their ability to choose actions that will lead to different consequences or results. It would make no sense for me to take no action but then claim ownership of the consequence or product of another individual’s actions. I have no control over it. Just the same is true if my actions create a negative consequence or product. Those negative consequences and products are not someone else’s they are mine. Through my controll they were manifested. Consequences and products of actions are a direct result of the individual exercising control over their actions.
It can then be said that actions are property of the action taker because the actions are exclusively controlled by the action taker. So if actions create a consequence or product what we have is property creating consequences or products through the control of the action taker. When the consequences or products of actions are not actions or property of another group or individual then they are owned by the original action taker. Another way of saying all that might be, because exclusive control lead to a certain result it must be property because everything about it's creation was done under exclusive control of an individual and that individual is the owner.
By: Neil Sollenberger
Host of An Anarchist Conversation