Do We Own Ourselves?

By -
Of course not, writes John Médaille:
We cannot own ourselves for the simple reason that we cannot create ourselves; we cannot seize control of our origins or be present at our beginnings. Rather, all of us are called into being through an act of love into the ready-made community of the family. From this little society, we receive certain gifts. The gift of being itself, in the first instance, and a sufficiency of material gifts—food, clothing, shelter—or else we would not have survived. But beyond these material gifts, we are graced with other kinds of gifts: language, culture, our first ideas of right and wrong, our first experience of love and beauty.
Of course, Locke was anything but consistent, however, it seems pretty clear to me that if he followed through on his homesteading principle, it would be our parents who own us. After all, they are the ones who "mixed their labor" to create us. But Locke was just throwing together whatever ideas seemed to recommend the policies he wanted, without worrying about their consistency.

Comments

  1. Unknown5:56 AM

    Why would it be our parents who own us? Why not our grandparents, and so on? And on their death, why should we bequeath to our parents or ourselves? If society has the ultimate claim on us, shouldn't we be transferred to their ownership forthright, to await further instructions? The author's postulates are every bit as questionable. I suspect that you specifically want to focus on Locke's philosophy of self-ownership, and aren't endorsing the author's counter-argument that "[we claim] ownership of things by giving them away".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah6:47 PM

      "Why would it be our parents who own us?"

      I don't think they should, but they ARE the ones who "labored" to create us.

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell3:16 PM

      "Labored" in such a way as to make for great jokes, too.

      Delete
  2. Anonymous11:57 AM

    Doesn't Locke argue against this view in the First Treatise?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more