Galtland Index

Self-Ownership

5 min read

Self-Ownership

Self-ownership is the libertarian first principle: each person is the full and exclusive owner of his own body and will. From that single premise the rest of the structure follows — because you own yourself, you own your labor; because you own your labor, you own what you make from unowned nature and what others freely give you in trade; and because everyone equally owns themselves, no one may aggress against another’s person or justly-acquired property. Taxation, conscription, and slavery are wrong on this view because each is a partial or total claim of ownership over a person who owns himself. It is the axiom the whole wiki’s libertarianism is built on, and the premise its critics most often contest.

The principle

The claim is not that people happen to control their own bodies but that they are entitled to — that each person has the sole rightful jurisdiction over his own physical person, thoughts, and actions. Murray Rothbard, in The Ethics of Liberty, makes it the root of a whole legal order: from self-ownership plus the homesteading of unowned resources, an entire structure of just property titles is deduced. Everything after — contract, exchange, restitution — is the working-out of who owns what, starting from the fact that each person owns himself. As Hoppe compresses Rothbard’s answer, each person “owns his own physical body as well as all nature-given goods which he puts to use with the help of his body before anyone else does” — self-ownership joined to first use.

Why not the alternatives

Rothbard’s sharpest argument is that the rivals to self-ownership cannot be stated coherently. If a person does not own himself, then either (a) some other group owns him, or (b) everyone owns an equal share of everyone. The first is slavery, and it abandons the equal moral standing that any ethics for all people requires — it makes one class owners and another owned. The second, universal co-ownership, is unworkable in practice (no one could act, even to stay alive, without the prior permission of all the world’s other part-owners) and self-undermining in principle. Only full self-ownership treats every person alike and lets human life proceed at all. It is, in this sense, less an arbitrary preference than the one property rule that can be applied universally.

Two ways to ground it

The wiki’s sources defend self-ownership on two distinct footings:

  • Natural rights. Rothbard sets it in the natural-law tradition running from the Scholastics through Locke: it is a truth about the nature of the human person, discoverable by reason, and prior to any state or contract.
  • Argumentation ethics. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, argues it cannot be coherently denied, because the very act of arguing presupposes each party’s exclusive control of his own body. To argue against self-ownership one must exercise the self-ownership one is denying — a performative self-contradiction. This is the wiki’s argumentation ethics.

What follows from it

Self-ownership is load-bearing across the corpus. The non-aggression principle is just the prohibition on violating it. The title-transfer theory of contract explains how ownership legitimately moves between self-owners, and marks the limit case where an inalienable will cannot be sold outright. The libertarian objection to the state — that it claims of its subjects (through taxation and conscription) a partial ownership no private person could claim — is the self-ownership axiom applied to the political means.

Where it is contested

Self-ownership is powerful precisely because so much rides on one premise, which is also its vulnerability. Critics question the move from controlling one’s body to owning it — “ownership” is a legal category built for external things, and importing it to the self may smuggle in the tradeable, alienable character of property that the self does not obviously have (which is why the voluntary-slavery question is genuinely hard). Others accept self-ownership but deny that it yields full private property in external goods: one can own oneself, they argue, and still owe something to a community whose infrastructure, security, and prior appropriations made one’s own production possible — the line the wiki’s distributive-justice material joins. And Hoppe’s argumentation-ethics proof is disputed even by sympathizers, who grant that argument presupposes control of one’s body without granting that it establishes a full, permanent, property-style right good against all comers. The axiom is the wiki’s foundation; it is not an unchallenged one.

See Also

Sources

Graph View

Backlinks