One powerful argument against self-ownership is that it degrades personhood by leading individuals to view themselves and others as mere instrumental goods, alienable commodities to be exchanged in markets like other products and services. In general terms, this line of criticism (called the “commodification argument”) maintains that a direct and causal relationship exists between certain legal institutions (self-ownership) and certain attitudes (instrumentalism) and that the undesirability of the latter justifies restrictions on the former. In this article, I will critically examine (...) Margaret Jane Radin’s book Contested Commodities (1996), which presents a well-developed, compelling version of the commodification argument. I will advance three central points over the course of the article: first, the purported causal connection between self-ownership and instrumentalism is either weak or nonexistent; second, the commodification argument does little independent moral work, tending instead to be parasitic on arguments against economic, racial, and gender inequality; and third, what independent moral work it does do seems to be directed not so much at self-ownership as at liberal neutrality. I will conclude by showing that the weaknesses of Radin’s diverse defenses of the commodification argument cast doubt upon the anticommodificationist enterprise as a whole. (shrink)

Many libertarians believe that self-ownership is a separate matter from ownership of extra-personal property. “No-proviso” libertarians hold that property ownership should be free of any “fair share” constraints, on the grounds that the inability of the very poor to control property leaves their self-ownership intact. By contrast, left-libertarians hold that while no one need compensate others for owning himself, still property owners must compensate others for owning extra-personal property. What would a “self” have to be for these claims to be (...) true? I argue that both of these camps must conceive of the boundaries of the self as including one's body but no part of the extra-personal world. However, other libertarians draw those boundaries differently, so that self-ownership cannot be separated from the right to control extra-personal property after all. In that case, property ownership must be subject to a fair share constraint, but that constraint does not require appropriators to pay compensation. This view, which I call “right libertarianism,” differs importantly from the other types primarily in its conception of the self, which I argue is independently more plausible. (shrink)

Este texto propone una defensa de la crítica que Cohen realiza al concepto de propiedad de uno mismo. Para ello, presentaremos la crítica de Cohen a dicho concepto en la obra de Nozick. Luego, se expondrá la defensa elaborada por Mack de la propiedad de uno mismo en la obra de Nozick, por medio de la formulación de lo que denomina “cláusula de propiedad de uno mismo”. Por último, se sostendrá que dicha cláusula no permite superar las críticas de Cohen, (...) debido a que su cumplimiento es compatible con un régimen de propiedad colectiva. (shrink)

Autor v tomto článku rozporuje pojem non-agrese Murrayho N. Rothbarda a využívá při tom to, co nazývá paradoxem non-agresivní vraždy. Autorovou ambicí není nic menšího než rozbít základy Rothbardovy politické filosofie a využívá přitom důkaz sporem, tedy fakt, že vyvrácení kontradiktorního opaku jako nepravdivého je za podmínek úplné disjunkce zároveň důkazem pravdivosti dokazované teze. Dokazovanou tezí je zde teze: v určitých případech existují pozitivní práva a povinnosti, tedy práva a povinnosti nevyplývající ani ze smlouvy, ani z předešlé agrese. O této (...) skupině práv a povinností však Rothbard říká, že ve skutečnosti neexistuje. Důvodem dle Rothbarda je, že takováto pozitivní práva a povinnosti by porušovaly sebevlastnictví povinovaného, resp. jeho právo k vlastní osobě a majetku. Autor tohoto článku naopak jejich existenci dokazuje poukazem na nepravdivost kontradiktorního opaku („pozitivní práva nikdy neexistují“), kterou ukazuje na uvedených paradoxech obklíčitele, majitele člunu, hostitele a skokana. Určité konkrétní majetkové právo nemůže mít subjekt A i subjekt B současně a ve stejném rozsahu. Zatímco však Rothbard tvrdí, že majetkové právo může vyplývat pouze ze smlouvy či z předchozí agrese (jako právo na kompenzaci), autor tohoto článku argumentuje, že majetkové právo nemusí vyplývat pouze ze smlouvy či z předchozí agrese, a dokazuje to existencí případů, kdy popření mimo-smluvního majetkového práva implikuje paradox non-agresivní vraždy: subjekt, který naplánuje úkladnou vraždu, se nedopouští protiprávní agrese. Což je rozpor. Ergo, teze „pozitivní práva nikdy neexistují“ je nepravdivá. Ergo, pravdivá je autorem dokazovaná teze. Mimo-smluvní práva a povinnosti se tedy nachází v obsahu správně pojatého pojmu sebevlastnictví a úkladná vražda se nikdy nenachází v rozsahu správně pojatého pojmu non-agrese. (shrink)

:Self-ownership theorists argue that many of our most morally urgent and enforceable rights stem from the fact that we own ourselves. Critics of self-ownership argue that the claim that people own their bodies commits self-ownership theorists to several implausible conclusions because self-ownership theory relies on several vague moral predicates, and any precisification of the required predicates is seemingly too permissive or too restrictive. I argue that this line of criticism does not undermine the case for self-ownership theory because self-ownership theory (...) does not require precisification of each moral concept that it is based on and, even if it did, the theory’s alleged extensional inadequacy does not undermine its justification. (shrink)

:In this essay I attempt to vindicate the “asymmetry thesis,” according to which ownership of one’s own body is intrinsically different from ownership of other objects, and the view that self-ownership, as libertarians normally understand the concept, enjoys a special “fact-insensitive” status as a fundamental right. In particular, I argue in favor of the following claims. First, the right of self-ownership is most plausibly understood as based on the more fundamental notion of respect for persons, where the concept of a (...) person is in turn understood, along the lines set out by P. F. Strawson and P. M. S. Hacker, as referring to an entire biological organism with a certain set of mental and corporeal characteristics. If we restrict our attention to human persons, we can say on this basis that there is a special moral status attaching to the entire human body, and to no more than the human body. Second, self-ownership is not, as critics have sometimes supposed, based on a more fundamental right to equal freedom or autonomy. Criticisms of self-ownership as insufficiently justified on the basis of such rights are therefore off target. Rather, equal freedom and self-ownership are each based directly on the more fundamental notion of respect for persons. For left-libertarians, the asymmetry thesis serves to give priority to self-ownership when delineating a set of original property rights, given that there are many alternative ways of realizing equal freedom not all of which involve fully respecting people’s property rights in themselves. (shrink)