Another entry against self-ownership, by Erkmon.

In the past few years, a few people of anti-authoritarian persuasions have come to realize that the concept of “self-ownership” that they were sold is a false bill of goods. My many entries on the subject played some part in this. Here is another such entry that I was not aware of, by someone called Erkmon:

ownership = owner + owned. Which is it? We can’t be both, unless you believe dualism is true. Self-ownership seems to claim owner and owned are the same unit. How can ‘it’ “be” us and ‘it’ “own” us at the same time? Being that I defined ownership as owner + owned you can see why “I” don’t think an owner can be the owned, i.e. a self-owner…

We can’t separate action from responsibility, nor liberty from person. Self-ownership claims responsibility is owned, like people can be owned, when both responsibility and people are acts, not objects. Blaming person A for the actions of person B is not truth. Action can’t be separated from responsibility, despite the attempt. I am defining person as responsible actor, and liberty as action. Jail takes away liberty to a degree. If you believe in inalienability (and criminal ‘justice’) then action is inseparable from actor, i.e. “with liberty comes responsibility.”

2 thoughts on “Another entry against self-ownership, by Erkmon.

  1. Cammy January 27, 2014 at 22:22
  2. […] of sexual harassment is just as abusive to men as sexual harassment. It is also victim-blaming (x); it’s the woman’s fault for getting raped by her actions or what she wore, and men are […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: