Self-Ownership, and the Non Aggression
Principle.
A Critique
1) Self-Ownership
I'm becoming more and more convinced that the idea of self ownership is
one of the main problems with the more secular/atheistic theories of
libertarianism. And it leads to murder, and slavery in the name of
"euthanasia/assisted suicide," and "contractual slavery," respectively.
Although I will admit it's still the best theory of liberty from a
secular perspective in existence that I know of. (As an aside, I will
also point you to Libertarians4Life's article on the
subject of assisted suicide if you're interested. )
I was recently reading an article by Walter Block at the Mises
Institute entitled "Towards a
libertarian theory of unalienability."
He writes that life, and liberty ARE legally alienable. If we aren't
able to buy and sell those things, then we really don't own them. On
this point then, he disagrees with Jefferson when he wrote the
Declaration of Independence.
Well. Maybe Jefferson is right. Maybe we don't really own our own life
and liberty. Maybe they really ARE unalienable -- given by God. At
least we don't (and shouldn't try) to own them in the sense that we can
(or should) trade or sell them.
As a Christian, I know that God owns my body. My body is the temple of
His Holy Spirit. To destroy myself through self destructive behaviors
then, is to vandalize God's property. In other words. I don't own my
body/self. God does.
That isn't to say I would ever advocate government to regulate such
things, . . .
SideBar
(On what? God's behalf? Don't be silly. God doesn't need government to
enforce His property rights, If he's God he can do it himself. That's
why Christians should all advocate anarchy -- or at least
libertarianism. We don't need "government" to enforce God's moral laws.
The laws are already there in the way the universe/human nature works
-- and if they weren't God could enforce tthem Himself. People would
figure out the best/moral ways to live on there own much easier if
government didn't exist trying to encourage what it "thinks" through
secular reasoning to be the best. Government then, forces people to
behave in certain collective ways about things that, should be between
the individual and God. It also forces people to commune with
Government when perhaps they should be communing with 1) God to
ascertain His will, or 2) their family. )
End sidebar
. . . because government regulation and enforcement would do more harm
then good to the person in question. 2nd, in order for government to
regulate vices, and such, it must do so with stolen money. However,
there is no universal "right" to be self destructive. Now, I realize
that nobody here is really advocating that, but I feel sometimes that
libertarians focus way too much on legalizing vices (drugs,
prostitution, gambling, cannibalism (?) -- seriously, I've had
libertarians try to tell me that cannibalism should be OK. ), and
forget about basic fundamental rights, even to the detriment (e.g.,
Life, liberty, property, right to bare arms) of those fundamental
rights.
* * *Disclaimer. It's not governments job to "enforce that lack of
"right" to self harm. That's up to churches, family, friends, etc. to
educate and help teach people not harm themselves.
* * *Disclaimer. I'm NOT advocating for government regulation of these
things. I just feel this "owning one's self" initial assumption
sometimes leads libertarians off track, and down roads that could be
better spent following more practically productive libertarian aims.
Such things are between the person in question and God, because
government as a collective entity really can't know what God wants
(while the individual prayerful individual can) and government is
inherently incompetent (at least from a Christian perspective and my
reading of 1st Kings, The Witness of Jesus, and Acts) and therefore
shouldn't be involved with such things.
Forgive me for going way off topic.
There IS a better theory of libertarianism/anarchism. It's in the
Bible. Perhaps their's a better secular theory as well. I don't know,
but I haven't found/thought of it yet.
2) NAP
On the Non-Aggression Principle.
I once knew a Girl who was suicidal when I was in college. One
afternoon I walked up the the dorm room and knocked on her door. She
didn't answer. But I could hear shallow breathing through the door, so
I knew she was in there. And I thought, "Well, she probably just wants
to be left alone." I started to walk away, but then I thought that
typically she yells through the door at me when she does. I tried the
door handle (as college students do to see if their friend is home or
not or OK). It was locked. I knew this person quite well. She NEVER
locked her door. Especially when she was home. There was something
strange about the situation, so I listened closer (I have really good
hearing. I can't stand Dog whistles), and I noticed the breathing I was
hearing was quite stuttered and irregular.
Suddenly, I felt an awful feeling of dread come over me. When I had
talked to her a few nights ago, I hadn't been able to get her to
promise to talk to me or anything before she actually decided to do it.
<b>She was trying to commit suicide.</b>
Hurriedly, I called the P.A. on floor duty and got them to unlock the
door. Sure enough. There she was, laying in bed, face up, unconscious
with both her wrists slashed quite brutally, skirting blood all over
everything. She had lost a lot of blood. We got her to the doctor and
patched her up, with the schools basic insurance policy they put on all
their students (So no socialised medicine or other government theft
involved with treating her), We saved her life. We got her some help,
and a couple months later she thanked me.
Now, here's the question. Was it immoral of me to aggress against her
to save her life?
I already know your answer. "The Dorm-rooms were owned by the school,
so they had every right to open her room because it wasn't really hers
it was theirs."
But hypothetically. What if this girl, was on her own, and owned her
own home that she owned completely free and clear. Would it have been
immoral of me to trespass on her property to save her life against her
suicidal wishes?
I answer a resounding no. Obviously government shouldn't do things like
I did, because, simply as an impersonal bureaucracy, it doesn't have
the capability to be discerning. But is it wrong for a compassionate
individual to care about a friend to the point of trespassing on that
friends property to save that friends life? Is it wrong to save a
suicidal friend simply because you're violating her wishes? Are we not
to help people when they need it sometimes, because of the
Non-Aggression Principle?
It is for this reason that I dispute the non-aggression principle.
"Thou shalt not kill." and "Thou shalt not steal." are quite
enough. They say we have a right to not have other people murder
us or steal from us. They do NOT say we have a right to be free from
people trying to save our lives.
Sometimes it is not possible, to reduce all of morality down to one
single axiom. However I think a couple better axioms then the Non
Aggression Principle are, "Do onto others as you would have them do
unto you." from Romains, and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."
from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.
That said. Again, Rothbard, Rand, Block, and others have come up with
the best possible atheistic/secular theory of libertarianism I think.
And I applaud them for their efforts. But I think they fall short, from
the teachings of Jesus and the Bible.