Self Ownership
What would it mean that I do not own myself. It would mean that somehow I do not have dominion or control over myself that my actions are somehow disconnected from me or that I am not responsible for my actions. Metaphysically it would mean that I do not cause my actions. A determinist for instance would believe that they are not the cause of their actions any more than the Earth causes itself to spin on its axis. Ethically, it would mean that I am not responsible for my actions. We hear this all the time today especially in criminal law. The criminal is not responsible because they grew up in a broken home, or they were abused. I guess this is some sort of ethical determinism or ethical nihilism. Either way it is not objectivism. Objectivism is based on the idea that you are the cause of your actions and in most cases responsible for them.
To use the concept of ownership here creates a circular argument. This problem could be avoided by saying the ultimate owner is god, or such-like. I doubt this is intended.
Perhaps the meaning of ownership as used is different from my understanding. Regardless, it is unnecessary.
The proposition that humans are responsible for their actions is logical when considering thinking, awareness, and ability to act.
There is the other view that it is all the will of Allah, or there is no free will, or all depends on the collective society that has set in train the motives and abilities that all persons have, fate then takes its irrevocable path.
Cultures that believe that kind of thing are clearly in decay.
Cultures who hold to individual responsibility may be happier and are certainly more advanced.
This is good circumstantial evidence in favor.
An argument based on 'ownership' is, I suggest, an attempt to bring in euphony, a sound bite, it sounds right, with emotional appeal.
Instead of ownership, try sovereignty. Sovereigns do not have owners.
Every individual is sovereign.
"Don’t Act Like You Own Your Children". The theme is to not over-manage children but to recognize that they are autonomous and they think.
Anyway, logic trumps authority.
The possessive words my-your-our are often used such as in my son,or my grandmother in the sense of showing a relationship and not of asserting ownership. Words such as "I" and "myself" refer to the same thing, they are different words as required by the rules of English grammar.
(Active, passive, reflexive, subject, object...)
Property rights, I agree, crucial, without property rights little else matters.
DB's case does not depend on such use of words- I, myself, and ownership.
I read his message as that it is up to each individual to assert their autonomy, and take responsibility, the alternative is to submerge into the hive. This is happening unfortunately in our expanding collectivism, perpetrators of crime are now regarded as victims and given all kinds of help.
Just incidental, at the moment I am reading John Galsworthy's 'A Man of Property'. The family at the core of the story are concerned about property, what they own, and what it all cost, their thinking goes no further.
Thanks for the comment, coming up to midnight here when I turn into a human being. Good night.
Racism,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 129
She uses (correctly) sovereignty and self ownership interchangeably.
Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. According to G. A. Cohen, the concept of self-ownership is that "each person enjoys, over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has not contracted to supply."[1]
To argue sovereignty is to argue self ownership
Though the Future's there for anyone to change,
Still you know it seems,
It'd be easier sometimes to change the past.
The key is to realize the first line, and act accordingly.