The previous argument relies on the belief that you are owned by yourself. Now I'd like to concretely prove that. Firstly I would ask who, besides yourself, owns you. This is a perfectly workable argument but there is one which is much stronger. This is the philosophical proof called Argumentation ethics.
Posited by Hans Hermann Hoppe, it says that it is impossible to deny the concept of self ownership without a performative contradiction. Self ownership is defined as the exclusive use and control of your thoughts and actions.
If this is the case then it supports the concept of property rights. As explained by liberal philosopher John Locke, private property is defined as a scarce natural resource mixed with human labour. For instance, if you pick up an acorn it has become your property due to you mixing it with your labour. Private property is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the individual. If you did not have self ownership, you wouldn't have property rights, as you wouldn't have exclusive jurisdiction over your property.
Argumentation is the only peaceful form of conflict resolution. To argue, one must have self ownership. This is because it presupposes that you have exclusive use and control of your thoughts and actions. Arguing against this is contradictory, as It would be like trying to argue that you are dead, it is a performative contradiction.
This being an A Priori proof of property rights and the right to self ownership.
YOU ARE READING
The Logic of Liberty.
Non-FictionIntended as a spiritual sequel to my history of classical liberalism, this looks to the future of liberty and a school of thought which has since convinced me of its superiority of its predecessor.
