If You Don't Own You...Then Who Does?

Update...decided to turn this into a survey after all...Self-Ownership Survey (SOS).

*****************

Eh, this has been sitting in my drafts section for a while.  I would have liked to turn it into a survey... similar to my tax allocation survey...but other more pressing matters keep popping up so figured I'd just go ahead and post it.  I was also motivated to post it by a couple of relevant articles that were recently published.

*****************

We all agree with the self-ownership principle to some degree. The question is...where do we draw the line?  Here are 10 arguments with regards to the self-ownership principle.  How many, if any, do you agree with?  How ideologically consistent are you?  In other words...where do you see yourself on the continuum ranging from pragmatism to dogmatism?

Abortion should be illegal - DNA allows us to differentiate between where your fist ends and somebody's nose begins. If you invite somebody onto your property it doesn't give you the right to initiate violence against them. If somebody is forced onto your property it still doesn't give you the right to initiate violence against them.

Consensual slavery should be legal - If you fully own yourself then you should be able to partially or fully sell yourself.  You should have the right to sell your kidneys, your sex and your entire body. You should be able to sell yourself to anybody else for any amount of time as long as you fully agree to the terms of the contract.

Polygamy should be legal - If you fully own yourself then you should be able to enter into a marriage contract with as my people as you so choose.

Euthanasia should be legal - If you fully own yourself then you should be able to authorize other people to terminate your life.

Drugs should be legal - If you fully own yourself then you should be able to harm yourself in any way that you so choose.

There should be a licence to procreate - You should have the right to be raised by people who were willing to take, and able to pass, a test based on a Parenting for Dummies textbook.   It's a violation of your property rights to be raised by people who do not know the basic nutritional, health, safety, emotional, and educational needs of children.

Children of any age should be allowed to vote (children's suffrage) - Everybody should have the right, completely irrespective of all other factors, to try and protect their interests. By restricting any individual's right to try and protect their interests we are legitimizing the idea that one person can truly know what's in another person's best interests. If one person can truly know what's in another person's best interests then it's reasonable for congress to take our money and spend it in our best interests.

Campaign contributions should not be restricted - Everybody should have the right to try and protect their interests. By restricting somebody's right to try and protect their interests you are saying that you know for a fact what's in their best interests.  How would you respond if somebody told you that they know for a fact what's in your best interests?  Would you believe them?

Taxpayers should be allowed to directly allocate their taxes (pragmatarianism) - We all have a debt to society but no two people have benefited from society in exactly the same way. Therefore, you are the only one that can truly know how you can best repay your debt to society. Voters should determine the functions of government and taxpayers should determine which functions to fund.

Taxes should be abolished (anarcho-capitalism) - Your property is an extension of yourself. Nobody has a right to take your property. Somebody stealing one penny from you is as morally wrong as somebody stealing your kidney.

Bonus 11th argument...

Business owners should be allowed to discriminate. - Your business is your property.  You should be able to do whatever you want with your property as long as your decisions do not violate the property rights of other people.  If other people disagree with your business practices then they can express their disapproval by engaging in ethical consumerism.  In essence, business owners should have the right to shoot themselves in the foot if they so choose.  If they want to send customers and/or employees to their competitors then that is their prerogative.