On Understanding Freedom and Self-Ownership
I regularly read two to three hours daily, so to make sure all the words I’m ingesting have value, I try to be selective. One way I do this is when I’m presented with a bit of a long read, such as Ari Kohen’s post yesterday on libertarianism and freedom, I take in the first few and last few paragraphs to get a sense of what the author is hoping to convey and whether it is compelling enough to read in its entirety.
Well, with Ari’s “exceedingly charitable” line near the top and his “perhaps… these people (who prize individual choice so highly) simply don’t respect my choices” at the end - this sadly seemed like an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. And, considering a past post and exchange which had me wondering about Ari’s integrity (see here, here, and here), I simply had no interest in wading through it.
But Ari asked for a response, and it would be impolite for me not to oblige.
Ari, in a reply to a message I sent him, said that “we have different ideas about freedom, choice, and government.” Indeed. Starting with my definition of freedom or liberty as “the right and ability to do what one pleases without restraint so long as it does not harm another person’s ability to do the same with their life and property,” and Ari’s as… something beyond that.
Here’s Ari:
I think most people would probably agree that freedom is the ability to do as one chooses without intervention. The caveat that is most often attached, though, is that society can limit one’s freedom if one seeks to harm or limit the freedom of another. As far as I know, libertarians are just fine with that.
Actually, libertarians do not believe that “society can limit one’s freedom if one seeks to harm or limit the freedom of another.” We understand that one doesn’t have the freedom to “harm or limit the freedom of another” so there would be no freedom to limit in this regard. This is not mere semantics: this is fundamental to understanding exactly what freedom is. So when a law exists that, say, prohibits murder, this law is not limiting anyone’s freedom or liberty.
(Correspondingly, when someone initiates force in violation of another’s liberty, we understand that said initiation of force is what causes the individual to give up certain rights to life and liberty commensurate to the initial violation. As such, we are opposed to the initiation of force but not necessarily against defensive, restitutive, or retaliatory force.)
Ari continues:
But why is this the only acceptable caveat? Why couldn’t we also legitimately limit one’s freedom to make dangerous choices, especially insofar as those choices seldom — if ever — only impact the one making them?
This comes down to the principle of self-ownership. Do I own me? If not, then who does? Society? And if society does, then nothing it does to me is truly violative since society owns me.
Of course, this is preposterous. We all own our selves, individually. We own our lives, we own the product of our lives (property), and we decide what we do with our lives (liberty). Because we own ourselves, any agression against us (and our property) violates this self-ownership.
This self-ownership means I can treat myself how I wish. I can choose to eat healthy or kill myself with processed grains and hormonally-injected foods. I can choose to work out or let my body rot through sloth. I can choose to keep my skin out of sunlight and injury, or poke it with holes and piercings and tattoos and tans. I can choose to smoke, sniff glue, and do anything harmful. I can choose to “rent” my body and mind for employment, enjoyment, and anything in between (it is this process of trading our lives and time for property that is why self-ownership requires private property rights). My ownership of myself is absolute - and that absolutely includes the freedom to make dangerous choices.
Now if this choice to hurt myself hurts another, then that is not an additional “caveat” as you suggest - this goes back to the original principle of self-ownership.
But you apparently don’t mind agression or seem to value self-ownership:
I don’t feel less free when I look at the amount of money that comes out of my check every month, even though I’d rather have that money in my pocket.
So, yes, Ari - we have very different ideas about freedom, choice, and government. But here’s the rub: you could erect a voluntary community which subscribes to your idea of freedom within my ideal society, but I could not erect a voluntary community which subscribes to my idea of freedom within your ideal society. So which is more free? Which, as you phrased it, more “respects” whose “choices”?
—-
Update: Jeff Miller had beat me to the punch and already posted a solid, thorough response to Ari’s post, and we make very similar arguments. His is a very worthy read.
Notes:
-
lendahandandliftme liked this
-
nothingsinister liked this
-
theunconquered1 liked this
-
lindseycathryn liked this
-
laliberty posted this
