From: Guru George (gurugeorge@sugarland.idiscover.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jul 11 1997 - 14:32:58 MDT
On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 03:46:07 -0400
Hagbard Celine <hagbard@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Eventually, it seems clear that at some point I will have restricted my
>actions to such an extent that everything not prohibited by contract is
>compulsory by contract. How can I then say that I own myself? I've sold
>my freedom to act for a certain consideration. My point, as you have
>quoted above, is that with the very first promise I make, I no longer
>own myself entirely. Again, ownership being a term-of-art for autonomy.
>
[snip]
But what holds one to one's promises? It isn't some external force, but
one's own will, one's own decision - after all, I *could* break those
promises at any time, if I wanted to.
So one is still autonomous: one still owns oneself, one still controls
oneself, by nature.
One only loses that power if some alien force intrudes on one's control:
and that's what libertarianism has noticed, and emphasises. The *social
* condition of freedom, liberty, is, effectively, mutual forbearance
>from mutual interference with each others' autonomy, with the kind of
exclusive
natural control we *can* have over our minds, bodies and property, to
the extent that we are 'allowed' to by nature's laws and by other people.
Guru George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:34 MST