"If ownership isn't conferred, then there is nothing sacred and absolute about it ... hence no reason why EVERYONE should respect it."

I'm not saying that ownership is sacred or absolute, I'm saying that the moral principle underlying ownership and the principle of liberty is universal. It's universal because you can't deny it without performing a self-contradiction - as Ludwig is doing.

"The evident truth is that people, especially at both ends of their life, do not own their bodies and are helpless while others care for it ..."

Firstly that provides no justification for using force or threats to command others' obedience when they are not babies or incapacitated by old age. It is not okay to treat the entire population as incompetents, as wards of those wise guardians the government. Even if that premise were granted which it's not, then obviously it raises the question why the guardians should not also be presumed incompetent. Thus the whole approach must founder in self-contradiction.

Secondly, babies and children in all societies form a special exception to the rules applying to adults, and I reject confusing the case of the latter with the former.

Thirdly, the fact of old age is not a reason why the aged person's consent should not be required to their treatment.

Property originates in one of three ways:
a) by appropriating something from its unowned state in nature
b) by transforming it by one's own labour
c) by voluntary exchanges with others.

All presuppose the universal morality of the principle of liberty.

The facts that no-one can deny these without performing a self-contradiction, and that human society is not possible without them, establish my proof that liberty and property are the universal foundations of morality, without the need for recourse to any conjecture of what is sacred or absolute. Force is justified to defend liberty and property, no more.

The question is not whether one verbally agrees. The question is whether one can deny the principle without self-contradiction.

I say you can't. But if you can, how

Dear Jardine,

I definitely wouldn't deny liberty.

The principle of liberty is a very useful abstraction: all I am saying is that it is not a fundamental or a moral principle per se, but rather a derivative of deeper and more fundamental principles.

<<All presuppose the universal morality of the principle of liberty.>>

While the principle of liberty is compatible with morality, in fact a derivative thereof, it is not in itself a moral principle.

Now here's a contradiction: if it is universal, then it should apply on every planet, over any species, over young and old alike, including over children, but you disagree!

I assume that you don't really think that the principle of liberty begins to take hold at 00:00:00 of one's 18th birthday (otherwise government could take away your liberty by cancelling day-light-saving!).

I don't know how you explain this dichotomy away - my explanation is that liberty is not the ground principle, but non-violence.

As for ownership, it is a derivative of liberty, so being a derivative of a derivative, it is not as clear and accurate a concept. Nevertheless, it is very useful.

In a society where the roots of liberty are not well understood, revered and followed, ownership can be used as a buffer to shield oneself from violence. Had the roots of liberty been respected, then we would have no need for property and ownership, but as it stands, we unfortunately do.

Yuyutsu
I don't think there's any substantial difference between us.

I think you're right in that the principle of non-violence is the basis of the whole thing. From that directly follows the right of self-ownership, because what freedom from other people's aggressions means is that you ought to be (statement of right) free to exercise exclusive possession and use of your own body, subject to the equal rights of others. This in turn implies the right to claim unowned natural resources, else no-one could ever make use of natural resources. And it also implies the right of voluntary exchanges, without which human society would not be possible.

The Ludwigs of this world aren't interested in any meaningful discussion because every single time he presents a circular argument that simply assumes the beneficence of governmental intervention, and when you question it, he just falls back to the same assumption.
"Government doing x is beneficial".
"How do you know it's beneficial".
"Because government does it."

All statist argument is just different variants of that.

For example he said he believes in limited government. But when you ask him on what principle it is to be limited, he eschews principle, and says to the effect that each case needs to be decided on its merits by reference to all interested parties. It's not just that it's impossible in practice. It doesn't make sense in theory either, because there is nothing in what he proposes that intrinsically acknowledges any legitimate limitation on government power.

In a prior argument on sustainability, he again said he doesn't stand for totalitarianism but called for thoroughgoing control of everything, and when asked what the limting principle would be, said "I don't know." Real mid-brain stuff. Herding and bleating instinct.

Jardine and Yuyutsu,

There is no such thing as unconditional liberty;
and no such thing as unconditional ownership - of anything (save only of one's own body - but then, only in a society, culture or state which respects the individual's right to keep that body intact, and not see some 'bodies' as merely machines to do work or as store-houses of body parts for the use of others).

'Liberty' may only be exercised within the constraints set down by law (and in many cases within the constraints accepted and applied by the culture, religion, moral code or behavioural norms of the relevant society).
That some may appear 'above the law', or beyond the moral constraints of the relevant society, is the fault of the law or the code - or of its lack of vigour or enforcement - and not a failure of the society itself to endeavour to exercise 'moral vigour'.
Societies may exhibit aspects of what may be considered to be a 'universal' moral code, but, as there seems to be no actual codification of such a code, it appears clear that no society on earth can now be exercising such a code - though perhaps Bhutan has some genuine inclination in this direction:

"P.M. Thinley (whose country Bhutan has endorsed Gross National Happiness) suggested that focusing on happiness worldwide was essential if the world was to get on a sustainable trajectory. Last summer, led by Bhutan, the UN unanimously adopted a measure “Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development.”

Could 'gross national happiness' perhaps then be the primary subject of any supposed 'moral deficit'? (Anywhere.)

Pericles,

>There is no morality inherent in the ownership of land.<

Some indigenous groups and peoples would perhaps disagree.
TBC>

<Cont'd>

Ludwig,

Thank heaven for your sanity (and for your moral stamina under great provocation). I agree with your propositions and your arguments entirely - as would any 'reasonable' person (ie, one not pushing some weird or unusual personal philosophy or view of individual 'rights').

Clean air, land and water are the reasonable expectation of every being on the planet (human and otherwise - though only the caring speak for non-humans), as should be reasonable freedom from hazard from unscrupulous land-'owners' or business 'proprietors'.
'Free-for-all' "Liberty" is the province of dictators, potentates, war-lords and the otherwise 'deluded' or unscrupulous. (Ie, the truly selfish, power-hungry or just plain stupid.)

'Morality', or Responsibility to Others - for their, and your reciprocal, right to a reasonable 'quality of life'? What's the difference? Semantics: or jiggling our chains?

Perhaps, Saltpetre.

>>"There is no morality inherent in the ownership of land"
Some indigenous groups and peoples would perhaps disagree.<<

But on what moral grounds would they disagree?

They may, once upon a time, have eschewed the concept of land ownership amongst themselves. But I suspect that may have been a purely social construct that suited their tribal relationships.

Let's not forget that one of the most prominent features of the past fifty-odd years of aboriginal affairs has been their intense focus on land ownership.

To the point where no formal meeting in which the government is present can start without an acknowledgment of the traditional ownership... "I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is being held on Aboriginal land... etc. etc"

Would you consider this to be fundamentally immoral?

Hey, perhaps you do.