Comment: I think your view would poll poorly among women voters!

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Your Argument is False! (see in situ)

I think your view would poll poorly among women voters!

I just think there are some exceptions to the NAP. Responsibility in sex for example, should not be all on the woman. The two or three paragraphs of the NAP do not encapsulate all of moral reality. If you can get people to build a government based on that in your county, go for it. I think you have every right to try it, but I don't agree with the premise. I think it is good when used as a principle (something generally true) but fails as a law (something that is always true without exception).

The same is so on national defense spending. It is a public use good. The way we do it now, it is grossly over-consumed. The way it would be done in an anarchist society it would be grossly under-consumed, likely leading to the loss of freedom to another group. That is why I favor the Localist view of distributed defense spending as described here

As for the rest of it, I think there is merit to your argument that if we came into this world by choice, if we were able to choose things about us and who we were, that it would undermine my argument about self-ownership. Or rather it would be the same as saying "your contention about self-ownership as being valid in the after-life applies to this one."

Philosophically, that is the best argument I have heard because if it is so then "you got me." I don't know what religious tradition you could appeal to though. You would probably have to invent a new one. Hinduism is pretty close, but they are just trapped in a cycle or a progression or regression, and neither of the endpoints grant self-ownership. Mormonism might actually be the closest.

As to your point that "everyone determines their own morality, period", it is true in one sense, but not in another. I am trying to better know the moral order that I believe God has established in the universe. I am choosing it, that is true, but I am choosing to recognize a higher morality than mine. If what it says is right disagrees with what I think ought to be right, then I re-examine both what I think is right and my understanding of what the moral order is saying. I then change to adapt to the morality that is better and higher than I am.

That is still self-choice, BUT it is not the same as "self-ownership" in that my own standard is my own standard and I will acknowledge none outside me. I am accepting a standard higher than my own. For parts of that standard applicable to civil government (and a lot isn't) I accept that if I violate that standard, the group is just when they sanction me.

I will grant you that big government has killed countless millions, that is one reason I oppose it. Many millions have also died when wicked people took advantage of a lack of government to loot and pillage. I seek balance.

I don't "give away my sovereignty" to others, to whatever degree I may have it. I trade some of my will being done for the advantages that come with remaining in the group. And yes, that can quickly lead to the tyranny of the mob. That is why I want a group that declares some things "rights", that is, claims by individuals against the group and not subject to majority vote.

Maybe they don't recognize as much as I would like, but it violates the principle of the Rule of Law to say "Even though you are staying within the limits you agreed to respect as to my rights, any attempt by you to violate the limits I set for myself are tyranny." Accepting operating within the agreed-on rules when the society was set up (which include mechanisms for changing them) is part of a condition for being in the group. Leave the group if you feel that way. They are respecting the rights in the contract by which the society was founded. Your position takes your two pillars, the NAP and the Rule of Law, and smashes them into one another.

Your objection to my point about how we can't choose things about our bodies, such as their eventual failure, also does not stand. It is true that we "own" our car yet cannot keep them from wearing out, but we do not "own" our car in the sovereign sense you are claiming ownership of self. The classic Christian position is that we are STEWARDS of everything we own on the earth, either cars or bodies.

Your analogy does not stand because we don't own our cars either, in the absolute sense of the word you are claiming for self-ownership. You may not accept the premise of that position, just as I don't accept your premise that we all choose the details about who we are in this life prior to our arrival, but my point is that other people can have other premises, which you cannot falsify, which logically lead to other conclusions.

Notice also, if you are going to take your car out in public that while you retain OWNERSHIP, you are restricted by society as to USE. They charge you a fee for a license, they determine whether you are fit to drive, the regulate your speed and when you can stop and go. SO in that sense maybe we are arguing semantics. That is, you own yourself in the low sense of the word, you are your own steward, but if you wish to interact with others then they have something to say about your use of your own. I mention this cringing at the thought of another broadside from you about how all of those restrictions are more "tyranny."

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)