self-pwnership.0
For many social and political movements over the past decade, the question of bodily autonomy or self-ownership has been a recurring theme. Feminists have rightly demanded that they should be allowed full control of their own bodies, citing governments' mishandling of issues such as abortion, contraception, and rape as civil injustices. Activists targeting racially charged issues have pointed out seemingly race-neutral laws and regulations which do seem to disproportionately affect people of differing ethnicities. The ever-growing alphabet soup of LGBTQQU2SAAIPK (it's starting to look more like base64 than plaintext now) have also pointed out how many laws and regulations unfairly interfere in their communities' (or community's, depending on your position) right to live the lifestyles begotten of their born differences and developed preferences alike. Even what these groups would (completely fairly) consider opposition- the KKK, WP organizations, fundamentalist religious groups, and others will raise the argument that they should not be required to interact with members of groups they oppose. All sides agree, nobody belongs to anybody within the context of their selected issues.
Many doctrines of governance exist, and many of us are familiar with the inherent flaws in most systems. Under a monarchy, for example, the situation for a government's constituents can only be as free as the monarch will allow. This, for example, is why Liechtenstein can still function as a monarchy. Democracy is complete rule by the majority, leaving underrepresented minorities with little chance of having a voice. A republic is rule by members of the political class (a minority) who are selected by the majority. The republic may have protections in place in order to ensure that minorities are accurately represented, but this is what leads to the social climate currently being endured by most of the "free nations" in the world. How can we realistically approach the complex set of injustices exchanged by each ingredient in the proverbial "melting pot?"
Since every side seems to partially agree on the position of individual autonomy, that might be a safe starting point. Every side sees certain violations of individual autonomy as a crime. For example, rape is a specific type of sexual assault, which is a type of assault, and assault very clearly violates individual autonomy as an attack against one's mind and body. Slavery is the actual practice of owning other people- it's not hard to see how that's a violation of individual autonomy. Theft, which can be committed by means of force, coercion, or deception, is the taking of the product of one's labor- a combination of time and effort. We don't simply exist in space- we also exist in time. In that regard, your little plot in time is an extension of your body. As matter and energy are interchangeable, and you expend stored energy in your physical body over time while performing labor, your labor also belongs to you. If you exchange the product of your labor for another item (whether that's a product you created alone, or compensation you received for collaboration with thers) then that item, by extension, belongs to you. In any sense, if someone takes what belongs to you without your direct consent, that person has committed theft and has violated your individual autonomy.
Political and social movements are often responses to injustices perpetrated by a government, or by members of a society. Injustices are acts of unfairness, often guided by double standards. Double standards are failures in the development of logical consistency, which are often either the result of an incomplete thought, or a symptom of infection with a malicious meme. Good examples of injustice, for example, are laws in some nations which make it punishable for a woman to be seen in public without her husband, but permissible for a man to be seen in public without his wife. This ruling is inconsistent, as there is no scientific evidence suggesting that an unescorted woman is a greater danger to a society than is an unescorted man. The inconsistency is what sparks our initial outrage at this example of injustice, though the logic that followed would tell us that such a law is impractical and oppressive in general. Unfortunately, sometimes the logic doesn't arrive, and some people only get as far as spotting and complaining about the inconsistency.
So, how do we make sure everyone's rights are respected in a consistent way, without violating anyone's rights? This isn't a question of what can or can't be done, but a question of what needs to be done. How can we make that happen?
Many doctrines of governance exist, and many of us are familiar with the inherent flaws in most systems. Under a monarchy, for example, the situation for a government's constituents can only be as free as the monarch will allow. This, for example, is why Liechtenstein can still function as a monarchy. Democracy is complete rule by the majority, leaving underrepresented minorities with little chance of having a voice. A republic is rule by members of the political class (a minority) who are selected by the majority. The republic may have protections in place in order to ensure that minorities are accurately represented, but this is what leads to the social climate currently being endured by most of the "free nations" in the world. How can we realistically approach the complex set of injustices exchanged by each ingredient in the proverbial "melting pot?"
Since every side seems to partially agree on the position of individual autonomy, that might be a safe starting point. Every side sees certain violations of individual autonomy as a crime. For example, rape is a specific type of sexual assault, which is a type of assault, and assault very clearly violates individual autonomy as an attack against one's mind and body. Slavery is the actual practice of owning other people- it's not hard to see how that's a violation of individual autonomy. Theft, which can be committed by means of force, coercion, or deception, is the taking of the product of one's labor- a combination of time and effort. We don't simply exist in space- we also exist in time. In that regard, your little plot in time is an extension of your body. As matter and energy are interchangeable, and you expend stored energy in your physical body over time while performing labor, your labor also belongs to you. If you exchange the product of your labor for another item (whether that's a product you created alone, or compensation you received for collaboration with thers) then that item, by extension, belongs to you. In any sense, if someone takes what belongs to you without your direct consent, that person has committed theft and has violated your individual autonomy.
Political and social movements are often responses to injustices perpetrated by a government, or by members of a society. Injustices are acts of unfairness, often guided by double standards. Double standards are failures in the development of logical consistency, which are often either the result of an incomplete thought, or a symptom of infection with a malicious meme. Good examples of injustice, for example, are laws in some nations which make it punishable for a woman to be seen in public without her husband, but permissible for a man to be seen in public without his wife. This ruling is inconsistent, as there is no scientific evidence suggesting that an unescorted woman is a greater danger to a society than is an unescorted man. The inconsistency is what sparks our initial outrage at this example of injustice, though the logic that followed would tell us that such a law is impractical and oppressive in general. Unfortunately, sometimes the logic doesn't arrive, and some people only get as far as spotting and complaining about the inconsistency.
So, how do we make sure everyone's rights are respected in a consistent way, without violating anyone's rights? This isn't a question of what can or can't be done, but a question of what needs to be done. How can we make that happen?