Contrary to libertarian philosophy, man does not have the right to full ownership of his body. Murray Rothbard assumed that if “man is not entitled to full and 100 percent self-ownership” then only two logical alternatives would exist: “(1) the ‘communist’ one of Universal and Equal Other-ownership, or (2) Partial Ownership of One Group by Another – a system of rule by one class over another.”[1] Rothbard did not consider a third alternative, which is that the right to full ownership of the human body belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ.
The fact that the Lord is the creator of the Earth and the human body is backed by numerous scriptural references, of which I will refer to two. During the creation as detailed in Genesis, the Lord mixed his labor and energies with the ‘soil’, and thus according to libertarian philosophy is “entitled to the ownership of the goods [He] produced”[2]. The labor of the Lord in creating the Earth and the human body was so intense that “he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.”[3] To further clarify and remove all doubt as to the rightful owner of all things the Lord has stated in D&C 104:14: “I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.” Whether a person believes it or not, the Lord is the rightful property owner of all things upon the Earth including the human body.
The question then arises, ‘If man is not the owner of his body, then what is he?’ To fully understand the answer to this question let us review various property terminologies.
When discussing property, the word title will inevitably make an appearance. Title to a piece of property grants the holder just cause of exclusive possession. It is a symbol of ownership over property. The Lord, being the creator of the human body, has exclusive possession of all human bodies.[4] There are three general degrees of title.[5]
(1) Possession
(2) Right of Possession
(3) Right of Property
The following simple example will illustrate these three concepts. Able lets Ben borrow a watch. As Ben is walking down the street, Cain steals the watch from Ben. Cain now has physical possession of the watch; however the right of possession in this moment belongs to Ben. The right of property belongs to Able, who under his right of property loaned the watch to Ben.
Possession is thus the actual holding of a thing, whether or not one has any right to do so. The right of possession is the legitimacy of possession (with or without actual possession), the evidence for which is such that the law will uphold it unless a better claim is proven. The right of property is that right which, if all relevant facts were known (and allowed), would defeat all other claims.
The spirit body of an individual has possession of the physical body created for it while in mortal existence. The spirit body has been given right of possession over the physical body by the Lord, who has right of property over the physical body. To illustrate this concept, the authority of the Priesthood is a type of law or property enforcement. In the New Testament, when a demonic being possessed someone’s physical body, it was guilty of trespassing. The being had possession, but they did not have right of possession. Proper use of Priesthood authority would cast out the trespasser and restore to the person the right of possession.
The right of possession given to man is known within the scriptures as stewardship. Man is a steward of his body and his property; the Lord is the rightful owner of both. Spencer W. Kimball used D&C 104:11–15 as evidence of this concept: “Because all things belong to the Lord, we are stewards over our bodies, minds, families, and properties.”[6]
Stewardship can be defined as temporary legal control over another person’s asset. This is essentially the definition of ‘right of possession’. Stewardship therefore does not equal ownership. While we have the power to do whatever we want with our body and property, as stewards, we do not have the right or authority to do so. A person renting a house from an owner does not have the authority to make modifications without the owner’s consent. To suggest otherwise would be a violation of the libertarian principle of non-aggression.
The principle of non-aggression and the foundation it provides to libertarian theory is best stated by Rothbard: “No one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggression. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.”[7]
The error in libertarian theory is in not acknowledging the Lord as the rightful owner of all persons and properties upon the Earth. If this is acknowledged, then the non-aggression principle becomes an alternate definition of sin. Sin therefore can be described as aggression or violence against the Lord’s property. For example, if a person living in a house under a lease agreement performs an action in violation of the agreement, he has lost his right of possession. He is now in illegal possession of property, and guilty of theft or trespass.
Man as the steward of the Lord’s property, does not have the right to do whatever he wants. Man is bound by the terms and conditions set forth by the Lord over the use of such property. If he does not adhere to the terms and condition, he is in breach of contract. He has committed an act of aggression against the Lord.
Libertarian theory holds that adultery is not a crime, because no forgery or robbery has taken place.[8] If two unmarried people decide to have intimate relations, there is no property violation, and hence no crime has been committed. A law prohibiting adultery therefore would be considered unjust. If man is the rightful owner of his body, then this understanding would be correct.
As has been shown however, man is not the rightful owner of his body. One of the terms and conditions set forth by the Lord for those who chose to receive the stewardship of a physical body is that sexual relations are only authorized between a man and his lawfully wedded wife. Any person who does not adhere to this restriction has aggressed against the property of the Lord and is in violation of the principle of non-aggression.[9]
All sin is an aggression against the Lord and his property. The Lord has given limitations however on how various forms of aggression may be dealt with by man. There are two distinct forms of commandments: Those requiring worship/service/devotion to the Lord, and those prohibitions or limitation placed by the Lord on the use of his property.
Laws requiring service or worship of God are enforceable by God at the last day. Right of enforcement is not delegated to man in these instances. Man therefore does not have the authority to make laws requiring or forcing the worship of the Lord. For thus saith the scripture: “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.”[10]
This is how adultery was considered a crime, and is defined as such in scripture. The Lord has given man the authority to punish the crime of adultery.[11] Civil laws which punish adultery are not a violation of the non-aggression principle. All acts of adultery however, are a violation.
Man can choose to vote and or live in jurisdictions where the laws of the Lord have been implemented. If the majority decides in favor of laws punishing adultery, then no rights have been violated, and no aggression has taken place. In other words, no one can be punished for believing adultery is a non-criminal act, but they can be justly punished if they commit the act.[12] Man is free to reject the laws of the Lord and usurp legislative authority from him.[13] The Lord however, will ultimately enforce such violations.[14]
Understanding the non-aggression principle in light of the stewardship principle alters only a few, but critically important areas of libertarian philosophy. Some of these altered areas that may now be considered justly criminal if decided by a majority are: adultery[15], sexual perversions, pornography[16], abortion[17], and child neglect[18], to name a few. The Lord has the authority, being the rightful owner of the human body, to prohibit these actions, and has in times past clearly delegated to man the responsibly to punish such actions.[19]
Nearly all other libertarian corpus remains unchanged, especially in market transactions, with the exception of course of forbidden markets. Man does not have the authority to redistribute the goods the Lord has delegated to man since he has been commanded not to steal.[20] While it is aggression against the Lord to horde property, judgment in these matters has been retained by the Lord[21]. Man does not have the authority to appropriate another man’s stewardship, unless specifically authorized by the Lord, under a law that is clearly known. Note that this is a limitation on man’s power not a blank check.
The scriptures mandate that civil government be executed according to the will of the majority, with certain restrictions or limitations.[22] The majority will typically choose righteousness, but when it comes to the point that the majority chooses wickedness, they are ripe for destruction. For they have chosen laws which have extremely short sited benefits. Being in favor of, or voting for the negative prohibitions mandated by the Lord are not a violation of the non-aggression principle.
The stewardship principle sheds critical light on the correct understanding of the non-aggression principle. The Lord is the rightful owner of all things, even man’s body, which is in direct opposition to current libertarian understanding of the non-aggression principle. Advocating laws in accordance with God’s negative prohibitions do not violate anyone’s rights. People are free to vote and advocate laws contrary to God’s will.[23] Those who know the Lord is the rightful owner of all property upon the Earth, have a responsibility to make that known lest they find themselves in violation of the principle of non-aggression.
[1] Ethics of Liberty, p.45 [2] Cf. John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, pp. 307-8, as quoted in the Ethics of Liberty, p.49 [3] Genesis 2:2 [4] A factory worker who creates products for his employer is not the owner of the products he creates. A human being who creates another human being is not the owner of the human body that was produced under the same principle. [5] Webster 1828 Quote [6] Spencer W. Kimball, “Welfare Services: The Gospel in Action,” Ensign, Nov. 1977, 78. [7] The Myth of National Defense, p.66 [8] Ethics of Liberty, p.92 [9] Exodus 20:14, Genesis 39:9, note how Joseph believes any intimate relations with Potiphar’s wife are a violation against the Lord and not Potiphor. The same concept is noted when Nathan confronts David in 2 Samuel 12:13. [10] Joshua 24:15 [11] Alma 30:10–11 [12] Alma 30:7–9 [13] 1 Samuel 8:7 [14] D&C 134:1 [15] Ethics of Liberty, p.92 [16] Ethics of Liberty, p.131, 272 [17] Ethics of Liberty, p.97-98 [18] Ethics of Liberty, p.104 [19] Adultery – Lev. 20:10, sexual perversion – Lev. 20:11–16, pornography – Lev 20:17, abortion – Exodus 21:22,23. [20] Exodus 20:15 [21] D&C 104:18 [22] Mosiah 29:26 [23] 1 Samuel 8:7
Very well written except for one major flaw. Libertarian theory only applies to the secular realm. To compare and contrast it to the eternal realm is dangerous as everyone’s conception of that realm is different. This is why the separation of church and State is so important.
Rothbard’s analysis did not consider your third option because that third option is different in each religion. Therefore, it must not enter the discussion unless the one bringing it is God himself, as he’s the only one with authority on it. In which case, God will bring the true third option among all competing third options of men.
What we (everyone on earth) consider the true third option may or may not confirm to the truth as God sees it. Therefore, no man has the authority force his conception of the third option, the eternal realm, onto others. Therefore, it logically follows, that we own ourselves relative to everyone else on earth.
How is my argument flawed? Is God the owner of all property or not? Libertarianism as I have argued denies God as the true owner of all property. That is a fundamental flaw. If I know the truth in these matters and I do not acknowledge it, what does that make me? It is contrary to God’s laws to assert this argument via the sword.
I completely disagree that God must not enter into the argument. I am not allowed to bring God into the discussion on the LDSFreeman website? The reality is God owns everything, we are his stewards, that is the truth. All other philosophies that do not include this acknowledgment are flawed and incomplete.
Never in the scriptures or in my argument do I argue enforcing this concept via force. There are numerous examples in the scriptures mandating that government be executed by the voice of the people. The Lord even mandates it if it means people turn away from him (1 Samuel 8:7).
Libertarianism says abortion is okay. God says it is not. If man is the owner of his body, then the libertarian argument is logical (Ethics of Liberty p.97-98). If man is not the owner of his body, then the libertarian argument is incorrect. If I am not permitted to introduce God into the argument, then I am not permitted to introduce reality into the discussion. You are asking me to tie both arms behind my back in a boxing match. With all due respect, what I have written has pointed out a major flaw in some of the conclusions you have reached based on recent articles.
[How is my argument flawed? Is God the owner of all property or not? Libertarianism as I have argued denies God as the true owner of all property. That is a fundamental flaw. If I know the truth in these matters and I do not acknowledge it, what does that make me? It is contrary to God’s laws to assert this argument via the sword.]
Gabriel, I should have made myself more clear. Believing God is the true owner of all property is not incompatible with being a libertarian. What is incompatible with being a libertarian is believing God is the true owner of all property and forcing everyone else into that belief. I believe this is also incompatible with God’s law. Since none of us are God, although we might believe that God, as we have conceived him, is the true owner of all property, we cannot hold others to that belief, so long as force is involved. Government is force. And libertarianism is a political theory.
[I completely disagree that God must not enter into the argument. I am not allowed to bring God into the discussion on the LDSFreeman website? The reality is God owns everything, we are his stewards, that is the truth. All other philosophies that do not include this acknowledgment are flawed and incomplete.]
I agree that all other philosophies that do not include God as the true owner of all property are flawed and incomplete. But since neither you or I are God, we cannot expect others to accept that belief, nor can we can force them to through the use of Government. Only by persuasion can we bring them into harmony with God’s law.
[Never in the scriptures or in my argument do I argue enforcing this concept via force. There are numerous examples in the scriptures mandating that government be executed by the voice of the people. The Lord even mandates it if it means people turn away from him (1 Samuel 8:7).]
If you inferred from what I said that I thought you had implied that, I apologize. But that’s where your argument breaks down. You critique Rothbard of not considering your third option, when it would be illogical to consider that third option. As Latter-day Saints, we believe God is the true owner of all property. But what right do we have to diminish or take-away the self-ownership of others, such as Muslims or Buddhists? It is by the principle of self-ownership that we can hold such a belief about God. Self-ownership is the foundation of our having freedom of conscience to believe in that conception of God.
[Libertarianism says abortion is okay. God says it is not. If man is the owner of his body, then the libertarian argument is logical (Ethics of Liberty p.97-98). If man is not the owner of his body, then the libertarian argument is incorrect. If I am not permitted to introduce God into the argument, then I am not permitted to introduce reality into the discussion. You are asking me to tie both arms behind my back in a boxing match.]
I would argue that libertarianism does not say abortion is okay. Libertarians are divided on this issue. Some believe a woman’s right to her body trumps the right to life of the unborn. Others believe the right to life trumps a woman’s right to her body. Here’s a very good article on the latter belief: http://truth.skylerjcollins.com/2009/06/reasoned-scientific-pro-life-argument.html. You are allowed to introduce God into the argument in order to persuade others into accepting your belief. You are not allowed to force God onto others through the State (unrighteous dominion, force). The entire purpose of clarifying and understanding the principle of self-ownership is to better gauge the legitimacy of laws and government actions. Laws and government action are necessarily force. You can believe that God is the true owner of all property (which I do), but to promote State action recognizing such, thereby forcing that belief on others, contradicts the very tenants of your belief system, the Gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through Joseph Smith.
[With all due respect, what I have written has pointed out a major flaw in some of the conclusions you have reached based on recent articles.]
What you have written has failed to point out a major flow in the principle of self-ownership, of which I (and others) have used to reach conclusions about government laws and actions (force). There is no flaw in the principle of self-ownership. If there were, than none of us have any rights at all, including the right to believe in a God that truly owns everything. The flaw is your own, as you’re trying to critique a secular political theory by using a freedom that that theory holds as fundamental. I’m sure you wouldn’t accept an argument from socialist Bob that god, as he conceives him, wants all of us to live under socialism with socialist Bob as dictator. We can only believe that God truly owns everything because we, relative to other men, own ourselves and minds. And the principle of self-ownership is a principle relative to men, not God.
Skyler
Let me simplify what I’ve said. It is true that God owns all property. This fact relates to God and man. It is also true that man owns himself. This fact relates to man and man. In other words, man relative to God, God owns all property, man relative to man, man owns himself. You see?
There is no conflict in these principles.
(Gabriel, I should have made myself more clear. Believing God is the true owner of all property is not incompatible with being a libertarian. What is incompatible with being a libertarian is believing God is the true owner of all property and forcing everyone else into that belief.)
“Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.”. God has forbade man from forcing others to believe a certain way. My argument does not advocate that. In Mosiah 29, the scriptures advocate selecting judges, by majority vote to judge according to the laws God had given. Since only a majority was required there were logically people who did not want to be governed by the laws of Moses (i.e. Korihor and his followers). I beleive the scriptures provide these examples as an illustration of how to govern. The key to success of the whole plan being personal righteousness. Those who lost the vote were not forced to beleive anything. And the law granted them the right to advocate their belief. God grants man the right to enact laws which reject him as the only rightful legislator. If the majority in such a society select judges who will vote in favor of laws punishing adultery, only the crime is punished, not the beleif in whether it is a crime or not. I beleive the Prophets of the church were justified under this concept I have advocated, to ask members of the Church in California to vote to disallow homosexual ‘marriage’. Only a man and a woman have the right to marry granted unto them based on stewardship rights associated with the human body. This is contrary to libertarian philosophy because it does not recognize God as the soveriegn. You equating belief and action. God has never given man authority to punish people for beleiving there is no crime in adultery. He has given authority for punishing those who commit the act of adultery. This is not incompatible with God’s law, it is God’s law.
(Let me simplify what I’ve said. It is true that God owns all property. This fact relates to God and man. It is also true that man owns himself. This fact relates to man and man. In other words, man relative to God, God owns all property, man relative to man, man owns himself. You see?)
This is what I argue against. The fact that God has right of property over our bodies sets boundaries on certain human to human interactions. Man has the power to do whatever he wants, he does not however have the authority. Two property owners can exchange property how they see fit. Two renters cannot exchange property since they do not have right of property, only right of possession. I see the point you are making, I just do not believe it.
[“Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.”. God has forbade man from forcing others to believe a certain way. My argument does not advocate that.]
It does because the libertarian principle of self-ownership is a political principle. If it weren’t true, then the State could do whatever it pleased and we would have no legitimate objection. Again, it’s a principle that protects us from the State and from men, not from God.
[In Mosiah 29, the scriptures advocate selecting judges, by majority vote to judge according to the laws God had given. Since only a majority was required there were logically people who did not want to be governed by the laws of Moses (i.e. Korihor and his followers). I beleive the scriptures provide these examples as an illustration of how to govern.]
And Muslim scriptures provide examples of how to govern, and the Jewish, and the Christian, and the Buddhist. Under covenant government, that is all fine and dandy. As for the State, it cannot legitimate exercise any power not granted to it by the people, and men do not have the authority over other men to enforce their god’s law.
[The key to success of the whole plan being personal righteousness....This is not incompatible with God’s law, it is God’s law.]
I believe that is God’s law. But others don’t, and I sure don’t want them using their conception of God as justification for oppression. Do you?
[This is what I argue against. The fact that God has right of property over our bodies sets boundaries on certain human to human interactions. Man has the power to do whatever he wants, he does not however have the authority. Two property owners can exchange property how they see fit. Two renters cannot exchange property since they do not have right of property, only right of possession. I see the point you are making, I just do not believe it.]
I agree with what God has a right over, but I think you miss my point. God is just in enforcing his laws. Man is not. “By what right do men exercise power over each other?” None. Therefore, as far as man ruling over man is concerned, we own ourselves.
Gabriel,
The Book of Mormon contains multiple examples of governments. If you can choose Mosiah 29, I get to choose Mosiah 23 (6,7,13):
6 And the people were desirous that Alma should be their king, for he was beloved by his people.
7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.
13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the ahands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you.
Skyler and Chris, I have left on vacation with my family and will not be able to respond until at least Saturday. Both of you have a happy Thanksgiving!
Gabriel
Pingback: Self-Ownership and God | LDS Freemen
Pingback: Robert Murphy comments on Collins and Smitherson | LDS Freemen
Pingback: Scriptural Authorization for Taxation | LDS Freemen
My response to these comments begins with a two part article which begins here.
http://www.ldsfreemen.com/scripturaltaxation/
Pingback: Scriptural Authorization for Limited Government | LDS Freemen