How could you possibly make such a statement without taking possession of your body to make it? You have taken ownership of it whether you realise it or not.
How can I take possession of something which is not outside of myself, this is nonsensical. I do not possess myself, I am myself. I am also not some piece of property to be bought sold or rented out - to consider a human being a bit of property is pure ideology.
The foundation of my ideology is logic. Using logic, we can discover axioms. Self-ownership is one such axiom, for any attempt to disprove it actually affirms it. From there we can combine these axioms to the problems we need to deal with. One such problem is resolving conflict in a resource scarce world. Private property rights allow for a logically consistent approach to resolve this problem. It's not a perfect solution because people will have disagreements on the rightful property owner and other people will simply ignore property rights. However, using argumentation to determine the logically consistent answer is the only peaceful method we have. The alternative is physical conflict.
Oh right, your ideology is based on logic. What, on iron laws of nature or somesuch rubbish? Gee, where have I heard that before? Where have I heard anyone say that their theory is based on logic, that no other conclusion could possibly be reached?
Oh, that's right, those dialectical materialists generally claim the same sort of certainty, and also posit society must be organised according to their insights. You might know them as Marxists. You should be familiar with them since you have the exact same ideological certainty that they come with. You are just so so similar, in so many ways - ideological certainty, adherence to a correct line, detailed prescriptions for how people should live their lives, detailed prescriptions to how society must be organised, ideological purity which allows you to claim that your ideology has never been tried properly so the impact of free markets can't really be judged (substitute socialism for free markets and it reads the same).
And where does such a foundation idea come from? What do you appeal to, to prove it to be true? Certainly not logic.
It is a philosophical position. Your philosophical base is property comes first. Freedom is only a concern because of some twisted notion that human beings are pieces of property owned by, the piece of property itself (makes no sense and defies logic). You are a propertarian.
Many of these freedoms you speak about will lead to conflict. One person wants to harm you, you want to be free from harm. How do you resolve this? The whole point of private property is to determine the rules of conduct to allow people to avoid conflict as much as possible where these disagreements arise. Your philosophy doesn't address this problem. It is why you have never even attempted to explain how conflicts on resource use are resolved. You just simply wish it away.
Why would someone want to harm me? Unless they are given a reason to do so, they won't want to harm me. The whole point of removing private property is to remove a major incentive to harm others.
As for the free market solution to scarcity, well that's a great success isn't it?
We live in a world where in the USA 72% of the personal wealth is held by the richest 10% of people, who also earn 47% of income, the top 1% own 36% of the total wealth and make 20% of the total income. Meanwhile the bottom 50% of the population of the USA have 0.2% of wealth and get 12.7% of income.
We live in a world where people are starving while others die of obesity related diseases.
We live in a world where there is enough energy falling on the planet as solar energy to power everything, there's abundant wind energy, abundant tidal energy and much else besides. But we dig up non-renewable and polluting fossil fuels instead and harm the only planet we have.
This is the world the free market solutions of the propertarians creates, no wonder there is conflict.
DS
