British law is also idiosyncratic because of the Norman Conquest, in which William claimed to own the whole island (actually islands) and everything and everybody in it.

At any rate, there is in Locke an undertone that everything and everybody must be owned, so that to be “free” must be to be “self-owned”.

The real crudity of Paul is in saying, “You are self-owned”, rather than “I don’t own you”, as if it were some vastly useful, vastly enlightening gift.

It is the reflexive part that plays the role of Judas Goat. Are we now to acknowledge some naive and logically crude idea of “property”, “ownership”, and “law” because Paul tells us it applies to “ourselves”?

That is where you jump to conclusions with an unstated “either/or”–to wit, all property is either private or (aut) public.

That does not hold save as convention and fiat, and very inconsistently.

Also, even were it so, under the rubric “communal”, as as under “private”, all sorts of different concepts and schemes are conflated.

“…can I, plant corn or wheat on this plot of land?”

Given only that, how would I know? A Navajo might answer, perfectly sensibly, have you asked the land?

Simple yes or no responses may be given but the they will likely not make much sense without context or will be very misleading. Giving a detailed answer to all of them, even in cursory fashion, would make a small volume.

Consider the following in answer to your first question, for example:

Are persons entitled to private property?

No.

Both legal personhood and private property must be recognized before a person can be considered entitled to it, let alone even capable of “ownership”

The US Constitution, it happens, recognizes both private and public property, but in regard to what or whom is a complex problem.

In Roman law slaves, who were owned as property, could also own property of their own, and all slaves in later times had a peculium, a minimum property attached to them. Did the owner of the slave own the property owned by the slave? Yes, but not in a simple straightforward way.

The US Constitution also recognized slavery, in which human beings were considered property.

American slavery, however, was peculiar exactly in not recognizing the peculium, for example, and accordingly the slave had no rights at all in law, because not a legal “person”.

Does this really clarify anything? It may not seem so. But one could might out, for example, that the Roman paterfamilias owned the children of the family in exactly the same way as he owned slaves (in fact “familia” included slaves).

Would it surprise you to know, therefore, that in most US States minors have less rights when they have legal parents, than Roman slaves had in regard to their owners?

It certainly surprised me when I first learned of it.

Does in fact the US Constitution recognize all human beings as “persons” entitled to own property privately.

Not at all. For one thing, not only slaves, but children are excluded and have, in most states, no entitlement to own property at all, or even to participate in the ownership of public property.

Are therefore minors not legal persons or persons without standing?

In fact, American law, both state and Federal, is very inconsistent on this question and has never been regularized.

A child with no parents, for example, who inherits property as a minor does have some clear claim to the property, but still has no standing in law, and can exercise “ownership” of the property only though a guardian.

This is only scratching the surface.

When you say “person”–who qualifies?

Similarly in regard to “property” and “ownership”. What is considered “property” and what “ownership”.

Does any “person” on the planet have private property rights to the sea or ocean bottom?

If not, why not? What would “fishing rights” by treaty be then?

Do “states”, on the other hand, have such property rights in regard to sea and sea bottom?

If so, again why?

In a world of give and take, is there any value in “being?”
If so, how do you protect it?
The Declaration of Independence appeals to the highest
conceptual authority in placing the individual above property.
The Second Amendment appeals to the lowest common denominator
to protect that individual.
Our Constitution declares the self as sovereign, and backs it
up with teeth.

How is the idea of “self” inept? Retrogressive?
How has Paul betrayed this?

Do you dismiss the classical liberal concept of inalienable
human rights? Is there nothing the state cannot take from us?
Rightfully?

What’s left increasingly is the table of organization and increasingly theoretical concepts like “ownership”, meaning what the elite thinks they own and the rest don’t.

My first acquaintance with Paul was in relation to the Second Amendment. No complaints on that score–”no” is not “some”.

On other fronts, however, increasingly he looks like a Judas Goat. Trotting out Locke and declaring everyone “self-owned” is logically and philosophically inept, and socially and economically retrogressive.

Lester Ness

Lester Ness
Kunming
China

Okay, JP Morgan, for example, is a member of the Federal Reserve. Bears Stearns goes down the tubes and is rescued by the Federal government, including Bear Stearns selling itself to JP Morgan for $2 per share initially. One British investor loses a cool billion. It is so crooked the price is raised. Some point out that Bear Stearns’ real estate holdings are worth a bundle. The price is raised. And the Federal government guarantees that the buyer, JP Morgan, will not lose on the proposition.

That’s called “insurance”. And you, citizens, just paid for it.

Capitalism as corporate welfare is a grand idea, isn’t?