Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. — Ronald Reagan


You Don’t Own Yourself

June 18, 2014   ·   By   ·   0 Comments

crowd_peopleBy Zachary Gappa

Over at Intercollegiate Review, Carter Skeel writes a short piece on how Self-Ownership is an Illusion. Unsurprisingly, his brief thoughts on moral stewardship and a debt to community are quickly torn to shreds by a handful of libertarian-leaning internet commentators. But Mr. Skeel is on to something, even if he didn’t take the time or have the space to flesh it out fully, for self-ownership is indeed a flawed and inaccurate concept. Particularly as it is understood in our current political moment.

As Skeel points out, the idea that we own ourselves certainly doesn’t agree with Scripture. He quotes from 1 Corinthians 6: “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?” Scripture makes it clear: You don’t own you. You owe everything about your existence and sustenance to God’s grace. And this isn’t just an abstract idea – it has real life implications.  You are to die to your sinful desires and live to serve and love God and your neighbor. An atheist might argue for self-ownership as a fundamental reality, but the Christian can’t hold to it with a straight face.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. took issue with Skeel’s piece. He criticizes Skeel’s argument (and goes on to patronize him, but I’ll focus on the relevant things Woods says), arguing instead that self-ownership should be defined “vis-a-vis other human beings.” In other words, Woods defines self-ownership as our “right to control what is ours.” He presents it as a social definition, and not a fundamental moral reality (at least not for the Christian).

If we accept Dr. Woods’s definition, however, we quickly encounter problems, for no one has an absolute right to control anything, even if you limit that definition to “vis-a-vis other human beings.” For example, everything, even your life, may be taken from you by force if you commit egregious enough social sins. But there is a bigger question at stake, for when it comes to questions of political theory, libertarians tend to reduce the world to two entities: the individual and the state. And, sadly, the modern political fight (particularly in the U.S.) has become which of these two should overpower the other.

The libertarians (and many conservatives) want the individual to triumph over the state: maximum freedom and minimum state. The libertarian holds to “negative rights”: the right to pursue his own happiness, do what he wants with his own property, teach his own children what he will, all without government intervention. These “rights” are rights against government coercion.

On the other hand the liberal holds to “positive rights” of the FDR variety: the individual has a right to “freedom from want”, or a right to a college education, or a right to quality healthcare, and it is the duty of the government to establish and defend those supposed rights by taking from the rich and providing for those who want. These “rights” are met through active government coercion.

The problem with this individual-state dichotomy is that society isn’t merely composed of individuals and the state, and thus this language of rights is not robust enough to help us navigate the complexities of society. Instead of rights, we ought instead to talk in terms of duties.

Duty moves us away from ourselves and to a more biblical and conservative view of our role in the world. Duty makes us look to others. I do not have a “right to life” – I instead have a duty to respect and protect the lives of others. I do not have “property rights” – I have a duty to respect the property of others and to be a proper steward of the property God enables me to obtain.

The beauty of duty is that it allows for layers of social complexity that the individual/state dichotomy does not. The libertarian and the liberal alike fixate on the government’s power of the sword. Their fixation leads many in both camps to ignore other important social forces. For instance, Scripture demands that a person provide for his family and help his neighbor. There are plenty of ways a Christian could violate these commands that would not merit punishment by the government but would merit punishment by other institutions. His family might push him away. His church might discipline him. His local community institutions might ostracize him or kick him out of membership. He might become a pariah in his community. Human life is a complex tapestry of both moral duties and the institutions who enforce these duties, and the concept of duty, not right, acknowledges legitimate authorities beyond the individual and the state.

Though she clearly does not represent all libertarians, it is helpful to consider Ayn Rand (particularly given the resurgence in passion for her book Atlas Shrugged during the rise of the Tea Party). There is a reason Ayn Rand hated Christianity – she saw in it an attempt to impose moral obligations and limitations on the individual. Rand has great influence in some libertarian spheres, but her particular spin on libertarianism has more in common with Nietzsche’s concepts of power-seeking self-actualization than the traditions of American freedom. She denounces the moral demands of altruism, regardless of which social authority enforces those demands. She is a stalwart defender of absolute self-ownership, unencumbered by any controlling authority.

In contrast to Rand’s ideals, the ideas of classical liberalism that our Founding Fathers promoted were guided by the influence of their surrounding Christian culture. Early American society was rooted in a pervasive Christian ethic, so much so that Alexis de Tocqueville observed, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” An early American culture of Christian moral obligations tempered the excesses of rights language, but as our culture has moved away from Christianity, the chinks in the “rights” armor are beginning to show.

We exist in a universe of moral duties, and the more we strive to expand ownership rights to provide an abstract basis for justice within society, the more tenuous the connection between our political philosophy and our moral reality becomes.

Perhaps ironically, duty is a better succor of limited government than rights. A pervasive sense of duty leads to thriving, robust communities that can provide for their own needs and do not require a powerful state to survive. Duty cements, upholds, and empowers the institutions of the family, church, local community, and social groups. It dismisses the individual/state dichotomy as inadequate and simplistic.

Emphasizing rights at the expense of duties, on the other hand, provides a short trip from little-government libertarianism to big-government liberalism. They are just two sides of the same coin. Once a libertarian discovers that he cannot meet his own needs or effect the kind of society he desires, what other authority does he have to look to but the state?

Ultimately, the idea of a right to self-ownership is an unchristian and inaccurate political term. We would do better to speak of moral duties, which point us to God and to others, securing a stable society. Let us be rid of these examples of inaccurate and atomizing rights language.

Zachary Gappa is Managing Editor at the John Jay Institute Center for a Just Society and Operations Manager at Gappa Security Solutions

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Guest authors at American Clarion hail from a variety of sources and backgrounds. Their work is featured because we believe they have something important to say that our readers will appreciate. If you'd like to see a guest author become a regular here, please let us know!
Guest Author
View all articles by Guest Author
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly

Readers Comments (0)

Sorry, comments are closed on this post.

Featured Articles


On Course to Never Pay Off National Debt

Robert Romano

We’re more likely to default on our national debt than to ever pay it off. The national debt has increased every single year since 1958 to its current level. Who really believes that trend will be reversed?


Pastors Resist Houston Mayor’s Power Grab

Guest Author

Houston is home to one of NASA's most sophisticated space centers -- but even it would have trouble finding signs of intelligence in the local Mayor's office. The city's highest official is blowing past the First Amendment at warp speed -- and lighting a political powder keg in the process.

Supreme Court

No To Graven Images

David Whitney

This past Monday the Supreme Court, in typical fashion, issued its decree for the destruction of God's Holy Institution of marriage in America. By refusing a writ of certiorari, it condemned five more States immediately, and potentially all the remaining States in the union, to have sodomite un-marriage forced upon them. What is very significant in this is that this would be against the plain statements of those State Constitutions as well as State law, not to mention six thousand years of human history.


Ben Affleck’s Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

A.J. Castellitto

Watch this video very, very carefully..... Then share it with your young liberal friends.


Tea Party Express Whores Itself to RINO Establishment

Bob Ellis

We've come to a very sad and pathetic place in America and South Dakota, these days. There once was a time, not too long ago, when you could count on certain people and groups to do the right thing and hold the line against what was wrong. Not anymore.


"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964