Body Rights

What are we to make of this body of ours? The body is the intersection of many problems: ethical, political, epistemological, and religious. We talk of mind and body, body and spirit, body and soul, but what if mind, spirit, and soul are embodied?

With the separation of mind from body, we let ourselves believe we can make laws against the body while allowing for freedom of thought. BUt if there is no mind-body distinction, if the mind emerges from the body, and the body is the way the mind enacts thought, then what sense does it make to separate the two? What then becomes of "thought crimes"? Thoughts are made real through action. THink murder and it won't get done -- but a murder done was first thought, even if only briefly. Was the unacted thought even thought at all? Certainly not believed. To believe is to act on it. In "Twelve Angry Men," the outburst, "I'll kill you" received the response, "You don't really mean that." Only if you mean to murder do you do so -- the thought, the true thought, becomes action. All else is fantasy, dream, unbelief.

If our body is our own, may we not do with our bodies as we wish? Further, does that not mean we may not do with another body what we wish? If I convince you of something and you remain convinced, then you are doing what you wish, no matter what I convinced you to do. That interaction between you and me is only between you and me -- no one should force us to not do it, as that infringes on our rights to our own bodies. If they want to persuade us, then that is a different -- and just -- way of interacting that coincides with our own interaction. However, if I am using force against another, you may use force to stop me.

Let me give an example. If I pay for a woman's place to live, for her food and bills, and for luxury items to have sex, that is legal. If I let the woman pay for her own place to live, for her own food and bills and luxury items by giving her money instead, that's illegal. The argument is that in the second scenario, I am exploiting the woman. How? By leaving her alone to her own devices? I can care just as little for her in the first scenario as the second. I can meet a woman at a bar, get her drunk, and convince her to have sex with me for the price of a drink or two, and care for her just as little -- and that, too, is not illegal. In fact, making it illegal to directly, obviously, unquestionably pay for sex is what results in exploitation by driving such economic interactions underground, where it is by definition controlled by criminals. Work in a factor for a physically abusive boss, and you can report him for assault and get him arrested and fired; work as a prostitute for a physically abusive pimp, and if you complain you get abused more, and if you report him, he may get arrested, but when he gets out, you could get killed. Illegality of prostitution makes women exploited by it. Otherwise, it's a market exchange of money for services. When force, with an inability to do anything to prevent that force, is involved, you get exploitation. This is why when government runs anything, it's exploitative in nature: government does not engage in market transactions, it engages in force transactions. Of course, everyone knows this -- some are just against it, while others are for it. Some people think it is legitimate to use force to make people act in certain ways -- and in only those ways -- they think acceptable, while others do not.

The same people who think it appropriate to tell you what you must or must not do to your body are the same people who think is appropriate to tell you what you must or must not do with your property. Your property, once yours, is an extension of your body. Property rights are personal rights. I may do as I wish on my property, but you may not do as you wish on mine. You must receive my permission. When a government owns the property, you must receive their permission to do or say what you wish. There cannot be personal rights or freedom of speech under socialism, as socialist countries keep proving over and over. Still, there are those who believe their senses and experience as little as they believe theory.