This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: Libertarianism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Top-importance). Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I got to this link via Individual Sovereignty and I find that the G. Cohen quote sidelines the issue into sexism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.61.9 (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using "he" or "she" as a general noun representing any given individual is the English language; not sexism.(198.151.179.5 (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I think you'll find for from being general nouns, the words identified are [[gender pronoun]s.Leutha (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're replying to a 13-year old comment NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modern libertarian and anarchist philosophers assert that "self-ownership" is a misnomer and that substituting the terms "individual sovereignty" or "individual autonomy" is more clear simply because of their conception of the body as being part of themselves or their self, as opposed to the idea that an individual owns his own body. Under this conception, the body is not property to be owned, and consequently, the terms "individual autonomy" and "individual sovereignty" are not synonymous with the idea of self-ownership.

This article could also contain more information on the relationship of self-ownership to free love anarchism and feminism from the perspective of free love anarchists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.84.53 (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been other comments that individual sovereignty and self Ownership are distinct concepts (see also comment from 95.252.101.180 below). The view dominant in the current article is that individual sovereignty should be thought of as a matter of being able to control what one obviously owns- one's self. This is a justification with many adherents however others such as John Stuart Mill and those listed by 72.240.84.53 above regard individual sovereignty as something beyond the purview of property rights- that it is a unique right in itself. I propose that this article confine itself to describing the ownership rationale but that the traditional concept of individual sovereignty be treated in a separate article, referencing the alternative view of sovereignty as a subset of property rights and directing readers to this article for further elaboration. I will make the addition in the coming weeks unless there is consensus that the two concepts are best handled in the same article. J JMesserly (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Morris Cohen’s 1927 paper, "Property and Sovereignty" he makes the point that political sovereignty and private property are alternative forms of government. The two terms might be treated as synonyms if the choice of which to use is simply a matter of framing- either as matter of rhetorical persuasion, or political tactical positioning with constituencies who may be religious adherents to the power of the market, but not so enthusiastic about the language of fundamental human rights in gender and sexual orientation issues. If Cohen is right and there is a qualitative difference between the two perspectives, then the article should describe the difference that such authors describe. Perhaps if there is sufficient and congruent citable support for such a distinct concept of individual sovereignty, then the material might be moved to a separate article. J JMesserly (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't develope philosophy, we summarize what is already in the WP:RSs. with due regard to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. This is an area I haven't researched, which is why I'm not suggesting any RS-based changes. But if you got 'em, by all means, WP:BEBOLD 09:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The concept of Sovereignty of the individual is a quite DIFFERENT thing than mere Self-ownership.
Please, remove the redirect link and restore the Sovereignty of the individual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.101.180 (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of the word "block" in this quote:

Emma Goldman famously denounced wage slavery by saying: "The only difference is that you are hired slaves instead of BLOCK slaves."

Checking the veracity of this quote... I find this quote copied verbatim across the internet, but wonder, if it is not the replication of a typo perpetuating itself, and that "block" should be "bought". I find no arcane definition of "block" that would seem to make sense in this sentence in this context.

Block is used in one context meaning to "impress", but its used in typing in "impressing letters" as is done say with a woodblock printing press.... and not used as in a meaning of "impress" as in "coerce into service)". 71.226.11.248 (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the meaning is "auction block". SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Sovereign citizen a separate article? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sovereign citizen movement incorporates a rather large number of pseudo-legal constructs that distinguish it from this legal concept. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 11:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, is it fair to say SCM is a subset of Self-Ownership ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to say that the core concept of SCM is a heavily over-emphasized version of the concept of Self-Ownership. I don't really see this as a category, or something that would lend itself to that. It's more of a unitary idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I'm not familiar enough with the RSs to have an opinion so appreciate your take. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-ownership is a very broad, general concept. The Sovereign Citizens Movement is a much more specific conspiracy theory that postulates a United States government conspiracy to control its citizens, and the (inept) legal techniques the followers of that movement attempt to use in court. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spelling out the meaning of the acronym "SCM"

¬¬¬¬ Janosabel (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voetstoots acquisition means that a person sells goods "like they are" to a buyer, the buyer has no guarantee and is not allowed to check the goods beforehand, he/she has to buy "unseen" or "as is". This used to be a normal way of selling at markets and auctions in the Netherlands (Europe). In case there is an authentic source from which a relationship between voetstoots selling and the concept of self-ownership can be concluded, it would be nice mentioning it in the article. Thanks! VanArtevelde (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]