Replies

All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.

We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

and they go on to amplify "dispose of" in relation to euthenasia etc. correct.
But where do they claim the such disposal can be made to violate what in the previous paragraph they refer to as a prohibition? I don't get it.

You lost me here. What prohibition?

I suspect that once again, some concept is being taken out of overall context, and misunderstood.

Roscoe at 177 is attempting to give the example of libertarian calls for allowable slavery contracts that I said was required to make these outlandish criticisms at my 174. The prohibition is the "words "freedom from involuntary servitude" in the first paragraph which is there to substantiate arguements of self-ownership and he claims that the "dispose of" aguement of the second paragraph means to allow such servitude.

Going clear back to my stuff on the first page guys, aren't there some "time certain" issues to enforcable contracts that would make the whole contract basis of applicability of contract arguements to this topic moot?

(KC Burke mutters, that he is in a hell of a mess trying to promote fair arguement tactics for tpaine and OWK, when he usually can't find a postition of theirs he agrees with....but honesty has got to count for something....grrrr)