[secretagent]

Reasserting ownership after it has been transferred is called theft, unless the transfer was fraudulent or otherwise defective.

I see the transfer of self ownership as defective.

The master can never really own the slave's self. He can't will the slave's arm to move. He can't will the slave to love him. He can't know the slave's thoughts unless the slave shares them.

Pretend the slave sells himself to a master. If a potential master should buy another's self, he has no one to sue should this purchased self "reassert" itself. The slave could always say he had no will once he transferred same to the master.

Obviously the master has unconsciously willed the slave's body to "escape". In fact, the master has assumed perpetual responsibility for whatever future actions the zombie might take. For example, should the zombie kill the master, the master has merely committed suicide.

[KrisKrinkle]

"I see the transfer of self ownership as defective."

My question from post 11 was:

"If you can't transfer ownership of yourself can it be said that you truly own yourself?"

If the transfer of self ownership is defective, can it not be said the concept of self ownership is defective?

Like the concept of dry water--internally contradictory.