Do We “Own Ourselves”?

The philosopher Robert Nozick argues for libertarianism by saying that we “own ourselves.” If the income tax is used for programs that help the poor, the government is taking people’s money, which is equivalent to coerced labor, which is equivalent to slavery.

Of course, the comparison to coerced labor is obviously absurd.  An income tax law that lets me work at my current job and takes one-third of my earnings is much less coercive than a law that says I must leave my job and work without pay for the government one year out of every three.  And the comparison to slavery is even more obviously absurd: a law that says I must work for the government one year out of three is much less coercive than slavery, which means that I must work for my owner every year and that my owner can sell me to another owner.

It is not as obvious, but I think we can reject the idea that we “own ourselves” on the ground that we have obligations to others. For example, we clearly have a strong obligation to our children and we have some obligation to everyone, as we can see through these two thought experiments.

Imagine that someone has a child and, a few months later, says, “I am a libertarian, and I believe that I own myself. If I want to use some of my income to raise my child, I can choose to do that; but if I want to spend all of my income on myself, I can also choose to do that. Laws that say I have to pay child support are taking my income, which is equivalent to coerced labor, which is equivalent to slavery.” Virtually no one would agree that it is morally right to choose to abandon your child and spend all your money on yourself, and this implies that we have special obligations to some people and do not “own ourselves” completely.

Imagine that someone is walking down the street and sees a car hit another pedestrian, drive away without stopping, and leave the victim lying on the street bleeding. No one else is around to report the accident. This person says, “I am a libertarian, and I believe that I own myself. If I want to dial 911 and call an ambulance, I can choose to do that, but if I want to keep going to the restaurant where I am having dinner and don’t want to waste time calling an ambulance, I can also choose to do that. If anyone says I must call the ambulance, it is like defending slavery. Virtually no one would agree that it is morally right to go to dinner rather than calling the ambulance, even if you don’t know the victim and have no special obligation to him, implying that we have a general obligation to all people (at least in certain extreme situations) and do not own ourselves completely.

The idea that we can do what we choose because we “own ourselves” is clearly untenable.  There are good reasons that people should have a large realm of freedom, but the idea that we own ourselves is not one of them.