I have to disagree with you, respectfully. My body is my private property, and this is a nature-conferred reality: I am the highest executive agent in regard to my body (and mind) according to biological design. Nature.
Unowned property that I create, homestead, or acquire as a gift or through voluntary exchange, through the labor/actions of this body is thus mine by extension. Any other system not based on this natural reality (independent self-ownership) always is violent, and always falls apart. Indeed, it objectively cannot work if peace is held as a value due to the economic reality of scarcity.
To put it simply: everybody understands this natural law reality. Some may deny it in word, but never in deed (unless they are physically neurologically damaged).
If I walk into a restaurant and take your food from your hand, that you have just paid for, you either consent or do not consent. There is no in between. Most likely you will react in shock and yell: "What are you doing!?" You may even get physical and attempt to stop the theft.
Even if you said, "Well, that is not my property, because property is only in the mind," then you have proven my point again. You had to choose to allow me to take it. This is because you own yourself, and you recognize the food as yours, properly (property). You recognize what is ap-prop-riate, i.e. what is proper.
With public and private the issue is the same. Two or more people can voluntarily agree to share property, and it can be jointly owned, but to say "everyone owns it" without getting the express consent of each individual party to the "contract" requires that some of the individuals accept others using their "property" without their consent.
i.e.
This is public property so I can call you racial slurs all I want!
I want to use the tax money you paid to build a park here! To hell with what you want to do!
You see, you don't have to have folks vote on whether or not someone can use racial slurs in your own house, or use your money to do renovations. You decide, because you own it.
If you cannot even use the public "property" you pay for--even in part, oftentimes--how can you be said to "own" it? It is a preposterous proposition (not that you are making said proposition).
Your body is not your property, it is you. You cannot give it to someone else (which is a necessary property of property) without losing (parts) of yourself.
Semantics. I have nature-conferred, highest direct executive capacity over my body and mind.
Not semantics, but necessarily definitions.
It is not property if you cannot transfer it.
That is e.g. the reason why you today you only get a license to play a game, but not property of a copy of a game. So that you cannot transfer it, that is the whole point of that construct.
You can still do everythign esle with that game that you can do if it is your property. The only thing you cannot is to transfer it. (Okay, and change it, but that is also true of your body, or can you grow a third leg if you want to?)
You are honestly telling me my body is not proper to me? It's laughable, Lenny.
Prostitutes do not surrender (transfer through time and space) their sexual organs for money?
I do not exchange my body being at home for being at work moving to make money when I teach?
It's right there in the language. My body. You sound crazy, Lenny.
Well, can you imagine that you send your body out to do it while you do something else? Of course not, that does not work. Because your body is not your property but you. Back to square 1: Property is transferable.
That is because I and my body are together--one--for all practical intents and purposes. If it is not my body, then to whom does it belong, dearest Lenny?
And who made you the arbiter on what is and is not property? On what do you base your claims?
I just go with what is considered the definition of property for centuries or longer and which seems to me too is correct.
It belongs to you, but is not your property, as it is not the property of anyone else.
The air molecule in your lung also belongs to you for the moment, still it is not your property - and here we are talking about somethign that you could sell, we just all agreed to not do that, not own that, as indians agreed to not own rivers.
Lennstar argues that human bodies cannot be treated as property. This is contradicted by the institution of slavery. Slavery is the ownership of people's bodies, i.e. people's bodies are property that can be transferred. If someone can "own" another person as property, why can't someone "own" themselves? I don't get it...
Semantic fields cannot be isolated and treated as monolithic truths, they tend to overlap with or be overlapped by facts they cannot adequately encompass in and of themselves. It may be worth pointing out 'property' has at least 10 definitions; one of which is "a person, especially one under contract in entertainment or sports, regarding as having commercial value". This is why when arguing with syllogisms based on semantic fields we frequently use the qualifiers of 'some' not just 'all'. Here the qualifier of 'all' is the root of your disagreement with lennstar.
Let's write it out then: (A) Property is (B) transferrable. Your (C)body is not (B) transferrable. Thus your (C) body is not (A) property. Simplified: A=B, C≠B therefore A≠C : I believe this is a syllogistic fallacy known as the fallacy of the undistributed middle. If am in error, please correct me!
Thank you! Yes, you nailed it!
:D