Page "Self-ownership" Paragraph 11

He says that it is not possible for alternative ( 2 ) to be a universal ethic but only a partial ethic, which says that one class of people do not have the right of self-ownership but another class does.

This, therefore, is incompatible with what is being sought-a moral code applicable to every person-instead of a code applicable to some and not to others, as if some individuals are humans and some are not.

In the case of alternative ( 1 ), every individual would own equal parts of every other individual so that no one is self-owned.

Rothbard acknowledges that this would be a universal ethic, but, he argues, it is " Utopian and impossible for everyone to keep continual tabs on everyone else, and thereby to exercise his equal share of partial ownership over every other man.

" He says the system would break down, resulting in a ruling class who specializes in keeping tabs over other individuals.

Since this would grant a ruling class ownership rights over its subjects, it would again be logically incompatible with a universal ethic.

Even if a collectivist Utopia of everyone having equal ownership of everyone else could be sustained, he argues, individuals would not be able to do anything without prior approval by everyone in society.

Since this would be impossible in a large society, no one would be able to do anything and the human race would perish.

Therefore, the collectivist alternative universal ethic where every individual would own an equal portion of every other individual violates the natural " law of what is best for man and life on earth.

" He says that if a person exercises ownership over another person, that is, uses aggression against him rather than leaving him to do as he wills, " this violates nature.