Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hand, we may say are properly his.

[- John Locke, Second Treatise, V.27.]

If this is a version of the self-ownership thesis - that each person enjoys moral ownership of himself or herself (his/her body and mind) - is self-ownership implicit in Locke's three natural rights to life, liberty and property?

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – user2953
    Commented Apr 13, 2018 at 19:36

2 Answers 2


Every mind would be imprisoned if we could take hallucinogens freely, as well, it would just be a cell with a TV.

  • The key words in your comment are WOULD and COULD, implying a choice. Has that been your experience? If so you may simply choose to abstain from these things. It IS YOUR experience and no one else should be able to dictate how that should be for you, wouldn't you agree?
    – You
    Commented Apr 8, 2018 at 18:57
  • World already is imprisoned...
    – rus9384
    Commented Apr 8, 2018 at 19:27
  • @You sure, but that wasn't the question being asked. Commented Apr 8, 2018 at 22:39
  • I asked if this is good or bad. Should we have the freedom to freedom to choose for our selves.
    – You
    Commented Apr 9, 2018 at 2:29
  • @You You renamed your question to ask that, previously it asked how to escape this 'mental prison' or whatever. My point is that you cannot escape it, although I'm sure that's not the answer that you're after, and are rather looking for philosophical justification for breaking the law. Commented Apr 9, 2018 at 9:20

An important element of Locke’s theory of natural rights is that it bears the name natural. According to Locke, those rights are natural because they are pre-political that is to say that everyone in the state of nature is entitled to them. Pre-political is the state of nature which arises before any form of political authority. Thus, in a sense, Locke’s natural rights are similar to contemporary human rights.

Limited Government- Locke justifies his doctrine of limited government by advocating that a restrained government is the best way to protect rights. For example, the right to property is one of the natural rights and therefore pre-political. As a result government cannot violate this right. There are certain important rights, upon which the government cannot infringe. Although Locke stays rather neutral on the question of what form of government is appropriate, he stresses that a limited government is given by consent and restricted by subordination of power.

LIFE- I think, therefor I am. It is Pre-Political no laws should be passed on how you choose to experience life, being alive is basically defined as having consciousness. Your consciousness,is Pre- political free to do what you want with it..

LIBERTY- Self Explanatory- pre-Political, you are free to choose to consume entheogens that effect your consciousness it is your right, it is your experience of life no one else's.

PROPERTY Pre-Political First off all plants, game water and air are public property and natural resources to be shared and consumed. I'll say it again, property to be consumed. Entheogens grow from the earth all around people and always have since there have been people or even animals. Throughout history animals including people have gotten high, wether its a toads toxin produced as a deterrent against predators, mushrooms that look tasty or rye grain stock molded with ergot which contains LSD. It is one's natural right to consume and be in possession(property) of these god given plants(or isolates/synthasites from) our shared common resources.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .