Mallakar kai

Mallakar kai, ita ce ,manufar dukiya a cikin jikin mutum, wanda aka bayyana a matsayin haƙƙin ɗabi'a ko na dabi'a na mutum don samun mutuncin jiki wanda ke nufin ya zama keɓaɓɓen mai kula da kuma jikin kansa ciki har da rayuwar mutum, inda 'kamewa' na nufin yin kowane abu. tsangwama ta jiki da 'keɓaɓɓen' na nufin gami da haƙƙin tilasta hana wasu mutane sarrafa ta.^[1] ^[2] ^[3]Mallakar kai babban ra'ayi ne a cikin falsafar siyasa da yawa waɗanda ke jaddada, ɗabi'a, kamar 'yanci, sassaucin ra'ayi, da anarchism . Tunda ma’anar take-taken kadara ta haɗa da haramcin bayyanannen wasu mutane da ke da’awar mallakar dukiya a kan albarkatu ɗaya a lokaci guda, ana samun haƙƙin sarrafawa ko tsoma baki a jikin mutum ta kowace hanya ta sabani.

' yancin kai na mutum, 'mulkin mutum' ko ikon kai an fahimci gabaɗaya don nuna haƙƙin mallaka na mutum ciki har da mallakar kansa wanda ake kira mummunan ikon mallaka, amma kuma ya haɗa da kin amincewa ko 'yanci daga ikon mallaka mai kyau inda mummunan ikon mallaka ya haɗa da haƙƙin mallaka da tabbatacce. mulkin mallaka ya haɗa da 'yancin ɗora wa mutane umarni da biyayya ko mulkin mallaka^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ko kuma kawai a ba shi yancin samun wani abu na tattalin arziki. Ra'ayi da ke hannun 'masu sassaucin ra'ayi mara kyau'. A bisa ka'ida na shari'a ana samun ikon mallaka ta mutum A, mai ba da sanarwar, ta hanyar aiwatar da ka'idar iko akan mutum B wanda baya buƙatar kowane aikin ɗabi'a na son rai na B, inda sakamakon shari'a B ya zama batun shari'a (na wajibi) ma'ana B ya karɓi mummunan ko tabbataccen wajibci ta hanyar halayya ta dukiya ta A, inda aka fahimci dukiya a matsayin tushen dalilin ayyukan mutum misali aikin jiki. Misalan ƙa'idodin ikon mallaka mara kyau shine kafa tuta ko ɗaga shinge akan ƙasar da ba ta da mallaka a baya . Misalan ingantattun ƙa'idodin ikon mallaka suna sanya hannu kan Tsarin Mulki na Amurka ko cire Excalibur daga dutse. Lura cewa ingantattun ƙa'idodin ikon mallaka sun keta yarda (ƙididdigar) batun shari'a a cikin ma'anar rashin son kai, amma ƙa'idar ikon mallaka mara kyau ba ta ma'ana ba.

A cikin wannan labarin an fahimci mutumin da ke ƙarƙashin bautar ba da son rai na shari'a ( bautar bautar ) yana nufin mutum a ƙarƙashin 'bautar da doka ta doka' bisa ga ƙa'idar ikon ikon mallaka na sama, don haka bautar da ba ta son rai ta fahimci nufin a matsayin yarda (ba da izini) da aiki kamar yadda yake. kowane tabbataccen wajibi inda aka ɗauka ra'ayin 'yanci na rashin son rai. Misalai na mutanen da galibi ke yin hidimar ba da son rai a cikin doka su ne yara game da iyayensu, mazauna game da ikon mulkin ƙasarsu da kuma ɗaukar sojoji game da babban jami'insu. Yi la'akari da cewa aikin ɗaukar ciki, a bisa doka ƙa'ida ce mai ƙarfi wanda ke sanya nauyin (tabbatacce) na iyaye akan iyaye wanda ba ya keta ikon kai ko sanya bautar da ba ta dace ba ta shari'a saboda an ɗora wa kansu ta hanyar dabi'a ta kansu. tsoma baki tare da zygote a matsayin ka'idar takunkumi ko ka'ida ta adalci. Misali na 'ka'idar iko' wanda ke sanya mummunan takalifi ga wasu shine ka'idar doka ta ƙa'ida ta asali, wanda shine da'awar da ke haifar da ius a cikin da'awar rashin kyau da ake kira take hakkin mallaka. Hakazalika, alƙawarin yin biyayya ga umarni yana haifar da tabbataccen wajibci, ta hanyar aiwatar da alƙawarin iko (kwangilar) kuma ba bautar son rai ba ce ta doka. A lura cewa ikon ɗan adam da mulkin mallaka a kan ɗan adam ( tilasta bin doka ba tare da son rai ba), dukansu suna ba wa mai haƙƙin yancin yin amfani da tashin hankali don aiwatar da nufinsu, amma tare da mulkin mallaka, batun dole ne ya kasa umarnin da aka bayar da farko don wannan haƙƙin ya faru. . Akasin haka, idan wani mai dukiya, watau bayi ko ’ya’ya, ya gudu, to, har yanzu mai shi ne farkon alhakin abin da ya aikata idan ya ci gaba da da’awar mallakarsa, amma ba za a iya yin shari’a a kan bawan ba saboda dukiya da mai shi. shine asalin abin alhaki don aikata mummunan aiki.

Lura cewa 'yancin mallakar dukiya a cikin mutum' ana kiransa haƙƙin mutum, kuma gabaɗaya cin zarafi ne na mallakar kai ko yancin kai. Misali ' yancin mantawa ya hana kowane mutum ci gaba da kima a kan sauran mutane. Lura cewa haƙƙin rayuwa wani lokaci ana kiransu a matsayin wani ɓangare na mallakar kai kuma ana haɗa shi cikin ma'anar da ke sama lokacin da aka fahimce shi a matsayin rashin tauyewa ga laifin sakaci kawai na kisa.

Duba kuma

Bayanan kula da Manazarta

↑ Murray Rothbard. Ethics of Liberty. Citation (p. 216): "..define negative liberty as the absence of physical interference with an individual's person and property, with his just property rights broadly defined." Citation (p. 215): "liberty is the absence of physically coercive interference or invasion of an individual's person and property." Citation (p.60): "The simplest case, of course, is property in persons. The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that each person must be a self-owner, and that no one has the right to interfere with such self-ownership. From this there follows immediately the total impermissibility of property in another person." Citation (p. 77) "To say that someone has the absolute right to a certain property but lacks the right to defend it against attack or invasion is also to say that he does not have total right to that property." Note that Rothbard's and Berlin's concept of negative liberty corresponds to Howowy's and Block's negative claim right
↑ Lysander Spooner (1852). "Trial By Jury" (PDF). Let's Abolish Government. Citation (p179) "If one man commit a trespass upon the person, property or character of another, the injured party has a natural right, either to chastise the aggressor, or to take compensation for the injury out of his property."
↑ Herman-Hans Hoppe (2020). Economics and Ethics of Private Property. p. 424. Citation: "In the same vein, the fact of self-ownership is a praxeological precondition of argumentation. Anyone trying to prove or disprove anything must be a self-owner."
↑ Spooner, Lysander (1852). "Trial By Jury". Let's abolish government. p. 86. Citation (p.86) "The only real 'sovereignty' or right of 'sovereignty' in this or any other country, is that right of sovereignty which each and every human being has over his or her own person and property, so long as he or she obeys the one law of justice towards the person and property of every other human being. This is the only natural right of sovereignty, that was ever known among men. All other so-called rights of sovereignty are simply the usurpations of impostors, conspirators, robbers, tyrants, and murderers." Citation (p81) "What, then, is a 'sovereign' government? It is a government that is 'sovereign' over all the natural rights of the people. This is the only 'sovereignty' that any government can be said to have. Under it, the people have no rights. They are simply 'subjects' — that is, slaves. They have but one law, and one duty, viz., obedience, submission." Citation (p.208) "There is no particle of truth in the notion that the majority have a right to rule, or to exercise arbitrary power over, the minority, simply because the former are more numerous than the latter. Two men have no more natural right to rule one, than one has to rule two." Note that Spooner understands sovereignty to mean the negative sovereignty of property rights but says that this is the only sovereignty, so rejecting positive sovereignty of ruling power.
↑ Rand, Ayn (1988). The Ayn Rand lexicon: objectivism from A to Z. p. 204. ISBN 9780452010512. Citation: "the ruler of the individual — as a sovereign authority (with or without supernatural mandate), an authority logically antecedent to the citizen and to which he must submit. The Founding Fathers challenged this primordial notion. They started with the premise of the primacy and sovereignty of the individual."
↑ Rand, Ayn (1982). "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made". Philosophy: Who Needs It. Bobbs-Merrill. p. 40. ISBN 0-672-52725-1. "Citation: this is in his exclusive, sovereign power. Man is neither to be obeyed nor to be commanded."

Empty citation (help)
Empty citation (help)
List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1998; Emma Goldman. Missing |author2= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
Empty citation (help)
Empty citation (help)
Empty citation (help)

Hanyoyin haɗi na waje

Mallakar Kai
The Ego da Nasa Archived 2010-10-11 at the Wayback Machine Archived (kuma an fassara shi azaman Mutum da Dukiyarsa, babban aikin masanin falsafar Jamus Max Stirner )
Falsafar 'Yanci
Menene mutum mai iko?

[1] Murray Rothbard. Ethics of Liberty. Citation (p. 216): "..define negative liberty as the absence of physical interference with an individual's person and property, with his just property rights broadly defined." Citation (p. 215): "liberty is the absence of physically coercive interference or invasion of an individual's person and property." Citation (p.60): "The simplest case, of course, is property in persons. The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that each person must be a self-owner, and that no one has the right to interfere with such self-ownership. From this there follows immediately the total impermissibility of property in another person." Citation (p. 77) "To say that someone has the absolute right to a certain property but lacks the right to defend it against attack or invasion is also to say that he does not have total right to that property." Note that Rothbard's and Berlin's concept of negative liberty corresponds to Howowy's and Block's negative claim right

[2] Lysander Spooner (1852). "Trial By Jury" (PDF). Let's Abolish Government. Citation (p179) "If one man commit a trespass upon the person, property or character of another, the injured party has a natural right, either to chastise the aggressor, or to take compensation for the injury out of his property."

[hoppe_privprop-3] Herman-Hans Hoppe (2020). Economics and Ethics of Private Property. p. 424. Citation: "In the same vein, the fact of self-ownership is a praxeological precondition of argumentation. Anyone trying to prove or disprove anything must be a self-owner."

[4] Spooner, Lysander (1852). "Trial By Jury". Let's abolish government. p. 86. Citation (p.86) "The only real 'sovereignty' or right of 'sovereignty' in this or any other country, is that right of sovereignty which each and every human being has over his or her own person and property, so long as he or she obeys the one law of justice towards the person and property of every other human being. This is the only natural right of sovereignty, that was ever known among men. All other so-called rights of sovereignty are simply the usurpations of impostors, conspirators, robbers, tyrants, and murderers." Citation (p81) "What, then, is a 'sovereign' government? It is a government that is 'sovereign' over all the natural rights of the people. This is the only 'sovereignty' that any government can be said to have. Under it, the people have no rights. They are simply 'subjects' — that is, slaves. They have but one law, and one duty, viz., obedience, submission." Citation (p.208) "There is no particle of truth in the notion that the majority have a right to rule, or to exercise arbitrary power over, the minority, simply because the former are more numerous than the latter. Two men have no more natural right to rule one, than one has to rule two." Note that Spooner understands sovereignty to mean the negative sovereignty of property rights but says that this is the only sovereignty, so rejecting positive sovereignty of ruling power.

[5] Rand, Ayn (1988). The Ayn Rand lexicon: objectivism from A to Z. p. 204. ISBN 9780452010512. Citation: "the ruler of the individual — as a sovereign authority (with or without supernatural mandate), an authority logically antecedent to the citizen and to which he must submit. The Founding Fathers challenged this primordial notion. They started with the premise of the primacy and sovereignty of the individual."

[6] Rand, Ayn (1982). "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made". Philosophy: Who Needs It. Bobbs-Merrill. p. 40. ISBN 0-672-52725-1. "Citation: this is in his exclusive, sovereign power. Man is neither to be obeyed nor to be commanded."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Mallakar kai
Iri	Haƙƙoƙi