I believe every [sound of mind] person has the 'right' to do whatever he wishes with himself, so long as he does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. This is, in fact, the basic idea of libertarianism.

I would go so far as to say that voluntary slavery is absolutely permissable. My reasoning is based on the simple concept of a contract, and I also believe my reasoning is compatible with human rights.

Say a person signed a contract [in good faith] stating he would forfeit all his rights to another. In other words, by signing this contract, he became someone else's slave, allowing his master to do whatever he wished to him. In this particular contract, he would allow his master to physically and mentally abuse him, and, if his master wished, to murder him.

I see nothing wrong with this. As Wendy McElroy's saying goes in respect to abortion, if a person does not own her own body, then who does? and what does she own? Just as the argument can be applied to assisted suicide and everything else under the sun, I believe the same applies here. If the man is a masochist, or if he felt like he needed to be punished for something, or if he just wanted to participate in the arrangement for kicks and giggles, that's his prerogative. Who is anyone else to stop him or know what's best for him or know what his wishes are? What he does with himself is noöne's business but his (assuming, in his case, he has no prior obligations, such as to dependents or former contracts).

However, the wonderful and distinguished Nigel Ashford (Hi Nigel!) would disagree with me, and he would do so based on his analysis of what the definition of a human right is. He clarifies the three properties of human rights in his short essay "Equal Rights, Not Gay Rights":

1) they must be universal, applying to every human being, wherever and whenever they lived  2) they are absolute, except when they come into conflict with each other  3) they are inalienable, and so cannot be surrendered, eg no-one can sell themselves into slavery.

The first claim is self-explanatory and seems exceptionally reasonable to me. The second claim refers to, for example, a situation such as when one person murders another, in which case the murderer's human rights may be denied through punishment [via incarceration, debt-payment, execution, etc.]. The third claim is the claim with which I may have a problem. I believe rights equal property, and therefore, I believe rights can be surrendered, as I showed in the voluntary slavery example. Here is how I would redefine human rights in order to allow for such autonymous possibilities:

1) they must be universal, applying to every human being, wherever and whenever they lived  2) they are absolute, inalienable, and unsurrenderable, except when they come into conflict with each other.

Thus, if the person should exercise a human right of his (liberty) to sign a bona fide contract committing himself to be murdered by another, this is permissable, because he allowed another human right of his (life) came into conflict with his right to liberty, thus deliberately annulling his right to life.

Having never before heard David Horowitz speak, I was told I was in for a straightforward, rabblerousing personality. And that’s what I got. He is one of the few "conservatives" I know of who has enough of a backbone to so openly and brazenly speak up against the left. And even though this happens to be the m.o. of the opposite side, he is still considered controversial by many and frequently called everything but white, as they say, by others. All of this is what I discovered made Horowitz a worthwhile speaker to hear.

I was unfortunately disappointed with the anti-Horowitz crowd. (After all, one of the chief reasons I go to events like this is to witness illogical civil unrest.) I saw no protestors beforehand, although the talk proper started out so well with the "I am that professor" lady. So what happened to that momentum? Horowitz continued the momentum, surely, but nothing really came of it from his objectors. Further, it was a long while before there was a final peep, coming from some poor, misguided bedwetter who naturally couldn't be bothered to raise her hand and wait her turn like everyone else.

By contrast, I was privy to an unsettling episode of shock-and-awe I wasn't prepared for, supplied by Horowitz and followed up by feverish support: the applause for Ashcroft in general and his 'keeping us safe' comment in particular. (Yes, and Himmler holds that same, special place in my heart. A-mazing.) See, I had beforehand assumed Mr. Horowitz was not as far right as he was often pegged. I was pleasantly surprised to find out I was correct after his talk, when he kindly took the WSPQ for Adam and scored himself a libertarian (see right). Because of my later-proved preconception, I assumed he wouldn't deeply appreciate people whose views fall just to the right of Jerry Falwell. But so it was with Ashcroft, and I honestly do not understand why.

Another issue that left a bad taste in my mouth was Mr. Horowitz's recurrent use of the word "democracy", including, "We live in a democracy [...]". His point in being there was to clearly explain his thoughts so as to educate his audience, and one of his main points was the bias of the media. The usage of this word was something I thought he should most definitely have picked up on. So either he does not understand what democracy is, or else he subscribes to the popular liberal media's misdesignation of the term. Both possibile explanations are equally sad, as well as ironic in relation to his [otherwise mostly judicious] fatwah.

But one way or another, I went to his talk to be entertained that night, and it was worth my time. At least I can still look forward to a little tumult when Mr. Boortz comes to town in October.