The Ownership of Labor

I had an interesting conversation with someone in a libertarian internet group yesterday. We were having a debate on the ownership of labor. My antagonist was arguing that labor cannot be owned by anyone. The argument goes somewhat as follows: "labor is an action and actions cannot be owned or else the owner has sole right to exclude others from that action." On a cursory consideration, this assertion seems to makes sense. If Sam does indeed own "singing," then he can assert his ownership rights to the action of singing.  He can stop others from singing. He could ask for licenses for singing. He'll be a very rich human being!

How popular this kind of argument is, or if any of the big-name libertarian writers advocate for this thought process, I could not immediately reckon; but it seems to have a following in right libertarian circles. Remarkably however, a casual examination of everyday affairs readily reveals that this idea goes counter to everyday exchanges. We pay for services all the time. When a bar hires a four man band to play for $500 for two and a half hours, that is a legitimate exchange of goods, in the form of money, and services. How is this resolved? Who owns our labor?

Apparently, the solution is rather simple. When we talk about who owns labor, we are not talking about labor in the abstract. We are talking about labor being performed by an actor. When we talk about "labor," we do not consider it headless. Hence in the example above, Sam owns [singing by Sam]. No one else owns [singing by Sam] except Sam. It becomes clear now who owns what. Note that it is perfectly legitimate for Sam to have complete control of [singing by Sam] for why should someone else dictate his actions. Likewise, the band owns [playing by band]. Therefore, it becomes clear that ones labor is the ownership of the actor.

Demanding services from others is slavery.