Specifically, what are the implications for your position that you are related to yourself as property given the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights ( Burnor & Raley)? To which of these distinctions does ‘property’ traditionally belong? To which would your notion of the ‘property-self’ now belong? Notice from the reading, that your view, if correct, would then imply that you did not have an inalienable right to yourself. That would mean that your right to yourself or your person could then be transferred or sold to another. This view can thus be seen as one of the central and necessary assumptions of the systems of traditional chattel-slavery and also of present day wage-slavery. If we assume that all slavery is morally wrong, then is this wrongness any indication of the plausibility of viewing the self as property?