• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?

Ikari said:
On the contrary, I have inalienable ownership of my body.
Click to expand...

That's a reassuring misconception, I'm sure. But as I took pains to explain in the original post, and again lower in the thread, since you cannot sell it, you only have stewardship for it. More directly to the point, you do not own yourself, since you cannot sell yourself into slavery legally.
 
Oftencold said:
That's a reassuring misconception, I'm sure. But as I took pains to explain in the original post, and again lower in the thread, since you cannot sell it, you only have stewardship for it. More directly to the point, you do not own yourself, since you cannot sell yourself into slavery legally.
Click to expand...

My consciousness and this body are impossibly entangled. I have full and direct control of it, but I cannot transfer that ownership and without the ability to demonstrate transfer of ownership, I cannot sell myself into slavery as no one else can take possession/control of this body. Only I can innately own myself.

So you make false argument predicated on the illegality of transferring ownership of your body in a system in which you physically cannot transfer ownership. Maybe when our tech grows and it's more Ghost In The Shell like it will be possible. As it stands now, however, ownership of self is inalienable.
 
Ikari said:
My consciousness and this body are impossibly entangled. I have full and direct control of it, but I cannot transfer that ownership and without the ability to demonstrate transfer of ownership, I cannot sell myself into slavery as no one else can take possession/control of this body. Only I can innately own myself.

So you make false argument predicated on the illegality of transferring ownership of your body in a system in which you physically cannot transfer ownership. Maybe when our tech grows and it's more Ghost In The Shell like it will be possible. As it stands now, however, ownership of self is inalienable.
Click to expand...

For the first 90 years of so of the Republic, the idea that one could not transfer ownership of another person would indeed have been novel.
 
specklebang said:
Lets just talk about America rather than extending our brilliant analyses globally.

There are more people well off then there are people who aren't. Even I, with nothing but a GED have been reasonably successful. Every friend I have (other than retirees) make decent livings. They all have a place to live that has utilities. Most of them own cars (or don't drive). None of them have empty stomachs.

Other than fast food, nobody I know works for minimum wage. So, I contend that poverty is a minority and can in many cases be ascribed to irresponsibility or drug misuse.

The same is true in many countries as well. The Europens seem to be OK. South Korea, when I was there in 1963 epitomized poverty. Now, they are one of the most successful economies in the world. There is a great deal of evidence that those who aspire and invest effort can easily obtain a decent middle-class lifestyle. I live at least as well as Mitt Romney or Warren Buffet. Sure, I don't have a private jet but how much happiness would that afford me?

My son got his degree from a Community College. The Military paid for it for his service. He earns $83K plus benefits and he just bid himself out at $85 per hour. If I can succeed and he can succeed, anybody with 1/2 a brain can also., But if you don't try and just wait for a free ride, yes, you might effectively sell yourself into slavery. But that's a choice, not a rule.
Click to expand...

I don't think we can talk about America only when talking about Capitalism, since a lot of America's economy depends on cheap foreign labor and cheap resources from other countries.

You can contend whatever you want, 15% of Americans are in poverty, because you don't see them doesn't mean they exist. Also having food, a place to stay and utilities is basic living, when you are in constant fear to loose that, you arn't really free.

Some Europeans are OK, a whole lot in the south are not.

As far as the success story, that's wonderful, it just isn't the norm, and it IS'NT a choice either, after the economic collapse in 2007 more people fell into poverty, debt and unemployment, and it wasn't due to their individual poor choice, it was due to an economic systemic collapse.
 
Oftencold said:
But you cannot sell your flesh, and its function, which must people incorrectly assume that they do own.

As for marrying yourself, I no longer believe that any form of "marriage" can legitimately be called nonsense in a political sense. Obviously we discriminate against narcissistic masturbators by not allowing them to marry who they love.
Click to expand...

No matter what people say about marraige it's a relationship between one person and another, meaning no one will every be able to marry themselves.

The same with ownership, you can't own yourself, because ownership is X owns Y .... if you're just yourself it's just X there is no Y, thus no ownership relation.
 
Oftencold said:
If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?
Click to expand...

For a very simple reason: in a society where people can be really free, there will be no legal framework to support slavery. Sure, you can decide to act as a slave to another person, but it will be your freely made decision, and you will be able to walk out of it at any time.
 
Cyrylek said:
For a very simple reason: in a society where people can be really free, there will be no legal framework to support slavery. Sure, you can decide to act as a slave to another person, but it will be your freely made decision, and you will be able to walk out of it at any time.
Click to expand...

OK then, let's try it this way. Can you legally sell yourself for a certainly fatal medical experiment?
 
Oftencold said:
OK then, let's try it this way. Can you legally sell yourself for a certainly fatal medical experiment?
Click to expand...

What kind of "medical experiment" is it, if it is "certainly fatal"? As Ivan Pavlov famously told Comrade Trotsky, "I wouldn't spare a frog for such an "experiment".

If you are asking "Can you commit suicide if some rich nutcase offers your family a truckload of money for such "service" provided?" Theoretically - yes; nothing stops such things from happening, on the level of laws and regulations, even here and now. But they don't happen - because the odds of two absolutely insane people meeting each other and striking a deal so bizarre are close to the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot.

Theoretical physics is a deservedly respected discipline. Theoretical ethics "exploring" most improbable situations - not so much.
 
No, you can't LEGALLY become a slave, hence, have a SLAVE status because its not a support legal position.

You are FREE to obey the law and enjoy the freedoms you have under the law. Not to be free FROM the law.
 
I'm not in any denial that there are people struggling. We ar not all born equal. Some are born with innate abilities and some are not. Some of those with abilities, will still fail for external reasons or poor choices. Some without ability will succeed through extraordinary effort or sheer luck. There is no IQ test to win the lottery.

All I said was that the greater majority can and do succeed well enough.

Many people were economically destroyed by the events of 2007. Mostly those who bought homes despite the obvious excess of price above intrinsic value. That is a poor choice to buy something on the presumption that no matter the price, the value will increase. That doesn't make those people bad people but it shows that their judgement is questionable.


RGacky3 said:
I don't think we can talk about America only when talking about Capitalism, since a lot of America's economy depends on cheap foreign labor and cheap resources from other countries.

You can contend whatever you want, 15% of Americans are in poverty, because you don't see them doesn't mean they exist. Also having food, a place to stay and utilities is basic living, when you are in constant fear to loose that, you arn't really free.

Some Europeans are OK, a whole lot in the south are not.

As far as the success story, that's wonderful, it just isn't the norm, and it IS'NT a choice either, after the economic collapse in 2007 more people fell into poverty, debt and unemployment, and it wasn't due to their individual poor choice, it was due to an economic systemic collapse.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
I'm not in any denial that there are people struggling. We ar not all born equal. Some are born with innate abilities and some are not. Some of those with abilities, will still fail for external reasons or poor choices. Some without ability will succeed through extraordinary effort or sheer luck. There is no IQ test to win the lottery.

All I said was that the greater majority can and do succeed well enough.

Many people were economically destroyed by the events of 2007. Mostly those who bought homes despite the obvious excess of price above intrinsic value. That is a poor choice to buy something on the presumption that no matter the price, the value will increase. That doesn't make those people bad people but it shows that their judgement is questionable.
Click to expand...

Some are born with abilities that they can never realize since they don't have access to things that people in high class communities have access too, also some people have less abilities but get 100 chances, whereas poorer people get none or perhaps one. There ARE systemic issues here, we're never able to judge whether the outcomes are due to ability or not because our system is rediculously rigged to favor the rich.

1. People didn't know prices were overblown, and many were decived by banks and real estate agents.
2. Of coarse theire judgment is questionable, but pit a bank against a middle class family, the former will win.
3. This sort of thing wouldn't happen if we have the banking system be a public utility, not for profit, it wouldn't be banks trying to exploit people, have having way way more power, and with the ability and necessity to ruin the economy.
 
Favor the rich? Well, of course. That's part of the motivation to get rich. Send your kids to better schools like Harvard where they make connections that even idiots can exploit into further wealth.

I'm an Army brat from an era when the Military didn't get such glorious salaries. I went to maybe 10 different schools unti, I dropped out and took a GED instead. I didn't go to college. Yet I was quite successful in a middle class way. I'm not Mitt Romney but I have more money than Joe Biden:). So yeah, I think ability levels the playing field.

How can you "not know" that the price of something is inane? If I asked you for $25 for a cup of coffee would you take one because my other customers seemed to be OK with the price? Or would you hold off thinking that my price was excessive and that when I lost enough customers, I'd be back to selling for $2.50? Remember, this was borrowed money and people assumed debts far beyond their ability to pay them. Wer the banks utter assholes also? Yes.

Banks as a public utility? Bad idea. I have insider knowledge of my power company and believe me, they are a pack of crooks. Regulated or not - you think regulators are incorruptible? You'll be paying $25 whenever you write a check. There will only be one bank in town with a few branches. The CEO will make $50M a year so next year it will be $35 to speak to a teller.


RGacky3 said:
Some are born with abilities that they can never realize since they don't have access to things that people in high class communities have access too, also some people have less abilities but get 100 chances, whereas poorer people get none or perhaps one. There ARE systemic issues here, we're never able to judge whether the outcomes are due to ability or not because our system is rediculously rigged to favor the rich.

1. People didn't know prices were overblown, and many were decived by banks and real estate agents.
2. Of coarse theire judgment is questionable, but pit a bank against a middle class family, the former will win.
3. This sort of thing wouldn't happen if we have the banking system be a public utility, not for profit, it wouldn't be banks trying to exploit people, have having way way more power, and with the ability and necessity to ruin the economy.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
Favor the rich? Well, of course. That's part of the motivation to get rich. Send your kids to better schools like Harvard where they make connections that even idiots can exploit into further wealth.

I'm an Army brat from an era when the Military didn't get such glorious salaries. I went to maybe 10 different schools unti, I dropped out and took a GED instead. I didn't go to college. Yet I was quite successful in a middle class way. I'm not Mitt Romney but I have more money than Joe Biden:). So yeah, I think ability levels the playing field.

How can you "not know" that the price of something is inane? If I asked you for $25 for a cup of coffee would you take one because my other customers seemed to be OK with the price? Or would you hold off thinking that my price was excessive and that when I lost enough customers, I'd be back to selling for $2.50? Remember, this was borrowed money and people assumed debts far beyond their ability to pay them. Wer the banks utter assholes also? Yes.

Banks as a public utility? Bad idea. I have insider knowledge of my power company and believe me, they are a pack of crooks. Regulated or not - you think regulators are incorruptible? You'll be paying $25 whenever you write a check. There will only be one bank in town with a few branches. The CEO will make $50M a year so next year it will be $35 to speak to a teller.
Click to expand...

1. A cup of coffee isn't an investment, and it doesn't inflate or deflate as much based on market factors.
2. People are not setting up derivatives based on your cup of coffee.
3. People are not speculating on your cot of coffee.

Banks as a public utility already exist, I think it's North Dakota that has a state bank and it works fine, and the countries that treat banking as a public good didn't go through a financial crisis, take the country I live in Norway, did'nt get touched, or Canada.

As far as the power company? Ask California how privitizing their power did ...

As for your doomsday scenarios for public banks ... THEY ALREADY EXIST AND THEY DO FINE ... and complaining that a CEO will make more money ... when your a capitalist and support private banks, is idiotic to say the least.
 
1. I used the coffee analogy as a frame of reference for the concept of perceived values. I didn't identify it as an investment but guess what, there are coffee futures. So, it is an investment (sort of).
2. Yes, they are.
3. Yes, they are.
4. I don't know about CA but I do know about NV. A [private VC group owning a "public utility". Works great for everybody except the customers and employees.
5. Where did I complain about a CEO making "more money"? I gave examples of pay and examples of fees.
6. The term "bad idea" is not = "doomsday scenario". Have you been attending drama class?
7. Even our Federal Reserve is a private bank (sort of). My comment about banks being a public utility applies in the sense that there is only one bank, as there is only one gas company.


RGacky3 said:
1. A cup of coffee isn't an investment, and it doesn't inflate or deflate as much based on market factors.
2. People are not setting up derivatives based on your cup of coffee.
3. People are not speculating on your cot of coffee.

Banks as a public utility already exist, I think it's North Dakota that has a state bank and it works fine, and the countries that treat banking as a public good didn't go through a financial crisis, take the country I live in Norway, did'nt get touched, or Canada.

As far as the power company? Ask California how privitizing their power did ...

As for your doomsday scenarios for public banks ... THEY ALREADY EXIST AND THEY DO FINE ... and complaining that a CEO will make more money ... when your a capitalist and support private banks, is idiotic to say the least.
Click to expand...
 
Oftencold said:
If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?

I have found that to be an interesting question, and one that illustrates some of the quirky limits a generally free Society places upon freedom.

There's an old adage too as I recall, that states that the proof of ownership lies in the right and ability to sell. That is, if you aren't allowed to sell something, then it really isn't yours. This would be expected to extend to one's person as well, I should think.


In passing I'll just mention that I think many, possibly most people would be content as slaves, so long as they were well cared for and weren't called a slave. This would explain a great deal about popular political movements.
Click to expand...

Slaves are not free. So really its like asking 'Why cant living people be dead?'. Or in this context 'Why cant free people not be free?'
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Slaves are not free. So really its like asking 'Why cant living people be dead?'. Or in this context 'Why cant free people not be free?'
Click to expand...

Living people can become dead. They do so at the most inconvenient times! But supposedly "free" people cannot legally become slaves.
 
Oftencold said:
Living people can become dead. They do so at the most inconvenient times! But supposedly "free" people cannot legally become slaves.
Click to expand...

You missed my point entirely. You cant be both at the same time. Dead people are not living. And slaves are not free.

The so called philosophical question that you brought forward is really a nonintellectual exercise. Free people cannot become slaves without becoming .....well.... slaves.

ANd personally I am not going to lose sleep over the fact that people are denied slavery.
 
You already do. Its called work. You get paid to do work.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You missed my point entirely. You cant be both at the same time. Dead people are not living. And slaves are not free.

The so called philosophical question that you brought forward is really a nonintellectual exercise. Free people cannot become slaves without becoming .....well.... slaves.

ANd personally I am not going to lose sleep over the fact that people are denied slavery.
Click to expand...

The point isn't that people aren't denied slavery, the point is that people in our society don't really own themselves. If you did possess your own person, self and flesh, you could transfer that ownership. What you have, is limited stewardship of them.
 
I don't see any reason why you can't voluntarily do whatever someone tells you to do. The problem with institutionalized slavery is that it treats people as commodities, in which case it's not so easy to establish and maintain self-ownership.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I think the problem arises in that no right-minded person would ever do that, so anyone that would do it either needs mental treatment or is being coerced. Either scenario should be prevented.
Click to expand...

Well I think the world is somewhere about equal when it comes to being right or left minded. The right part of the brain is associated with creativity while the left is more with speech specialization.

So why should we leave the left minded people out of the equation? We do want communication with speech do not we?

;)
 
specklebang said:
1. I used the coffee analogy as a frame of reference for the concept of perceived values. I didn't identify it as an investment but guess what, there are coffee futures. So, it is an investment (sort of).
2. Yes, they are.
3. Yes, they are.
4. I don't know about CA but I do know about NV. A [private VC group owning a "public utility". Works great for everybody except the customers and employees.
5. Where did I complain about a CEO making "more money"? I gave examples of pay and examples of fees.
6. The term "bad idea" is not = "doomsday scenario". Have you been attending drama class?
7. Even our Federal Reserve is a private bank (sort of). My comment about banks being a public utility applies in the sense that there is only one bank, as there is only one gas company.
Click to expand...

1. It's a terribly analogy because it doesn't fit, and we wern't talkinga bout coffee futures we were talking about cups of coffee, and it doesn't work as an analogy becasue you buy a cup of coffee and drink it, it's NEVER and investment.
2. Not really
3. Not really
4. Dude a private group owning a public utility is not a public utility, it's privitized .... that is exactly what I'm arguing against.
5. Yeah, totally just pulled out of your ass and not connected with reality at all.
6. The things you say will happen ... DO NOT HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE.
7. You can have many different types of public banks, just as yo ucan private.

Here is the difference, public banks are not beholdant to maximize profits, they are beholdent to voters not shareholders.
 
Oftencold said:
The point isn't that people aren't denied slavery, the point is that people in our society don't really own themselves. If you did possess your own person, self and flesh, you could transfer that ownership. What you have, is limited stewardship of them.
Click to expand...

Is slavery the only example that you could think of? Because its a really really bad example, especially considering the history of slavery in the US and world wide.

Heres the problem with your little thought experiment: If you could give up or transfer the ownership of yourself legally, to anther person you are no longer free and have ownership of yourself. This creates a huge problem with the Constitution and natural rights. Slavery is the opposite of freedom and liberty, meaning that once you signed the papers then you would no longer be a person but just physical property. You would no longer have any rights at all.


You cant define freedom or ownership of yourself by submitting yourself to slavery. All what you can prove by becoming a slave is that the society in which you live has no real freedoms or liberties. And a country that tolerates slavery even by the impossible chance that a slave might consider their servitude as being voluntary, such toleration is proof that said country lacks real freedom and liberty. As history shows us even the US lacked real individual freedoms and liberties while slavery was tolerated.


See by allowing any type of slavery no citizen is free. Because if slavery is legal then if someone owes a debt they could be sued and become a slave. Or such things like forced bad economy that forces the poor to sell themselves into slavery.

Again there are so many holes in your theory that its just not intellectually arguable. Its just a big what if. Its no different than saying' what if atoms are really miniature solar systems. Sure it sounded plausible when we were baked but not now. The same goes for assuming that being able to sell yourself into slavery proves that you own yourself. Its like saying the peasants had a choice to starve to death. And since they had that choice they were free.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Is slavery the only example that you could think of? Because its a really really bad example, especially considering the history of slavery in the US and world wide.

Heres the problem with your little thought experiment: If you could give up or transfer the ownership of yourself legally, to anther person you are no longer free and have ownership of yourself. This creates a huge problem with the Constitution and natural rights. Slavery is the opposite of freedom and liberty, meaning that once you signed the papers then you would no longer be a person but just physical property. You would no longer have any rights at all.


You cant define freedom or ownership of yourself by submitting yourself to slavery. All what you can prove by becoming a slave is that the society in which you live has no real freedoms or liberties. And a country that tolerates slavery even by the impossible chance that a slave might consider their servitude as being voluntary, such toleration is proof that said country lacks real freedom and liberty. As history shows us even the US lacked real individual freedoms and liberties while slavery was tolerated.


See by allowing any type of slavery no citizen is free. Because if slavery is legal then if someone owes a debt they could be sued and become a slave. Or such things like forced bad economy that forces the poor to sell themselves into slavery.

Again there are so many holes in your theory that its just not intellectually arguable. Its just a big what if. Its no different than saying' what if atoms are really miniature solar systems. Sure it sounded plausible when we were baked but not now. The same goes for assuming that being able to sell yourself into slavery proves that you own yourself. Its like saying the peasants had a choice to starve to death. And since they had that choice they were free.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the ONLY way to have a free society is for society to restrict your own freedoom to sell your own property?

If you OWN yourself then you ARE property ...

But owning yourself is a nonsensicle concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom