No you are still yourself, and you still actually own yourself, your just being coerced ... its like being robbed at gunpoint, your relationship to yourself hasn't changed.So when i am enslaved by society i will no longer be myself? Thats not the argument now is it? Slaves can still be themselves but they are indeed prohibited! Do you understand if i own myself no one can own me, when protected by individual rights, or dare i say property rights, because i do indeed own my body not you, you have no right to tell me what i can do with my body, nor make me work for the common good! Are you slowly grasping this concept or will you continue to argue a flawed argument
no one CAN own you, slavery is unjustified, its not real ownership.
If you won your own body, who are you? You ARE your body.
No I don't have a right to tell you what to do with your body nor have a right to make you do anything you donj't want to do, but you don't need self ownership for that, you ARE yourself, that just individual autonomy, there is no property relation here, its a whole different thing.
No ....So you're saying that you want to live in a society in which property (distinct from possession) is owned by the government?
Where di I say that+
I just gave you examples, the freedom to have the product of your labor, freedom of movement, freedom of what to do with your time, freedom of having a say in things that effect you.What freedoms are they forced to give up, i hear ideological thoughts but no real examples
Private Capitalist property is a STATE INSTITUTION.
I'm using teh term public braodly, it could mean the community, it could mean the government, it could mean all the workers at a workplace, I basically mean accountable to the people that are effected by something.
This still seems like a valid goal. Let's say a group of workers owns a factory. We would not want some robbers to come and steal their inventory or machines would we? Their property ought to be protected by law should it not? Or let's say a community group owns a playground. The law should protect their property rights against a group of vandals who would damage or steal the playground equipment, no? Or if you own a car, the law should protect that car from theft or damage form others, correct?
Property is essential for survival. The law should protect property against theft and damage.
What I'm saying is that property is not absolute and that it should be accountable to the community, if a group of robbers or vandals try and destory or take equipment, then yeah, you defend it, but that doesn't mean you need private capitalist property laws for that.
The fact that something is owned by a group does not mean it's not privately owned. It just means that ownership is shared. Unless the government owns the property, it is still private property - it is just owned by a group of individuals as opposed to a single individual.
It seems you are not arguing against the idea of property, but you are arguing that group ownership is preferable to individual ownership.