• 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!

Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

Do you own yourself (self ownership)? Should or shouldnt you own yourself?

  • Yes (should)

    Votes: 32 76.2%
  • Yes (shouldn't)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No (should)

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • No (shouldn't)

    Votes: 7 16.7%

  • Total voters
    42
Someone define what "own" means in this context.
 
Ownership simply means that one has the exclusive right to use a particular thing. So yes, I would say that we each own our own physical bodies. We each have an exclusive claim on the use of our physical bodies. No other person has a claim on our bodies.
Blinders!


But, hell, I'm talking to two guys (you and Henrin) who think the fleas own the dog. LOL!
 
Last edited:
Of course I own myself. That is why no one is allowed to steal and enslave me.
 
Of course I own myself. That is why no one is allowed to steal and enslave me.

But that has happened and can happen again...the chinese may well own you in the future and you can thank GE and the rest of them :)
 
Due to our little debate in another thread figured we could find out what most of you thought.
No. I do not own myself, and neither should I. I was perchised for a price and am the property of God.

So are you.
 
Yeah it's that same type of BS we hear about implied consent and some obligation to society,

It is not at all the same thing.

If you do not like the social contract, you have the power to withdraw from it at any time.
 
Ownership simply means that one has the exclusive right to use a particular thing. So yes, I would say that we each own our own physical bodies. We each have an exclusive claim on the use of our physical bodies. No other person has a claim on our bodies.

Perhaps you could be honest enough to knock down the rest of the dominos after somebody accepts that opening axiom of yours?

So if this belief is accepted, then what then do you believe is the eventual conclusion you must make from it?

And I bet it has a whole lot to do with decreasing the power of government and taxes.
 
Someone define what "own" means in this context.
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or belonging to oneself or itself (usuallyused after a possessive to emphasize the idea of ownership,interest, or relation conveyed by the possessive): He spentonly his own money.
2.(used as an intensifier to indicate oneself as the sole agentof some activity or action, preceded by a possessive): Heinsists on being his own doctor.

Own | Define Own at Dictionary.com
You're welcome:2wave:
 
Last edited:
But that has happened and can happen again...the chinese may well own you in the future and you can thank GE and the rest of them :)

nah. :) So long as there is a 2nd Amendment, I'm pretty much theft-proof.
 
"Every man has a Property in his own Person." - John Locke


In the Second Treatise, Locke claims that civil society was created for the protection of property. In saying this, he relies on the etymological root of "property," Latin proprius, or what is one's own, including oneself (cf. French propre). Thus, by "property" he means "life, liberty, and estate." Two Treatises of Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe in the concept that we each have the natural and moral right to our own selves/body (life) and our labor and can use, sell or barter our labor as a market commidity (liberty) to create value for ourselves and our prosperity. (pursuit of happiness)
 
It is not at all the same thing.

If you do not like the social contract, you have the power to withdraw from it at any time.

really? is there a form you fill out, or something like that?
 
Perhaps you could be honest enough to knock down the rest of the dominos after somebody accepts that opening axiom of yours?

So if this belief is accepted, then what then do you believe is the eventual conclusion you must make from it?

And I bet it has a whole lot to do with decreasing the power of government and taxes.

You seem to be saying that you base your refusal to accept an ethical principle simply because of how that principle might then guide your behavior.

This seems to be putting the cart before the horse. To me, it seems more sensible to FIRST understand the ethical rules of interpersonal behavior and THEN follow those rules to act in accordance with these rules. One does not discard ethical principles simply because they might force one to regulate one's behavior.
 
No. I am not a commodity that can be owned. I am a man, not property.

Not very progressive of your at all. ;) The modern man accepts his owner, while the old stodgy conservative fights to maintain his self-ownership to the bitter end.
 
really? is there a form you fill out, or something like that?

When you become of age and you realize we have laws and a system that people follow, you can then make your choice. And yes, we have forms to fill out indicating that you are part of this system. Drivers license forms. Voter forms. Military recruitment forms. Marriage license forms. All manner of legal papers which indicate the willingness of the citizen to be part of the system.

You yourself have filled out many of them. All of your own free will as an American.
 
You seem to be saying that you base your refusal to accept an ethical principle simply because of how that principle might then guide your behavior.

This seems to be putting the cart before the horse. To me, it seems more sensible to FIRST understand the ethical rules of interpersonal behavior and THEN follow those rules to act in accordance with these rules. One does not discard ethical principles simply because they might force one to regulate one's behavior.

No, I am looking at the whole picture and what your nefarious plot really is all about.
 
really? is there a form you fill out, or something like that?
A. THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT
Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law that governs the ability of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily performing the following act with the intent to relinquish his or her U.S. nationality:
"(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State" (emphasis added).
B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION
A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
  1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
  2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
  3. sign an oath of renunciation
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship
 
No, I am looking at the whole picture and what your nefarious plot really is all about.

In a kindergarten class a long time ago:

Teacher: Now little Haymarket, give Mary back her cookies. Remember, we keep our hands to ourselves and we don't take other people's things.

Haymarket: Come now, teacher. If I were to accept your self-imposed moral axioms, not only would I not be free to take Mary's cookies, I would not be able to take Johnny's lunch money, or to beat up Michael if he fails in his obligation to help me with my homework. I see the whole picture, and understand what your nefarious plot is all about.
 
In a kindergarten class a long time ago:

Teacher: Now little Haymarket, give Mary back her cookies. Remember, we keep our hands to ourselves and we don't take other people's things.

Haymarket: Come now, teacher. If I were to accept your self-imposed moral axioms, not only would I not be free to take Mary's cookies, I would not be able to take Johnny's lunch money, or to beat up Michael if he fails in his obligation to help me with my homework. I see the whole picture, and understand what your nefarious plot is all about.

I have no idea what that little play might mean. :roll:

You really don't like it when I work the libertarian maze backwards do you? ;)
 
I have no idea what that little play might mean.

I know.

You really don't like it when I work the libertarian maze backwards do you?

I don't know what you mean by "work the libertarian maze backwards", so I can't say whether I like it or don't like it.

EDIT - Ah, you mean discussing ethical principles and their implications. No, I actually love when you do that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom