• 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
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 think he just likes imagining you as a child.

Anymore asshats around here need a definition to a simple word you should have learned in grade school, a link to anything you should have learned in highschool civics class or any other bull****?

It would be nice if someone parced the difference between "I" and "me", but no, all we get is potato. **** it. Have fun.
 
Last edited:
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.

I'm a progressive in the sense that I want scientific and social improvements in the human condition and in humanity itself. I am also an 'old-school' progressive, if you'll pardon the term, in the sense that I am more than willing to break heads to get it. People who think they can own people are first in line to get their heads broken.
 
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.

fascinating. so if I hadn't, then I wouldn't have to pay taxes or obey laws?
 
I'm a progressive in the sense that I want scientific and social improvements in the human condition and in humanity itself. I am also an 'old-school' progressive, if you'll pardon the term, in the sense that I am more than willing to break heads to get it. People who think they can own people are first in line to get their heads broken.

and with all your smarts you haven't yet figured out that the bolded and the underlined are the same people?
 
In the greater scheme of things, I might think I own myself, but looking at nature and what she can bring forth, no...just a speck in the universe, thinking that I have control over something, anything.
What was the question again?
 
and with all your smarts you haven't yet figured out that the bolded and the underlined are the same people?

This is a little hypocritical, don't you think, considering the people who make these accusations against the progressive movement? They're not the least bit interested in controlling every aspect of American life at all, and they're certainly not manipulating and exploiting our fears to amass more wealth and power at our expense.
 
I know.



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.

What I mean is that I look at it the same way the libertarians constructed it. They started with their end goal in mind - in this case to come up with some axiom which justifies weakening government and not paying taxes. Then the go backwards from there trying to come up with something that will take them there.
 
fascinating. so if I hadn't, then I wouldn't have to pay taxes or obey laws?

Of course you would. But that is not the question I was answering.

Again, any time you want to get out of the social contract, it is all up to you to do it.
 
Of course you would. But that is not the question I was answering.

Again, any time you want to get out of the social contract, it is all up to you to do it.

Lol, the social contract. Talking about nonsense...
 
Lol, the social contract. Talking about nonsense...

Yeah, and Al Capone had a social contract with the people in his neighborhood. They fulfill their duty to pay their taxes to him, and he doesn't break their legs.
 
What I mean is that I look at it the same way the libertarians constructed it. They started with their end goal in mind - in this case to come up with some axiom which justifies weakening government and not paying taxes. Then the go backwards from there trying to come up with something that will take them there.

Even if this were the case (which you haven't proven), it has nothing to with the validity of the ethical principle of self-ownership.

You might try to address the principles that are being discussed. Just sayin'
 
Anyway, the right to life is based on self ownership.

No it's not, it's based on society granting that right. Try again.
 
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.
Ownership is now an "ethical principle"?!?
 
No it's not, it's based on society granting that right. Try again.

I'm sorry about you aren't really worth much besides arguments like the following:

"No, that is wrong"!

Sorry, but I have better things to do than argue with an eight year old.
 
I'm sorry about you aren't really worth much besides arguments like the following:

"No, that is wrong"!

Sorry, but I have better things to do than argue with an eight year old.

Then you shouldn't adopt a philosophy that largely appeals to 8 year olds and no one else.
 
Then you shouldn't adopt a philosophy that largely appeals to 8 year olds and no one else.

:roll:

As I said:

"Sorry, but I have better things to do than argue with an eight year old."

Keep proving that statement right.
 
:roll:

As I said:

"Sorry, but I have better things to do than argue with an eight year old."

Keep proving that statement right.

Then stop responding. Wow, that was easy.
 
I don't like the terminology associated with this because it gives an incorrect notion. When one owns something then it is contrived as property. So inference suggests that if one owns oneself then that person becomes property.

I would say that I have a right to liberty. I choose to use different terms to express the same sentiment. I should have the right to do anything I desire to my own self as long as I don't infringe on anyone else. If I decide to light up a crack pipe, then that should be fine. However, if I decide to kill someone in pursuit of that drug then that is of course wrong.

The whole notion of self-ownership must change in vocabulary, but not in definition.
 
Ownership is now an "ethical principle"?!?

Yes it is. It's a principle of ethical morality, which states that every person has a sovereign right to his own person and his own actions, unless he willingly concedes that right to others, and assuming he doesn't violate the right of others, in commission of his desired actions. It's a classical liberal idea, thus not common or popular in this country.
 
Yes it is. It's a principle of ethical morality, which states that every person has a sovereign right to his own person and his own actions, unless he willingly concedes that right to others, and assuming he doesn't violate the right of others, in commission of his desired actions. It's a classical liberal idea, thus not common or popular in this country.
That's a long, drawn out statement that is much more than - and in some ways contradicts - the simple definition he used earlier:
Ownership simply means that one has the exclusive right to use a particular thing.
Would you care to defend his definition and how it applies to the ownership of a human being as an "ethical principle"?
 
Last edited:
No it's not, it's based on society granting that right. Try again.
That's absurd Cephus. For what reason would these individuals, who in your estimation are considered a "society", draw up such a "legal right" as right to life?
You're not accepting that there is a reason why such a right is recognized, you're just stating that the legal right is granted by society.

The whole notion that these documents with legal rights are important philosophically, is outrageous. There can be two societies (made up of individuals), that both lay claim to a particular area, for their own "legal reasons". Now what Cephus? The right to life is granted by society A, but society B rejects that claim. Who is going to save your argument now? Society A agree, society B doesn't! Throw up your hands in despair? If that's what your notion of right to life is based on, it's absurd.

The right to life is recognized as being important based on two fundamental reasons:
1. Humans on average value their life. A lot. Most have the intellectual capacitiy to recognize this. And most also have the honesty to admit it.
2. As a matter of logical hierarchy, other rights require one to be alive to exercise them, so it has primacy, i.e. hierarchically more important.
(There are other things that can trump it, but that's a different discussion)

As Henrin notes (I think?), it starts with you...the individual. What you want, what you believe, and why. You can of course also be incorrect. You may also join up with others, and based on your individual belief that life is you know...important, you might codify it, and put on a pointy hat and claim "I have granted that right as a society!", and then Cephus will bow down and agree that only NOW do we understand where the right to life came from....
 
No it's not, it's based on society granting that right. Try again.

No its not. It is based on an unalienable right bestowed from our Creator. Society only secures those rights, just because society does not kill me does not mean they have granted me anything.
 
Last edited:
That's a long, drawn out statement that is much more than - and in some ways contradicts - the simple definition he used earlier: Would you care to defend his definition and how it applies to the ownership of a human being as an "ethical principle"?

1. Each person in our group of 5, has the exclusive right to their own life under normal circumstances. No one can justifiably take the life of another based on this agreement. No one should, under normal circumstances, take the life of one another, based on this rule. It would be unethical under normal circumstances to take the life of someone else.

->and, the opposite:

2. Each person in our group of 5 does NOT have the exclusive right to their own life under normal circumstances. One can justifiably take the life of another based on this agreement. There is no should with regards to taking life, or not taking life. Anyone can do it, or not, should do it, or not.
-->Notice there is no rule of conduct here, it's indistinguishable from having "no rule". It is absurd to claim that "no ethics", is ethical.

Of course, you can show an alternative, short, concise, example, of where we don't have a right to life under normal circumstances, and how it's ethical. Can you meet your own challenge?
 
Last edited:
If souls exist, that would be you.

How do you know? People say "I gave my heart to my spouse" all the time. Does that mean your spouse owns your heart? Or part of your spirit is what I'm getting at (not your physical heart).

I'd call my soul far more important than my body. While they say it can be sold, if I sell it to someone else, what did they get? Looking at the image from eBay, who would pay $5000 for one?
 
Back
Top Bottom