• 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
Jefferson got the line he abused in the DOI from Mason. You like Haymarket need to learn your history.

Second, pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with happiness as in joy but the legal constructs to protect liberty which did include property. Do not waste my time speaking of things you don't understand and then act like you somehow win based on ignorance. I consider it rude.
So he was compelled to use that line and not one of his own?

Or are you saying he didn't know Locke well enough to have changed it himself?


But I'm always willing to learn. Where does Jefferson talk about the origin of the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"?
Or where does Mason take credit for the phrase?
 
Last edited:
yes, of course I own myself... and you out there, ya you.... you own yourself too.

despite the ramblings of idiots, self ownership really has nothing to do with a secret evil Libertarian agenda.
although it is prioritized by libertarianism and classic liberalism ( and a few other ideologies)... they did not invent the concept, they do not own the concept, and it is not bestowed upon you by registering Libertarian....Haymarket's Domino Theory is bunk, it's garbage, it's nonsense.. a fallacy.

even the most diehard of authoritarians owns himself... that commie over there?.. ya , him too... the anarchist?... yup, him as well.


the concept of self ownership is codified into our culture, our laws, out government, our parenting , our personal and commercial relationships... hell , I can't think of anything that it isn't present in.

as Moot so astutely points out, John Locke did a fine job putting the concept into words.... he's not the only philosopher who has done so, he's just the guy who was able to sum it up the best.

self ownership is not antithesis to the Social Contract ( the philosophers who penned the concept are also adherents to the concept of self ownership).. in fact, the social Contract theory relies on self-ownership for it's legitimacy...self ownership is simply part and parcel of the Social Contract.
the social contract holds that humans , in a state of nature, are self owned and possessing of natural rights.. that is the starting point, or basis, for the whole shebang... from there, it uses the concept of self ownership, and the peripheral tenants of ownership itself, to legitimize the idea of the state having a certain amount of authority over the individual, in order to coexist in a collective.. a society.
consent is another codification of self ownership.. simply because it is permission given by the "owner" of the "property"... whether that consent be explicit, implied, or tactic, it's still considered permission from the bossman... consent is found to be necessary to legitimize encroachments into personal sovereignty.
if consent is necessary, ownership is present, simple as.

anyways, if you believe in the Social Contract, you too believe in self-ownership.

i've seen someone earlier in the thread question why self ownership is considered a question of ethics...that's an easy one to answer.
I think we can all agree that there have been cases of another party taking ownership of an individual, or more accurately, partial ownership ( one cannot own another thoughts, dreams, etc... they can only exert physical control over another)
the consent of self ownership simply explains why that is wrong... if taking ownership of another person is wrong, there must be a right to counter the wrong... that condition of being right is found in self ownership.
now, one might say that non-ownership is the right to counter the wrong, however, a position of non-ownership cannot be applied in practical terms.
ownership exists... it's a simple as that... people CAN own other people....it's been done all throughout history, and it's still being done.
given that ownership does exist, one cannot argue that it doesn't.. one must argue as to the where rightful ownership must be applied in order to be legitimate.
if ownership exists, and we find it wrong for another to own another, we are left with a single choice... that of ownership of the self.

anyways, yeah... self ownership is an ethical matter, as it simply breaks down where rightful ownership lies.
 
In one breath you say there might be a better way to describe the concept and in the next you seem to negate such a possibility. Here you've turned the coin over instead of simply throwing it away. Regardless of how much you and your friends want to believe it, not everything should be reduced to property - especially people.


all throughout history it's been proven that people (or at least tangible aspects of people) are property.... that is rather undeniable.

in very practical terms, anything that is tangible can be property... denial does not address the problems though, fleshing out legitimate and rightful ownership does.
 
You have nothing to say hay? Don't worry, that is expected from you.

Oh - it was said loud and clear and by your reaction it hit right as it should have.
 
This is why would-be tyrants denigrate and ridicule the very notion of liberty. Their goal of controlling you is thwarted to the extent that their claim of ownership is seen as illegitimate.

They have no use for ethics, and mock all talk of principle as the domain of dilettantes. However, even a third grader can see them for what they are: thugs who rule by fear, compulsion, and brute force.

I must congratulate you on getting the absolute maximum number of libertarian cliches into just these small number of lines. Well done!!!! ;)

The thing that is really impressive is how over 200 posts do not seem to matter and the same statements of belief are simply repeated again and again and again like the real world never raised it ugly head into Wonderland. :roll:

Its really quite amazing!!!! ;)
 
Jefferson got the line he abused in the DOI from Mason. You like Haymarket need to learn your history.

Second, pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with happiness as in joy but the legal constructs to protect liberty which did include property. Do not waste my time speaking of things you don't understand and then act like you somehow win based on ignorance. I consider it rude.

So happiness had nothing to do with happiness. :roll:

And you have the nerve to talk about what others do not know. :shock:
 
I am not suggesting that people be reduced to property. I am suggesting that each person has an exclusive right to control his own person, from which it follows that no person should ever be the property of another.

there is nothing evil in saying the people are property... it's an innocuous term , in and of itself... it's simply a term denoting possession.
the term might have nasty historical connotations, but what makes those connotations nasty is that rightful ownership was not applied in those cases.

people being property wasn't wrong.. people being property of the wrong owners was wrong.
 
I must congratulate you on getting the absolute maximum number of libertarian cliches into just these small number of lines. Well done!!!! ;)

The thing that is really impressive is how over 200 posts do not seem to matter and the same statements of belief are simply repeated again and again and again like the real world never raised it ugly head into Wonderland. :roll:

Its really quite amazing!!!! ;)


for the love of God an all things holy, do something you have yet to do here... please provide an on topic argument.. a real argument.. something with some meat to it.

you''re a smart fella, you can do it... I have faith.
 
If you want to talk about ownership of bodies - or as you called them, "tangible aspects" - then there might be something to discuss. Otherwise it's crap.

well, in practical terms, intangible aspects of people( thoughts, dreams, aspirations, ) cannot be owned by another, they can only be owned by the self.( until we find way to suck them out of people and take them over :lol:)
physical ownership, can, however, impact those intangible aspects in great ways.( great meaning "big", not "good")

i'm sorry... "it's crap" is not an argument...it's a judgement with no supporting argumentation.
 
well, in practical terms, intangible aspects of people( thoughts, dreams, aspirations, ) cannot be owned by another, they can only be owned by the self.( until we find way to suck them out of people and take them over :lol:)
physical ownership, can, however, impact those intangible aspects in great ways.( great meaning "big", not "good")

i'm sorry... "it's crap" is not an argument...it's a judgement with no supporting argumentation.
I deleted my post, withdrawing my comments from discussion. Sorry I didn't do it fast enough ... :shrug:
 
A majority of what we do in this life is for our bodies. We sleep, eat, pee/poop, hygiene, sex, play and then work for the rest. We are owned alright by the physical demands of survival.
 
A majority of what we do in this life is for our bodies. We sleep, eat, pee/poop, hygiene, sex, play and then work for the rest. We are owned alright by the physical demands of survival.
That has a certain poetry to it! :)
 
It's interesting you mention Jefferson. Did you also take note that Locke used "Life, Liberty, and Property" in his Treatise but Jefferson used "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" when he penned the Declaration of Independence? Why do you suppose that is? If Jefferson felt so strongly about the subject then why replace that word? He could have simply added Pursuit of Happiness to the end of Locke's words - but he didn't. I've read several of the letters Jefferson wrote. He seems to have had a very different view on property than what many believe.
Pursuit of Happiness was purposefully substituted because it's broad, and open to interpretation. One cannot say what he clearly means, since there is no clear definition of the term. Property could easily be included in "pursuit of happiness", as could a great multitude of things. However, Jefferson is a poor example of self ownership, since he himself was a slave owner. In one of his letters, he clearly recognizes that slavery is morally reprehensible, though he died a slave owner. His reasoning was that slavery allowed him the luxury of his intellectual pursuits, which is a pretty lame excuse in my opinion.
 
Pursuit of Happiness was purposefully substituted because it's broad, and open to interpretation. One cannot say what he clearly means, since there is no clear definition of the term. Property could easily be included in "pursuit of happiness", as could a great multitude of things. However, Jefferson is a poor example of self ownership, since he himself was a slave owner. In one of his letters, he clearly recognizes that slavery is morally reprehensible, though he died a slave owner. His reasoning was that slavery allowed him the luxury of his intellectual pursuits, which is a pretty lame excuse in my opinion.

aye, even the "greats" are susceptible to great feats of mindboggling hypocrisy...
 
So happiness had nothing to do with happiness. :roll:

And you have the nerve to talk about what others do not know. :shock:

Do you make a fool of yourself on purpose? Look up what Mason had to say about it. What I said matches.
 
Pursuit of Happiness was purposefully substituted because it's broad, and open to interpretation. One cannot say what he clearly means, since there is no clear definition of the term.
Where did you get that idea? I'm always willing to read reliable information about the Founding Fathers, particularly Jefferson.

Property could easily be included in "pursuit of happiness", as could a great multitude of things. However, Jefferson is a poor example of self ownership, since he himself was a slave owner. In one of his letters, he clearly recognizes that slavery is morally reprehensible, though he died a slave owner. His reasoning was that slavery allowed him the luxury of his intellectual pursuits, which is a pretty lame excuse in my opinion.
I am aware of Jefferson's personal dilemma on the subject of slavery.
 
aye, even the "greats" are susceptible to great feats of mindboggling hypocrisy...

As a founder that was instrumental in building a radically new governmental system, he was a brilliant man. As a human being, he had some major flaws. Even he saw the hypocrisy in slave ownership, but it facilitated the only way of living that he really knew and enjoyed. Every man has his weakness, slaves were apparently his. Not sure if it's true or not, but I heard the slave he had children with, Sally Hemings, was actually the half-sister of his deceased wife.
 
Its wonderful when you write the punch lines and it is yourself that is being punched. ;):lamo

So am I to believe this is an argument?

you said:
These two statements in the same post have a certain simplicity of beauty about them.

Of course, the silliness comes from the first statement.
 
Where did you get that idea? I'm always willing to read reliable information about the Founding Fathers, particularly Jefferson.
Personal deduction. Because of their experience in dealing with Parliaments wonderful brand of legalism, it only makes sense that Jefferson would want to leave certain things as broad as possible. Jefferson may have also felt that it would have been in poor taste to entirely plagiarize Locke. I could be wrong.

I am aware of Jefferson's personal dilemma on the subject of slavery.
Just saying. I personally would have used Franklin on this topic over Jefferson. If not mistaken, he was one of the very few Founding Fathers that didn't own slaves. He was just as adamant, if not more than Jefferson, about personal freedom and liberties, as well. People overuse Jefferson. Great writer, great philosopher, but ultimately a hypocrite.
 
Personal deduction. Because of their experience in dealing with Parliaments wonderful brand of legalism, it only makes sense that Jefferson would want to leave certain things as broad as possible. Jefferson may have also felt that it would have been in poor taste to entirely plagiarize Locke. I could be wrong.


Just saying. I personally would have used Franklin on this topic over Jefferson. If not mistaken, he was one of the very few Founding Fathers that didn't own slaves. He was just as adamant, if not more than Jefferson, about personal freedom and liberties, as well. People overuse Jefferson. Great writer, great philosopher, but ultimately a hypocrite.
Ummm, if you look back through the thread I did NOT use Jefferson. Someone else quoted him as though he supported Locke 100% on this matter. I voiced the opinion that he probably didn't agree with Locke on the subject.
 
One thing to be borne in mind is that classical liberal thought was developed in a time when the world was functionally infinite.

There was a "commons" from whence we all were entitled to take what we needed to live.

When I talked about contracts, I mean in the way contracts started arising between feudal lords/ land owners and the Peasantry. Such as protection and in other cases such as distribution of food, you see an evolution in society. You start to see grants of lands from the lords of the time. Though you know these actions were about power, and as time goes on you see more and more centralization of power. These are not good conditions but, at least it started something that couldnt be stopped, the case for liberty. You start seeing more rights for individuals pop up and get knocked down but, not all of course. When you talk about food you make me want to laugh, the land owners, nobles, kings owned the land and the peasantry worked the fields. England thought it was to populated because it couldnt feed all its people, nor those it did adequetly, Mercantilism was horrible... At least classical liberal thought is starting to become ripe. Communism in early American Colonies was devestating, these were the starving times. Not to mention most of the workers were contracted slaves for 7 years. It wasnt til the companies started giving acres to the different individuals, as well as stock in the company and allowing them to grow food to sustain them, that you start to see a higher quality life. Most people dont like to pull all the weight, they find this unfair, sorry thats people. Even though there were strict theocracy type governments, consisting of govenors throwing their power around, even shutting down elected assemblies, you have not seen a more free people. Some colonies even more such as the northern part Carolina which didnt have restrictive governments or even places of worship! Property rights and more free trade start to arrise yada yada you start to see the union of our states in response to more government intrusion and taxes. Classical liberal thought has been going on through all this and you see it in multiple places in europe breeding men capable of influencing the masses to rise against tyranny.

Now almost everything is "owned" by someone.

I can't just find some place in the wilderness and build a home and do some farming.

I have to pay.

What time period are you refering to? After the founding of our country? Above explains a bit before this period.

If I "own" my life, why must someone pay in order for me to sleep at night without breaking the law?

We hear a lot from libertarians about not wanting to pay taxes to the government, but little about all the "life taxes" levied by owners of property.

Who says we wont pay taxes, I would for what government should be responsible for, enforcing contracts, officers of the peace (not hostile one our government creates with its laws), protection of the borders, fire fighters, things of this nature. Not being a nanny and telling me what i can and cant do. Also you should be glad you even have the right to own land, you complain about buying or paying for something with your work/contribution to the demand of the people...

Why, when the "commons" became impractical due to population, did we settle on "rents" as the solution.

That's what the feudal lords came up with.

Again, the state deciding what you need... It was not as grande as you make it out to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom