• 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
Not necessarily, private property implies exclusive access. If you have a worker directed factory, but its polluting the community, then the community should have a right to interveine, its not exclusive access.

I'm not arguing against the idea of property perse, I'm arguing against the idea that property is fundemental.
 
Not necessarily, private property implies exclusive access. If you have a worker directed factory, but its polluting the community, then the community should have a right to interveine, its not exclusive access.

I'm not arguing against the idea of property perse, I'm arguing against the idea that property is fundemental.

I believe we are in agreement. As I originally stated, nobody has the right to damage another's property. Polluting another's property would fall under that heading.

Property rights are not absolute. Despite the fact that my car is my property, I may not use it to drive over your front lawn. I may own a gallon of gasoline, but I may not dump it into your pool.. We may act and use our property only in ways that do not physically damage the property of others.

Remember, I advocate a social order in which each person's person and property is protected from damage by others. This includes damage by polluters.
 
Polluting another's property would fall under that heading.

The air is no ones property ...

Also my point is property rights are not fundemental.

Property rights are not absolute. Despite the fact that my car is my property, I may not use it to drive over your front lawn. I may own a gallon of gasoline, but I may not dump it into your pool.. We may act and use our property only in ways that do not physically damage the property of others.

Thats not what I'm saying, lets say people's farms have been washed away due to a flood but one guys farm has been saved, I'd say the community has the right to that farm.

I'm saying that property rights are not absolute and are secondary to social need, in other words property is a means to an end, not an end in itself, if something works better being in private property fine, if it doesn't then no.

at that point I'd rather just get rid of the whole concept of private property, because what I'm talking about isn't that, in the way people think of it.
 
Some? Our presidential candidate is exactly what i just stated, socially liberal yet fiscally conservative. Just cause you want libertarians to fit your bill, does not make it so.

Let me ask you this one question, if you dont mind, when was the idea of america actually created, freedom wise i say... Also when did this pick up traction around the world? And i geuss one more, when was the greatest growth in the united states?

First - As I said - some libertarians are liberal on some social issues. Some. Many others are found on the right wing conservative side of social issues when it comes to things like almost anything to do with race.

Second - America was created by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It is our birth announcement. I guess it has been picking up traction ever since then.

The greatest growth of what exactly?
 
What? It is commonplace for people to contribute. That is the essence of the division of labor and a civilized society. Unless one is a hermit living in a cave, each of us contributes something to those around us, and they in turn repay us by contributing to us.

What libertarians oppose are those who refuse to contribute but simply take what they want and order others about. These people are the decivilizing force.
You misunderstood - I was talking about taxes. When you said:
The ethical principle is that it is wrong to take or destroy what other people own.
were you not talking about taxes???

I've seen almost those exact words before, many times, and it's always been about taxation. Are you saying it wasn't? Are you not including taxation in this statement? If not then I apologize - but I'm betting you are including taxes. It's a typical ploy of Libertarians.


If you have no taxes then you have no government because you cannot run a viable government on (voluntary) donations alone.
 
Last edited:
We should shoot for a social order in which everyone is free to act in any way he wishes as long as he doesn't harm others or their property. This ensures the maximum freedom not just for some, but for all.
Then you vote for anarchy/communism (small 'c')! That's good to know. :)
 
Last edited:
Do you wish for a social order in which people may take your property?
Taxes are required for everything except anarchy.

How would you ensure your survival in such a situation with no resources to live on?
You can never ensure your survival. This is life and the only thing you can be sure of is death.


Ed:
More to the point, though, you do what humans have been doing for a couple of hundred thousand years - you ask your fellow man for help through the tough times.
 
Last edited:
The more I read from libertarians such as our friend Centinel, I really think its an elaborate scam just to avoid paying taxes.
 
Why doesnt minarchy work? Id like to hear your opinion, id like to know your political leaning just for knowledge of different ideology objections to my own.
Do we agree with this definition ?

The Specter of Minarchy - NYTimes.com
Of course, minarchy cannot work....But , man may be ready fot this 5,000 years down the road...
"Progressive", IMO.
Should we be taking steps to this end ?
yes, I think so, but we must be most careful, which we have NOT been.
 
The air is no ones property ...

Also my point is property rights are not fundamental.



Thats not what I'm saying, lets say people's farms have been washed away due to a flood but one guys farm has been saved, I'd say the community has the right to that farm.

I'm saying that property rights are not absolute and are secondary to social need, in other words property is a means to an end, not an end in itself, if something works better being in private property fine, if it doesn't then no.

at that point I'd rather just get rid of the whole concept of private property, because what I'm talking about isn't that, in the way people think of it.

IMO, land ownership is inheritly wrong...it should not be bought and sold..
However all the fruits of a man's labor should be his, after taxes, of course.
 
You misunderstood - I was talking about taxes. When you said: were you not talking about taxes???

I've seen almost those exact words before, many times, and it's always been about taxation. Are you saying it wasn't? Are you not including taxation in this statement? If not then I apologize - but I'm betting you are including taxes. It's a typical ploy of Libertarians.

I was speaking in general an not specifically about taxes, but yes I would consider collecting taxes, since it is taking what others own, to be unethical as well.

If you have no taxes then you have no government because you cannot run a viable government on (voluntary) donations alone.

I agree that coercive monopoly governments rely upon taxes. As long as coercive monopoly governments exist, they will continue to collect taxes. I oppose coercive monopoly governments, since they initiate aggression.
 
Last edited:
Taxes are required for everything except anarchy.

I agree. Taxes are the hallmark of a coercive, monopoly government. As long as such an organization exists, it will collect taxes. Only with the transition to voluntary systems of governance will taxes be eliminated.

You can never ensure your survival. This is life and the only thing you can be sure of is death.

Ed:
More to the point, though, you do what humans have been doing for a couple of hundred thousand years - you ask your fellow man for help through the tough times.

Sounds reasonable. No argument there.
 
I agree with the first part and for you to think we dont know his couod happen is extreme ignorance... If we fight the society backed governemt what do you think we would do to a corrupt corporation... Also please do not put capitalism in this convo, even though it may further your cause to the ignorant masses

Human nature is human nature. People will find a way to regulate away the problem.

If there is no way to do that, people will suffer or not, depending on whether they have the power to do anything about it.
 
Do we agree with this definition ?

The Specter of Minarchy - NYTimes.com
Of course, minarchy cannot work....But , man may be ready fot this 5,000 years down the road...
"Progressive", IMO.
Should we be taking steps to this end ?
yes, I think so, but we must be most careful, which we have NOT been.

I quit reading after it started talking about the need of central banks... This is definitely an opinion piece lol cause it has no facts... Please dont put up OPINiON pieces to proove arguments, if you want to try to use your opinion, please do so, but make sure you are prepared to be smashed. Nice try though, well not really a very lazy try.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

You just said i still actually own myself, yhen you say this isnt needed. I dont understand your contradiction? I dont need to own myself in order to own myself? This makes no sense hah... Your saying ownership of myself is not needed to protect myself? Your confusing now
 
The air is no ones property ...

Also my point is property rights are not fundemental.



Thats not what I'm saying, lets say people's farms have been washed away due to a flood but one guys farm has been saved, I'd say the community has the right to that farm.

I'm saying that property rights are not absolute and are secondary to social need, in other words property is a means to an end, not an end in itself, if something works better being in private property fine, if it doesn't then no.

at that point I'd rather just get rid of the whole concept of private property, because what I'm talking about isn't that, in the way people think of it.

Air is not property, true, good job, but when you own yourself, and you have unhealthy pollution, you should be proected by property rights.

Property rights were essential to freedom, id have to find my history lesson to explain this lol, its too long, and really i had to shorten it up so i wouldnt be here all day ;)
 
First - As I said - some libertarians are liberal on some social issues. Some. Many others are found on the right wing conservative side of social issues when it comes to things like almost anything to do with race.

Second - America was created by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It is our birth announcement. I guess it has been picking up traction ever since then.

The greatest growth of what exactly?

Ahhh the fact that we believe in choice of segregation. Meaning the state can not force you either way. If you want to open a reasturant and only provide service for a certain clientel, is fine and dandy, though stupid if you like to make money... Well unless you have a nice crowd of racist. The only problem i see with my philosophy is if every individual in a county was racist enough to actually derive the minority of essential needs, specificly food... Eh though thia is still worste case scenario and highly unlikely, even if this did happen Im sure you would make a killing if you opened a grocery store and started serving the minority... Ahhhh free market capitalism gotta love it. One day we may go back to free market capitalism, though i dont see it in our near future.

Edit: whoops only answered one question huh?

America started being molded well before the decleration... Study of early american colonies shows how and why we are the liberty loving americans that we are.

Growth of standard of living... You see a greater standard of living as soon as the company in virginia started giving land and stocks in stead of the communistic system that was initially implaced in the colony.
 
Last edited:
IMO, land ownership is inheritly wrong...it should not be bought and sold..
However all the fruits of a man's labor should be his, after taxes, of course.

Think about what you said for a few seconds hahaha... Do you know why land has cost? Or at least why anything has a cost?
 
I didnt see anarchy or communism in centinels statement, but you obviously want to see that which is NOT there.
If you would care to show exactly what system WAS in his comments I'd be willing to look. The problem is, you won't find any - just a description as I quoted. Both anarchy and communism meet the requirements he laid out. If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with him.
 
Last edited:
If you would care to show exactly what system WAS in his comments I'd be willing to look. The problem is, you won't find any - just a description as I quoted. Both anarchy and communism meet the requirements he laid out. If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with him.

You think the protection of persons and property mean anarchy/communism... Putting a slash there why? They are two radically different forms of governance lol
 
You think the protection of persons and property mean anarchy/communism... Putting a slash there why? They are two radically different forms of governance lol
You're probably thinking of Communism, not communism, so "LOL" right back at ya'.

But, to elaborate further ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism


Too many people, especially young people, see "communism" and think "Communism". I think it has something to do with their lazy tendency to not use capital letters like they should. It's sad, really.



As far as "protection" - that wasn't mentioned in the post to which I responded.
Now who did you say was seeing things that were NOT there???
 
Last edited:
You're probably thinking of Communism, not communism, so "LOL" right back at ya'.

But, to elaborate further ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism


Too many people, especially young people, see "communism" and think "Communism". I think it has something to do with their lazy tendency to not use capital letters like they should. It's sad, really.



As far as "protection" - that was NOT mentioned in the post to which I responded. Now who's seeing things that are NOT there???

Ummm posting that actually hurt your argument lmao... But okay... I'm not seeing how protection of persons and property has anything to do with altruism...
 
If you would care to show exactly what system WAS in his comments I'd be willing to look. The problem is, you won't find any - just a description as I quoted. Both anarchy and communism meet the requirements he laid out. If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with him.

I don't know what name you wish to apply, but I oppose any organization that violates the rules of civilized behavior. It is possible to live by rules without granting special privileges to rulers.

I suppose that the most important question is what institutions are necessary to establish peace and justice in a society? And then, is coercive, monopoly government the only institution capable of achieving these goals?
 
I think a better question is: if I don't own me, who does?
 
Back
Top Bottom