• 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
Cephus said:
Yup, which was not one of the two choices offered and thus, not part of the false dichotomy.
Cephus claims that it is true that "nobody owns anybody"?
Click to expand...
Looks like you made a claim about no one. Literally. It's not a claim about anything. I don't refute your claim about nothing.

Did you mean instead, perhaps, that every (each, any?) person, lacks ownership of every other person? That will lead to you reaffriming the logic choice that someone does indeed make that choice...
 
Mach said:
Looks like you made a claim about no one. Literally. It's not a claim about anything. I don't refute your claim about nothing.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as legitimate human ownership. Better?
 
Okay, well then you're wrong.

I'm not fine with any agency that claims a territorial monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction and taxation. Such an agency, in order to enforce its claim, would necessarily violate the person and property of others.
Click to expand...

But your fine with it if he claims its his territory ....

Possibly. But mankind being what it is, murderers, robbers, thieves, thugs, and con artists will always exist, and life in society will be impossible if they are not checked by the use of defensive force. Individuals will always need to defend themselves and their property from such people, or to establish agencies to do so on their behalf.
Click to expand...

Your really not getting this are you, i'm saying property, private estates, are essencially the same thing as kingdoms.
 
RGacky3 said:
But your fine with it if he claims its his territory ....

Your really not getting this are you, i'm saying property, private estates, are essencially the same thing as kingdoms.
Click to expand...

You're right. I wasn't getting that. So you're saying that my home is like a kingdom? That is an interesting view I've never heard before.

So whom would you prefer owned my home, rather than me?
 
I think the ultimately problem with this thread and the reason people are talking past each other is that one side thinks ownership has to happen, either by self or another. The other party sees ownership as one of many sets of options.

Nothing will be accomplished here until both sides are willing to listen.
 
megaprogman said:
I think the ultimately problem with this thread and the reason people are talking past each other is that one side thinks ownership has to happen, either by self or another. The other party sees ownership as one of many sets of options.

Nothing will be accomplished here until both sides are willing to listen.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the libertarian side must have self-ownership because it's the foundation for their entire philosophy. Without it, most of what they say doesn't make any sense.
 
Cephus said:
The problem is, the libertarian side must have self-ownership because it's the foundation for their entire philosophy. Without it, most of what they say doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

I agree, they find themselves of a position of having to defend it since they are wedded to their philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
The problem is, the libertarian side must have self-ownership because it's the foundation for their entire philosophy. Without it, most of what they say doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

You are right. As Locke put it, "everyman has a property in his own Person." This is a fundamental belief that is characteristic of the classical liberal and libertarian traditions.
 
megaprogman said:
I think the ultimately problem with this thread and the reason people are talking past each other is that one side thinks ownership has to happen, either by self or another. The other party sees ownership as one of many sets of options.

Nothing will be accomplished here until both sides are willing to listen.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, I think the term "ownership" is unfortunate, since people associate ownership with tangible property, and people are not property.

A better way to phrase the question might have been "Who can properly make decision governing your life?"
 
Centinel said:
As I said earlier, I think the term "ownership" is unfortunate, since people associate ownership with tangible property, and people are not property.

A better way to phrase the question might have been "Who can properly make decision governing your life?"
Click to expand...

Given your question, the term properly depends on one's philosophy I assume.
 
Centinel said:
You are right. As Locke put it, "everyman has a property in his own Person." This is a fundamental belief that is characteristic of the classical liberal and libertarian traditions.
Click to expand...

It can be fundamental all you want, I'm only interested in whether or not it's factually true and so far, libertarians have been entirely unable to back it up, beyond making repeated empty claims that it's so.
 
Cephus said:
It can be fundamental all you want, I'm only interested in whether or not it's factually true and so far, libertarians have been entirely unable to back it up, beyond making repeated empty claims that it's so.
Click to expand...
To whom does your mind and body belong? Who has functional control over you? Who decides what you will do each day? Who has the right to 'sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy' your body? Whoever that person is meets the definition of your bodys owner.
 
Fletch said:
To whom does your mind and body belong? Who has functional control over you? Who decides what you will do each day? Who has the right to 'sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy' your body? Whoever that person is meets the definition of your bodys owner.
Click to expand...

The problem is that a person cannot be functionally separated from their body, its not a matter of owning their body but being their body. Its a subtle but important difference.

Also, if its control as you define it, does a paraplegic own their body?
 
Cephus said:
It can be fundamental all you want, I'm only interested in whether or not it's factually true and so far, libertarians have been entirely unable to back it up, beyond making repeated empty claims that it's so.
Click to expand...

It's an ethical premise, not a fact. It can't be proven or dis-proven. It is a matter of one's beliefs.

You either believe that ownership (the right to decide, to direct, to control) of a human person is vested in the person himself, or you believe that it is vested in some other person(s).
 
Centinel said:
It's an ethical premise, not a fact. It can't be proven or dis-proven. It is a matter of one's beliefs.

You either believe that ownership (the right to decide, to direct, to control) of a human person is vested in the person himself, or you believe that it is vested in some other person(s).
Click to expand...

Thank you for your honesty. Your view on control (ownership is another matter entirely) is a bit more black and white than I see what is actually going on, but at least you got the cannot be proven or disproven part right.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Thank you for your honesty. Your view on control (ownership is another matter entirely) is a bit more black and white than I see what is actually going on, but at least you got the cannot be proven or disproven part right.
Click to expand...

Thanks mega
 
Centinel said:
Thanks mega
Click to expand...

Actually your post made me realize something. Probably the reason you are so passionate about this issue while I am far less passionate (I tend to get into this issue because inaccurate statements sometimes annoy me) is that while you see this issue of control as a or b, I tend to see it more as A to Z with a whole host of states in between. That complexity, at least for me, tends to not engage my emotions so much as a desire to analyze the situation and marvel at the complex and wonderful ways that humans interact with their world.
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
It's an ethical premise, not a fact. It can't be proven or dis-proven. It is a matter of one's beliefs.
Click to expand...

Beliefs that cannot be supported by evidence or rational debate are irrational on their face.

You either believe that ownership (the right to decide, to direct, to control) of a human person is vested in the person himself, or you believe that it is vested in some other person(s).
Click to expand...

Or you can believe that ownership of a human person simply does not exist at all, or hey, why not that all people are owned by cats? The cats seem to think so anyhow. There is no dichotomy, which I've been saying for a while now.
 
megaprogman said:
Actually your post made me realize something. Probably the reason you are so passionate about this issue while I am far less passionate (I tend to get into this issue because inaccurate statements sometimes annoy me) is that while you see this issue of control as a or b, I tend to see it more as A to Z with a whole host of states in between. That complexity, at least for me, tends to not engage my emotions so much as a desire to analyze the situation and wonder at the complex and wonderful ways that humans interact with their world.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering what states would be between A and Z. I'm guess they would represent movement from each person having the absolute right to decide, direct, and control his own self (A) to others having the absolute right to decide, direct, or control (Z). If that's the case, I recognize that there are gradations of suckage. I'd rather live in a A, but B would be better than Z.
 
Fletch said:
To whom does your mind and body belong?
Click to expand...

Nobody. It simply exists. When I die, it stops existing.

Who has functional control over you?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean. I can make my body do things, but I act only within the restrictions placed upon me by society. I can't go around shooting people, for instance.

Who decides what you will do each day?
Click to expand...

Largely I do, although my boss has a say, so does my family, in fact, all of society can determine things I simply cannot do.

Who has the right to 'sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy' your body?
Click to expand...

Nobody. I cannot sell myself, it is against the law. I cannot rent, mortgage, or transfer myself either. As suicide is illegal in most areas as well, nobody can destroy my body either, with or without my consent.

Whoever that person is meets the definition of your bodys owner.
Click to expand...

What if all of those questions have separate answers?
 
Cephus said:
Beliefs that cannot be supported by evidence or rational debate are irrational on their face.
Click to expand...

I can buy that. There is no rationality to my belief that it is wrong to hurt other people. I simply believe it because I believe it to be right.

Or you can believe that ownership of a human person simply does not exist at all, or hey, why not that all people are owned by cats? The cats seem to think so anyhow. There is no dichotomy, which I've been saying for a while now.
Click to expand...

I don't think that one can leave the question unanswered. Either the individual is deciding, directing, and controlling himself, or someone else is.
 
Centinel said:
I'm wondering what states would be between A and Z. I'm guess they would represent movement from each person having the absolute right to decide, direct, and control his own self (A) to others having the absolute right to decide, direct, or control (Z). If that's the case, I recognize that there are gradations of suckage. I'd rather live in a A, but B would be better than Z.
Click to expand...

Maybe I used a bad scaling.

Your view is either a person controls their actions or someone else does.

My view takes into account things like influence, manipulation, the strength of will power, the strength of foreknowledge, intelligence and problem solving. Absolute control requires perfect knowledge, will, and freedom from consequence. One would have to be a deity to have absolute control over one's self. Humans are a bit different. One difference is that people have conscious and subconscious portions of their brain. We don't always know when we are being influenced in our decisions, so we can't always know that our decisions are actually ours. Thrown in the continual battle of the pre-frontal cortex vs our older, more animal brain, this analysis gets even more complex. Take into account the role of social pressures (which can be every bit as painful on a neurochemical levels as physical pressures, which means they levie the same level of influence on us as a species), relationships, etc and the picture is very muddy indeed.

The classical idea of human ownership, I think, relies very strongly on the power of the pre-frontal cortex (which holds our personality, will, and ego) to be the only part of the person that the philosophy deals with, it takes a much simpler view of the issue than I do, which takes into account more information about human nature learned since the 1700s.
 
megaprogman said:
Maybe I used a bad scaling.

Your view is either a person controls their actions or someone else does.

My view takes into account things like influence, manipulation, the strength of will power, the strength of foreknowledge, intelligence and problem solving. Absolute control requires perfect knowledge, will, and freedom from consequence. One would have to be a deity to have absolute control over one's self. Humans are a bit different. One difference is that people have conscious and subconscious portions of their brain. We don't always know when we are being influenced in our decisions, so we can't always know that our decisions are actually ours. Thrown in the continual battle of the pre-frontal cortex vs our older, more animal brain, this analysis gets even more complex. Take into account the role of social pressures (which can be every bit as painful on a neurochemical levels as physical pressures, which means they levie the same level of influence on us as a species), relationships, etc and the picture is very muddy indeed.

The classical idea of human ownership, I think, relies very strongly on the power of the pre-frontal cortex (which holds our personality, will, and ego) to be the only part of the person that the philosophy deals with, it takes a much simpler view of the issue than I do, which takes into account more information about human nature learned since the 1700s.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. People don't have absolute control over themselves. A you point out, one's choices may be be influenced by any number of factors, including the subconscious. The ethical question is simply who gets to do the choosing, the person or someone other than the person?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom