• 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
Centinel said:
Yes, haymarket, ethical principles have implications and consequences. You don't like that, I know, because you are very opposed to people being free.
Click to expand...
Again with the "ownership is an ethical principal" thing?!?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That is interesting in its ignorance but besides that, its completely not worth noting. Anyone that thinks it was Locke needs to ignore Jefferson himself.
Click to expand...
And where did Jefferson talk about this phrase and it's meaning? Or is this more crap you're interpreting and trying to sell as fact?
 
Centinel said:
Yes, you've made this assertion before. Provide your proof, and we can judge whether your claim is true.
Click to expand...
All you need for that is to read Locke. To push forward with his ideals he had to define a "natural" state of ownership outside of society. The only option Locke had was to show self ownership.

Essentially, Locke started with the assumption that people, not just the monarch, had a right to property and he backed into the natural ownership of self as the only starting point available to prove his other assertions.


I could almost believe Locke except he excluded conquest as a means of transfer of property. Sorry, I tend to stick a little closer to natural reality than that.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Again with the "ownership is an ethical principal thing"?!?
Click to expand...

Of course. When they frame it that way it makes anyone going against it a dirty low-down amoral scumbag who would sell out his mother for a shot of heroin to they can get high and engage in child pornography. ;)
 
Henrin said:
This stupid crap is just annoying. Don't you think its a bit strange that to believe in your theory you have to assume a bunch of things? Mason used the damn phrase and Jefferson admitted stealing it from him. This is NOT an open topic.
Click to expand...
It's open until you provide a reference to the contrary.
 
Moot said:
Well, if Locke said "Every man has a Property in his own Person" and by "property" he means "life, liberty, and estate." then it probably seemed redundant to Jefferson to reference property thrice in the same clause. So I think he might have replaced "estate" with "Pursuit of Happiness" because that phrase upholds the concept of "exercising ones rights" to pursue prosperity aka property.
Click to expand...
Locke was fixated on property:
3. Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good.
Click to expand...
So property and the enforcement of laws that protect property are mentioned as one and two in Locke's reasoning for political power. As an after-thought he also reasoned that maybe government should be concerned with invasion as well. I'm sorry, that seems just a tad backward to me.


Moot said:
Essentially it boils down to that happiness is to be secure in one's own possession and after all, isn't that what we are all pursuing?
Click to expand...
Is it?

Money can't buy love - and I don't care how many rich people think that's a lie. My life's path hasn't been covered in roses so I've learned first hand that love and friendship and many other things in life are much more important than possessions. If you feel differently then we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Here is what I said

What I keep telling you - and what you keep avoiding like the plague - is that this libertarian construct was most likely built from the conclusion backwards.

You do understand the term MOST LIKELY is a judgment on my part based on an understanding of the situation but which cannot be proved nor disproved with actual evidence because that is not available to me..... don't you?
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. I see now that you were merely speculating.
 
haymarket said:
What I have found over the years is that the radical right uses words like FREEDOM and LIBERTY the way a lounge lizard uses the word LOVE fifteen minutes before the bar closes. And their end goal is exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Before I dismiss your assertion out of hand, could you try a second time to explain the end goal of the radical right?
 
haymarket said:
Of course. When they frame it that way it makes anyone going against it a dirty low-down amoral scumbag who would sell out his mother for a shot of heroin to they can get high and engage in child pornography. ;)
Click to expand...

If one does not wish to be reviled as a thief or a thug, then one ought not hurt other people or take what others own.

Again, it's very simple, and we all learned it in kindergarten. Don't hit other people, and don't take their stuff.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Locke was fixated on property:
3. Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good.
Click to expand...

So property and the enforcement of laws that protect property are mentioned as one and two in Locke's reasoning for political power. As an after-thought he also reasoned that maybe government should be concerned with invasion as well. I'm sorry, that seems just a tad backward to me.
Click to expand...

Thats not how I read it. First Locke says, political power is the right to make laws including the death penatly. Then he says, all less penalties are for the regulating and preserving of property. Then he says, the community enforces and execute the laws in the defense of the commonwealth, including foreign injury, for the public good. It doesn't sound backward to me, in fact it sounds almost identical to our system of government.


Is it?

Money can't buy love - and I don't care how many rich people think that's a lie. My life's path hasn't been covered in roses so I've learned first hand that love and friendship and many other things in life are much more important than possessions. If you feel differently then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Once again I think you misread or misunderstand. Self possession, self knowledge, self awareness, self control are virtues imo and freedom only comes when we are secure in our selves. So I guess we will just have to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
Before I dismiss your assertion out of hand, could you try a second time to explain the end goal of the radical right?
Click to expand...

To get the unsuspecting to go along with their plans and desires.
 
Centinel said:
If one does not wish to be reviled as a thief or a thug, then one ought not hurt other people or take what others own.

Again, it's very simple, and we all learned it in kindergarten. Don't hit other people, and don't take their stuff.
Click to expand...

Yes, that seems to work very very well.

In a kindergarten environment.
 
haymarket said:
To get the unsuspecting to go along with their plans and desires.
Click to expand...

That doesnt answer the question.

Edit:

Also why do you keep saying far right? If you are arguing against libertarianism, i would say you have your political spectrum all messed up.
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
If one does not wish to be reviled as a thief or a thug, then one ought not hurt other people or take what others own.

Again, it's very simple, and we all learned it in kindergarten. Don't hit other people, and don't take their stuff.
Click to expand...

Yup, enlightened self-interest. Not natural law.
 
Centinel said:
Thanks for clarifying. I see now that you were merely speculating.
Click to expand...

It was a whole lot more than that. It is an educated guess based on years and years of debating with right libertarians and reading their axioms more times than I care to remember. Every single time they try to get you to accept one of them - there are dominos behind that one. And at the end of the row is their goal is severely weakening government and crusading against taxes.

It is part and parcel of your M.O.

It is something libertarians do.
 
Cephus said:
Yup, enlightened self-interest. Not natural law.
Click to expand...
Natural law, or in this case, individual freedom, is self-evident to your "enlightened self-interest".

Can you choose behaviors that allow you to act in a manner consistent with enlightened self-interest, if you do not already have the freedom to choose your behavior? No. So if you are reasonable, you'll accept it as being a necessary condition to enjoying your...enlightened self-interest.

And sadly, enlightened self-interest is not always a good strategy, game theory demonstrates this efficiently.
 
Last edited:
LibertyBurns said:
That doesnt answer the question.

Edit:

Also why do you keep saying far right? If you are arguing against libertarianism, i would say you have your political spectrum all messed up.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have not seen all the libertarians on this very site who identify themselves as such?

And it does indeed answer the question.
 
haymarket said:
Yes, that seems to work very very well.

In a kindergarten environment.
Click to expand...

No, it works well in all environments. Keeping one's hands to one's self and respecting the property of others is what defines civilization. Using force to kill, rape, and plunder is barbarism, and coercive, monopoly government is a barbarous anachronism.
 
haymarket said:
It was a whole lot more than that. It is an educated guess based on years and years of debating with right libertarians and reading their axioms more times than I care to remember. Every single time they try to get you to accept one of them - there are dominos behind that one. And at the end of the row is their goal is severely weakening government and crusading against taxes.

It is part and parcel of your M.O.

It is something libertarians do.
Click to expand...

You're confusing ends and means. The end is that all people are secure from physical aggression against themselves and their property. Among the means to accomplish this end is to place government under the same law that applies to each of us, namely the law that forbids harming another's person or property.

One begins with the goal, which is peaceful coexistence. It then becomes apparent that much of what government does is in violation of the law forbidding harming another person or property, and that it therefore stands as an obstacle to peace and civilization.
 
Centinel said:
No, it works well in all environments. Keeping one's hands to one's self and respecting the property of others is what defines civilization. Using force to kill, rape, and plunder is barbarism, and coercive, monopoly government is a barbarous anachronism.
Click to expand...

Kill
rape
plunder
OH MY! :shock:

I don't remember any poster advocating that. YOu can take the demonic strawman back into the castle and have Dr. Frankenstein work on his some more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom