• 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
What if...? said:
And if neither A nor C CAN stop B...?
Click to expand...

That would be unfortunate. Hopefully there is a D, E, F, G, etc. who would also attempt to stop B from interfering with A's choice to live. Hopefully the good guys outnumber the bad guys.
 
Centinel said:
That would be unfortunate. Hopefully there is a D, E, F, G, etc. who would also attempt to stop B from interfering with A's choice to live. Hopefully the good guys outnumber the bad guys.
Click to expand...

That's the very point that made me accept the necessity of authority and government.

Historically, bad guys win out over time. They simply never stop.

And the "alphabet soup" of individuals you hope would come to As aid would, in doing so, become a defacto government.
 
What if...? said:
That's the very point that made me accept the necessity of authority and government.

Historically, bad guys win out over time. They simply never stop.

And the "alphabet soup" of individuals you hope would come to As aid would, in doing so, become a defacto government.
Click to expand...
And the point of individual ownership is to prevent the government from becoming the 'bad guys.' The idea that the product of your mind and body belongs to you presupposes that you first have rightful possession of your mind and your body. If you do not, there is no rational basis to lay any legitimate claim to anything you produce.
 
What if...? said:
That's the very point that made me accept the necessity of authority and government.

Historically, bad guys win out over time. They simply never stop.

And the "alphabet soup" of individuals you hope would come to As aid would, in doing so, become a defacto government.
Click to expand...

A group or agency organized for the purpose of mutual defense doesn't necessarily need to be granted the right to initiate aggression. As fletch just pointed out, once it crosses that line, it itself becomes the bad guy.
 
Centinel said:
A group or agency organized for the purpose of mutual defense doesn't necessarily need to be granted the right to initiate aggression. As fletch just pointed out, once it crosses that line, it itself becomes the bad guy.
Click to expand...

But money wants more money, which historically involves taking it from somebody else.

Some people are just ****ty and greedy and amoral.

We live in a world where, all else being equal, the guy willing to frame his competitor for child molestation rises to the top.

In the perfect libertarian world all y'all live in, the guy who buys an acre of river property upstream of farms that need the water is free to dam the river and thereby destroy the farms downstream. (Or, historically, wait til the farmers are foreclosed on, buy the dirt for a song, open up the dam and receive all the improvements made by the prior owners as pure profit.

Laissez faire at its best.
 
What if...? said:
But money wants more money, which historically involves taking it from somebody else.
Click to expand...

I, as I'm sure you do, oppose theft.

Some people are just ****ty and greedy and amoral.
Click to expand...

I agree.

We live in a world where, all else being equal, the guy willing to frame his competitor for child molestation rises to the top.

In the perfect libertarian world all y'all live in, the guy who buys an acre of river property upstream of farms that need the water is free to dam the river and thereby destroy the farms downstream. (Or, historically, wait til the farmers are foreclosed on, buy the dirt for a song, open up the dam and receive all the improvements made by the prior owners as pure profit.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the guy doesn't own the river and has no right to dam it. The people below him who have been using the river have an equal ownership share in the river.

Laissez faire at its best.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating lawlessness.
 
Fletch said:
And the point of individual ownership is to prevent the government from becoming the 'bad guys.'
Click to expand...
I don't see the direct correlation there.

Fletch said:
The idea that the product of your mind and body belongs to you presupposes that you first have rightful possession of your mind and your body. If you do not, there is no rational basis to lay any legitimate claim to anything you produce.
Click to expand...
Society as a whole decides what is legitimate or not. Rationality is one method some people use to convince others that something is legitimate. Other people use loyalty, compassion, or some other consideration - you know, things that don't appear on business ledgers.
 
Centinel said:
I would argue that the guy doesn't own the river and has no right to dam it. The people below him who have been using the river have an equal ownership share in the river.
Click to expand...
Does that mean someone who owns a shack on the edge of the Mississippi in New Orleans owns part of the creek that runs next to my house since it ultimately feeds into the Mississippi?
 
Centinel said:
I, as I'm sure you do, oppose theft.



I agree.



I would argue that the guy doesn't own the river and has no right to dam it. The people below him who have been using the river have an equal ownership share in the river.



I'm not advocating lawlessness.
Click to expand...

Property rights long included water rights. Still do, afaik.

Would you deny the owner of the property the right to say build a giant lake with the water running through his property?. The farmers use some of that water for their farms, leaving leas for those downstream.

At what point is it "too much"?

Who decides and who enforces?

Who has the right to tell the owner he can't divert the water down another valley where he owns farmalnd?

The only answer is government telling him he can't do so.

Or war of some kind.
 
What if...? said:
Property rights long included water rights. Still do, afaik.

Would you deny the owner of the property the right to say build a giant lake with the water running through his property?. The farmers use some of that water for their farms, leaving leas for those downstream.

At what point is it "too much"?

Who decides and who enforces?

Who has the right to tell the owner he can't divert the water down another valley where he owns farmalnd?

The only answer is government telling him he can't do so.

Or war of some kind.
Click to expand...

If the parties belong to the same organization, then they would turn to that organization to decide and enforce its decision. If the parties belonged to two different organizations, then the decision would be based upon agreements made by the two organizations.
 
MoSurveyor said:
But without a means of enforcement that's exactly what you get.
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting forgoing any means to protect property rights. Organizations whose purpose is to protect the person and property of their members would certainly exist.
 
Fletch said:
And the point of individual ownership is to prevent the government from becoming the 'bad guys.' The idea that the product of your mind and body belongs to you presupposes that you first have rightful possession of your mind and your body. If you do not, there is no rational basis to lay any legitimate claim to anything you produce.
Click to expand...

That's the thing I never get. Libertarians treat the government as if it's some alien entity, imposed on the people. The government *IS* the people! The people set up the government, the people give the government power, without the people, the government would not exist. If the government does things that you don't like, don't blame the government, blame the people!
 
Cephus said:
That's the thing I never get. Libertarians treat the government as if it's some alien entity, imposed on the people. The government *IS* the people! The people set up the government, the people give the government power, without the people, the government would not exist. If the government does things that you don't like, don't blame the government, blame the people!
Click to expand...

Oh, I do. ;)
 
MoSurveyor said:
I don't see the direct correlation there.
Click to expand...
Self government. Our government exists only by the consent of the self owners who freely give up "certain" rights to government in exchange for the security and protection of the all their other rights.

Society as a whole decides what is legitimate or not. Rationality is one method some people use to convince others that something is legitimate. Other people use loyalty, compassion, or some other consideration - you know, things that don't appear on business ledgers.
Click to expand...

Self ownership/ self government/ self control is a bundle of rights. Within that bundle of rights are the right of use, right of transfer, right to privacy, right to speak, right to exclude, etc, etc, etc, and right to exercise all his/her rights or none at all. A person may consent to give up one or even a few of his self rights in exchange for something else of value, such as a limited government, or becoming a member of a society/ group/collective, or working for someone else in exchange for money.


Where I differ with Libertarians is the right to labor. Libertarians think that everything they earn is rightfully theirs and that taxation is forced labor. I disagree because Libertarians consented to have a government and gave up certain self rights in exchange for governments protection of their other rights. One of the "certain" rights they gave up is immunity from taxation of their labor. A Liberatarian depends on government to protect his right to get paid for his/her labor. But no one is forcing the Libertarian to work and if he doesn't work, he doesn't have to pay taxes. Ergo, no forced taxation or labor.
 
Moot;1060621776Libertarians think that everything they earn is rightfully theirs and that taxation is forced labor. [B said:
I disagree because Libertarians consented to have a government and gave up certain self rights in exchange for governments protection of their other rights.[/B]
Click to expand...

We did this when?
 
Lachean said:
We did this when?
Click to expand...
If I had a nickel for everytime I heard a right leaning Libertarian say 'forced taxation' or "redistrubtion of wealth" I'd be a rich woman.
 
Moot said:
If I had a nickel for everytime I heard a right leaning Libertarian say 'forced taxation' or "redistrubtion of wealth" I'd be a rich woman.
Click to expand...
It all would have been taxed away :mrgreen:
 
Neomalthusian said:
Oh, I do. ;)
Click to expand...

And that's fine. However, that's not how most Libertarians I see do it. The problem from any particular political view is that you can't get the people to agree on any particular position. The ones that are most in power at the time make the rules. Complaining about the government without complaining about the people who put the politicians in power is pointless and ousting the politicians who you don't like doesn't matter because the idiots in the public will just vote them back in.
 
Henrin said:
If we didn't own our own bodies than killing us wouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...

Killing people is a problem because it doesn't benefit the society in any way. Actually, the whole premise of a society is pretty much based around the pretty solid idea that killing members of our species in a world made increasingly smaller by our prolific ability to procreate is inherently bad.
 
Centinel said:
I am not suggesting forgoing any means to protect property rights. Organizations whose purpose is to protect the person and property of their members would certainly exist.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about private organizations then that's obviously not objective enforcement, which leads you back to lawlessness - or to Rule by Money, which isn't much different. In the end a type of warlord system would arise.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Killing people is a problem because it doesn't benefit the society in any way. Actually, the whole premise of a society is pretty much based around the pretty solid idea that killing members of our species in a world made increasingly smaller by our prolific ability to procreate is inherently bad.
Click to expand...

Killing inherently bad? Not so sure. There are times when killing is appropriate or, at least, lethal force is so. A right to life is at the heart of the social contract, but not because killing a member of the species is mystically bad.
 
ecofarm said:


Killing inherently bad? Not so sure. There are times when killing is appropriate or, at least, lethal force is so. A right to life is at the heart of the social contract, but not because killing a member of the species is mystically bad.
Click to expand...

I didn't take you for the willingly obtuse type eco. I'm clearly talking about in a societal context. Killing somebody for the ****s and giggles (ie. females, property, comic book collections) is just not a good thing. In extenuating circumstances like war, self defence etc it's another subject all together.
 
Moot said:
Self government. Our government exists only by the consent of the self owners who freely give up "certain" rights to government in exchange for the security and protection of the all their other rights.
Click to expand...
Our government exists only by the consent of the self owners people who freely give up "certain" rights to government in exchange for the security and protection of the all their other rights.

"We the people ..." - why has everyone seemingly forgotten this? ;)

Moot said:
Where I differ with Libertarians is the right to labor. Libertarians think that everything they earn is rightfully theirs and that taxation is forced labor. I disagree because Libertarians consented to have a government and gave up certain self rights in exchange for governments protection of their other rights. One of the "certain" rights they gave up is immunity from taxation of their labor. A Liberatarian depends on government to protect his right to get paid for his/her labor. But no one is forcing the Libertarian to work and if he doesn't work, he doesn't have to pay taxes. Ergo, no forced taxation or labor.
Click to expand...
I agree. :)
 
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?
Click to expand...

No I'm saying a large estate is like a kingdom ... I don't care about your home, I'm talking about large parts of land that effects other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom