• 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
That would be science, not "belief"/"faith". When it comes to facts, science will always trump faith.

You must have some basis for your belief. There must be something it is based on.
 
I think it is rather self-evident than the individual "owns" themselves. "Ownership" is also inherent and cannot be transferred, there is no way to divorce your consciousness from your body (well barring death I suppose). As such, your body is yours and yours alone.

BTW, anyone seen a show called Dollhouse? I thought that it developed into a pretty decent show, but had a scary premise. And that premise was a technology which would allow an individual to divorce their consciousness from their body and thus sell or rent out their body.
 
No, it isn't. That is pure unadulterated nonsense. The right to life is based on our ability to kill and our willingness to do so in self-defense, such that any society that does not recognize the right to life is inherently unstable.

any society that doesn't recognize self ownership is inherently unstable.
 
You must have some basis for your belief. There must be something it is based on.
It sure doesn't have to be based on fact, though. Don't we have plenty of evidence in hand that it's usually NOT based on fact?
 
There's no proof it doesn't exist therefore why not assume it does, right?
If there's no proof that X does not exist, then that alone isn't reason to just assume X does exist. However, it is also not a basis on which to say "X does not exist" as a factual statement. You and others continuously try to defend the position that "lack of evidence = does not exist." It's an indefensible position because existence does not depend on evidence. Perception depends on evidence.
 
It sure doesn't have to be based on fact, though. Don't we have plenty of evidence in hand that it's usually NOT based on fact?

So you can concoct any story you want without any factual basis? Regarding your question, such as?
 
If there's no proof that X does not exist, then that alone isn't reason to just assume X does exist. However, it is also not a basis on which to say "X does not exist" as a factual statement. You and others continuously try to defend the position that "lack of evidence = does not exist." It's an indefensible position because existence does not depend on evidence. Perception depends on evidence.

Existence doesn't depend on evidence? So everything exists?
 
I think it is rather self-evident than the individual "owns" themselves. "Ownership" is also inherent and cannot be transferred, there is no way to divorce your consciousness from your body (well barring death I suppose). As such, your body is yours and yours alone.

BTW, anyone seen a show called Dollhouse? I thought that it developed into a pretty decent show, but had a scary premise. And that premise was a technology which would allow an individual to divorce their consciousness from their body and thus sell or rent out their body.
There's a similar idea in the movie Gamer - except it didn't exactly "divorce" someone from their body. They knew what was happening even though someone else was controlling them through an interface.

Gamer (2009) - IMDb

Ed:
I'll have to keep my eye out for Dollhouse.
 
Last edited:
False. A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability.

false. a society that feels that self ownership is trumped by the needs of the community is a horrible foundation based on the rule of which men are in charge at the time.
 
So you can concoct any story you want without any factual basis?

Regarding your question, such as?
Stories are not only concocted but packaged and sold everyday without any basis in fact. Whether anyone will actually believe the story is another question. When stories become faith is where the problems often start.

Maybe you misunderstood my comment?? Christianity all by itself gives us untold numbers of beliefs that are not based in fact.
 
Stories are not only concocted but packaged and sold everyday without any basis in fact. Whether anyone will actually believe the story is another question. When stories become faith is where the problems often start.

Maybe you misunderstood my comment?? Christianity all by itself gives us untold numbers of beliefs that are not based in fact.

They are not? People didn't (and continue to) factually believe the Earth is 6000 years old? That Lazarus was raised from the dead?
That it was Adam and Eve not long ago? People dot factually believe that?
 
false. a society that feels that self ownership is trumped by the needs of the community is a horrible foundation based on the rule of which men are in charge at the time.
No one said that either.


. . . . P-R-O-P-E-R-T-Y

:allhail
 
Last edited:
false. a society that feels that self ownership is trumped by the needs of the community is a horrible foundation based on the rule of which men are in charge at the time.
Nobody said anything about such a society at all. I said, "A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability." Address that.

I also don't know how a society that does not believe people can be owned could feel that self-ownership is trumped by anything since it doesn't even believe self-ownership exists. Fail.
 
Last edited:
Nobody said anything about such a society at all. I said, "A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability." Address that.

I already addressed your unsubstantiated opinion with one of my own.
 
Existence doesn't depend on evidence?
Existence does not depend on evidence which is explains why atoms existed far before we had evidence of them. Perception depends on evidence. This is really basic stuff here.

So everything exists?
No. That's not even close to a logical conclusion to come to from what I said.
 
I already addressed your unsubstantiated opinion with one of my own.
No, you did not. You went on about some society that nobody mentioned.

Again, I said, "A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability." Address that.
 
Existence does not depend on evidence which is explains why atoms existed far before we had evidence of them. Perception depends on evidence. This is really basic stuff here.


No. That's not even close to a logical conclusion to come to from what I said.

Ok. How isn't it? Are you not saying "just because there isn't evidence now, doesn't mean there won't be in the future?" If that's the case then everything could exist.
 
No, you did not. You went on about some society that nobody mentioned.

Again, I said, "A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability." Address that.
I don’t think this concept is too far from the ideal of self-ownership either. I think that in this case you can certainly also make the claim that government doesn’t own you since you cannot be owned.

If there’s a complication, it would come along the lines of rights; particularly contract. For the idealism of contract rights is that you are owner of yourself and as such have right to enter yourself into agreement. A type of function “non-self-ownership” would be age of consent laws. Below age of consent, functionally the minor doesn’t own themselves because they cannot on their own willingly enter themselves into contract.

In the end, I think the idea of innate and inalienable self-ownership makes the most sense from a functional and philosophical standpoint.
 
No, you did not. You went on about some society that nobody mentioned.

Again, I said, "A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability." Address that.

again, I find your opinion, false.

You provided nothing to validate your opinion, and seem offended that I reject it outright.
 
Ok. How isn't it? Are you not saying "just because there isn't evidence now, doesn't mean there won't be in the future?"
I'm saying, "existence does not depend on evidence."

If that's the case then everything could exist.
Yes, everything COULD exist. However, that's not what you said, you said:

So everything exists?

There is no "could" in that. And the answer to that is "no" or more appropriately, "not necessarily."
 
again, I find your opinion, false.

You provided nothing to validate your opinion, and seem offended that I reject it outright.
I find your opinion false too and you have provided nothing to validate yours as is often the case with libertarian fantasies, but that's beside that point.

And no, I'm not offended by your rejection of my opinion if only because you never actually rejected my opinion since you didn't address it. I am, however, amused that you think you actually addressed my opinion in your initial response to me when you did nothing of the sort.
 
Back
Top Bottom