• 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
zgoldsmith23 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.
Click to expand...

I think the more accurate way of stating the intended purpose of the comment is simply "everything which exists, exists".
 
Centinel said:
Even if this were the case (which you haven't proven), it has nothing to with the validity of the ethical principle of self-ownership.

You might try to address the principles that are being discussed. Just sayin'
Click to expand...

Already been discussed. Property is owned. Persons are not owned because they are not property. Thus your entire premise if false on its face.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I'm saying, "existence does not depend on evidence."
Click to expand...

Yes it does. For instance, with your atom example: we knew something had to make up everything. There was evidence that something was there - that something, as it turned out, were atoms.

Yes, everything COULD exist.
Click to expand...

No it couldn't. If everything existed, then someone's "gods" would conflict. You can't have a million of "one true 'god'."
 
ThePlayDrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

yet you don’t find me running around like a dufus asking people to address my unsubstantiated opinions when I offer them.
 
Ikari said:
I think the more accurate way of stating the intended purpose of the comment is simply "everything which exists, exists".
Click to expand...

Redundancy is redundant.
 
Aberration said:
No its not. It is based on an unalienable right bestowed from our Creator. Society only secures those rights, just because society does not kill me does not mean they have granted me anything.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you do not have a right that your government recognizes, you don't have it regardless of how many gods or goddesses, deities or other world divinities may or may not be on your particular side.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Redundancy is redundant.
Click to expand...

Indubitably, I think it removes any intended impact of the statement; but I think in the end that is what the statement means. Regardless of perception, that which exists exists. It doesn't take our recognition of its existence for it to exist.
 
haymarket said:
Actually, if you do not have a right that your government recognizes, you don't have it regardless of how many gods or goddesses, deities or other world divinities may or may not be on your particular side.
Click to expand...

I don't think that rights evaporate based on government recognition. Rather the rights exist regardless of government force used against their free exercise.
 
Ikari said:
Indubitably, I think it removes any intended impact of the statement; but I think in the end that is what the statement means. Regardless of perception, that which exists exists. It doesn't take our recognition of its existence for it to exist.
Click to expand...

That idea seems almost solipsistic.
 
haymarket said:
Actually, if you do not have a right that your government recognizes, you don't have it regardless of how many gods or goddesses, deities or other world divinities may or may not be on your particular side.
Click to expand...

You do have a right to exercise attempted self-preservation, just by nature itself. If you do not believe that, then try to commit an act against my survival. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or the devil. Cross the line into my own personal territory, and one of us will exert his right forcefully.
 
lizzie said:
You do have a right to exercise attempted self-preservation, just by nature itself. If you do not believe that, then try to commit an act against my survival. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or the devil. Cross the line into my own personal territory, and one of us will exert his right forcefully.
Click to expand...

I believe you are confusing the basic instinct for survival of the life form with what are known as rights.
 
haymarket said:
I believe you are confusing the basic instinct for survival of the life form with what are known as rights.
Click to expand...

Survival instinct is a right which trumps rights dictated by men. The government may tell me I have no right to self-defense, but that does not take my right to do so.
 
Tucker Case said:
Damn, you know you are around some young people who weren't broke growing up when they don't catch a well-timed and spot on K-mart reference.
Click to expand...

Oh I got the reference. I was just making another.
 
haymarket said:
Actually, if you do not have a right that your government recognizes, you don't have it regardless of how many gods or goddesses, deities or other world divinities may or may not be on your particular side.
Click to expand...

Oh, they'll still claim they have it and that somehow, this inalienable right has been taken away. I guess some of them don't know what inalienable means.

Of course, in reality, they just want a single, universal idea of rights so they don't have to actually defend their views, they can declare them correct by fiat and be done with it.
 
lizzie said:
You do have a right to exercise attempted self-preservation, just by nature itself. If you do not believe that, then try to commit an act against my survival. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or the devil. Cross the line into my own personal territory, and one of us will exert his right forcefully.
Click to expand...

You certainly have an ability to do that and, depending on the circumstances, it is likely to be a legally justified ability. However, cross that line and your supposed "right" goes away.
 
lizzie said:
Survival instinct is a right which trumps rights dictated by men. The government may tell me I have no right to self-defense, but that does not take my right to do so.
Click to expand...

Survival instinct isn't a right, it just is. That's like saying bilateral symmetry is a right.
 
lizzie said:
Survival instinct is a right which trumps rights dictated by men. The government may tell me I have no right to self-defense, but that does not take my right to do so.
Click to expand...

Again, your use of the word RIGHT is not what is being discussed here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom