• 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
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.

We also have dolts that argue in favor of social contracts while ignoring the understanding those agreeing to the initial social contract had to say about inalienable rights.
 
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.
No, it really doesn't. It really really does not. We did not have evidence that atoms made everything up. However, atoms existed. We didn't have evidence Pluto existed and yet it existed. Existence does not require evidence. PERCEPTION requires evidence.

No it couldn't. If everything existed, then someone's "gods" would conflict. You can't have a million of "one true 'god'."
I didn't say everything could exist altogether. I said everything could exist.
 
Of course I own myself. What man has such authority that he can own me, or any other person?

it seems rather then admit the obvious, they are essentially arguing for no ownership, meaning anybody with the power to control you, owns you from a practical standpoint.
 
it seems rather then admit the obvious, they are essentially arguing for no ownership, meaning anybody with the power to control you, owns you from a practical standpoint.

Authority does not equate to ownership. Even if it did, authority is solely based on one granting another authority over them.
 
We also have dolts that argue in favor of social contracts while ignoring the understanding those agreeing to the initial social contract had to say about inalienable rights.

And then we have dolts who think that just because someone believed something, that makes it so.

You're wrong. Who cares what they had to say about inalienable rights? I care what they (and you) can prove.
 
it seems rather then admit the obvious, they are essentially arguing for no ownership, meaning anybody with the power to control you, owns you from a practical standpoint.
Is this like when people (usually libertarians) claim that natural rights are "obvious," but they really aren't?
 
Of course I own myself. What man has such authority that he can own me, or any other person?

Throughout history, people have owned each other commonly. Even today, there are millions of people who are owned by other people.
 
Authority does not equate to ownership. Even if it did, authority is solely based on one granting another authority over them.
This exactly. In this country, people are not property. I also do not believe that people are inherently property. Consequently, I do not believe that it is possible to own oneself. Therefore, when people have power or authority over others, they merely have power/authority, but never ownership. Therefore, to claim that believing in "no ownership" equates to allowing anyone to own you is false.
 
From what I gather, people cant be owned because people arent property. As a result it is impossible to own yourself? I do not have my own body, because my body cannot be mine, nor can it be anyone elses? I do not posses my own body or thoughts? How can this be the case?
 
From what I gather, people cant be owned because people arent property. As a result it is impossible to own yourself? I do not have my own body, because my body cannot be mine, nor can it be anyone elses? I do not posses my own body or thoughts? How can this be the case?
As I said earlier:

Do I own myself as far as being my own property? No, because I am not property.

Do I own myself as far as having control/power over myself? I have as much control and power over myself as I think a human being can in a universe where autonomy is impossible.

It depends on the definition of "own." If you're talking property, no ownership. If you're talking about possessing your own thoughts, yes.
 
As I said earlier:

Do I own myself as far as being my own property? No, because I am not property.

Do I own myself as far as having control/power over myself? I have as much control and power over myself as I think a human being can in a universe where autonomy is impossible.

It depends on the definition of "own." If you're talking property, no ownership. If you're talking about possessing your own thoughts, yes.

Or do your thoughts (e.g. your consciousness) "possess" your body?
 
This exactly. In this country, people are not property. I also do not believe that people are inherently property. Consequently, I do not believe that it is possible to own oneself. Therefore, when people have power or authority over others, they merely have power/authority, but never ownership. Therefore, to claim that believing in "no ownership" equates to allowing anyone to own you is false.

Self ownership is an archaic term based on 18-19th century sociopolitical philosophy. I take it to mean ownership of the person as an entity, not property by todays standards. By that I mean one can physically own a person (via slavery, indentured servitude, and/or contractual obligation, such as military service), but they cannot own what makes the person a [wo]man, and not an animated piece of meat. The mind, the intellect, the wants, etc of the individual. For example, the Army owned my physical self for four years, but they did not own "me". I was still my own person, subject to tell whoever to eat a dick at any time.
 
And then we have dolts who think that just because someone believed something, that makes it so.

in a matter of contract law, the understanding of what they agreed to is what makes it so., perception is reality

You're wrong. Who cares what they had to say about inalienable rights? I care what they (and you) can prove.

we are dealing with contracts, not math theory.
 
Human trafficking has no claim to authority since it's illegal.

Today, sure. In the past, no. The claim was that nobody *CAN* own another. Clearly that's false. Stop dodging.
 
As I said earlier:

Do I own myself as far as being my own property? No, because I am not property.

Do I own myself as far as having control/power over myself? I have as much control and power over myself as I think a human being can in a universe where autonomy is impossible.

It depends on the definition of "own." If you're talking property, no ownership. If you're talking about possessing your own thoughts, yes.

So the the master of a slave does not have ownership of that person but, they do own them. That is only in a society that accepts people as property though? So a nation that rejects people as property cannot own a person? Nor can a nation with strong property rights protect their citizenry from being enslaved if they are considered property?

Classical liberal thought in my opinion goes hand in hand with contracts, property rights, and the free voluntary trade between peoples.
 
Why can't people be conceived as property? We could always change laws...
 
Back
Top Bottom