• 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
Read post #169.

So, hypothetically, if someone comes up with a way to hypnotize or otherwise control your mind, they still will not "own" you?
 
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.

I dont really like the way people are so scared of the term property. Its not that scary lol
 
So, hypothetically, if someone comes up with a way to hypnotize or otherwise control your mind, they still will not "own" you?

I think this type of "ownership" is the Dollhouse sort of thing wherein they can actually remove your consciousness and insert something else into your body that they have programmed for certain ends.
 
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.
Property is a social construct. Therefore, the only objects that are property are those deemed property by the society in question. In the US, people are not property. Consequently, I do not own myself in the sense that I am my own property.
 
That's a long, drawn out statement that is much more than - and in some ways contradicts - the simple definition he used earlier: Would you care to defend his definition and how it applies to the ownership of a human being as an "ethical principle"?

Ownership is a social convention. Ownership simply means that one has the exclusive right to use a particular thing. I own my car, so I may use it to the exclusion of others.

With regard to self-ownership, each of us own his or her own body, and nobody else does. Nobody is the property of another.

I think this thread has demonstrated that the use of the word "own" in this context is somewhat awkward and unusual. Perhaps there is a better way to describe the concept.
 
False. A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability.
I'll continue to advocate for a society in which a person can be owned only by himself and nobody else. The alternative is one person owning another, which is to say slavery.
 
Or do your thoughts (e.g. your consciousness) "possess" your body?
Well, I suppose that's possible too. I guess saying, "I possess my mind is almost redundant since I exists within the mind," but I that's another thread.

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.
I agree that people can own others physically and cannot own others mentally. However, I disagree with the understanding of ownership that founds the belief that the military owns those within it. The military has authority over those within it, but I don't think that such authority constitutes ownership.
 
I think this type of "ownership" is the Dollhouse sort of thing wherein they can actually remove your consciousness and insert something else into your body that they have programmed for certain ends.

I wasn't thinking of anything particular, just wondering if this was going to be a definition that could survive future developments or not. Even looking back at 60s spy novels where people were "programmed" as sleeper agents and the like. Is that an example of someone being "owned" or once this kind of thing is possible, are the goalposts just going to get moved?
 
I'll continue to advocate for a society in which a person can be owned only by himself and nobody else. The alternative is one person owning another, which is to say slavery.
That's a blatantly false dichotomy. The other alternative is that nobody owns anybody.
 
Ownership: the state, relation, or fact of being an owner. Is this the definition your using?

Edit:

Property: 2a: something owned or possessed.
 
Last edited:
Ownership: the state, relation, or fact of being an owner. Is this the definition your using?

Edit:

Property: 2a: something owned or possessed.

Whats scary about me owning my own body? Key word in own body, is own.
 
That's a blatantly false dichotomy. The other alternative is that nobody owns anybody.

Really? Then who is making the claim ThePlayDrive, that "nobody owns anybody". Give me a typical example in this case, of who is making this declaration, and who this declaration dictates ownership about.
 
In many groups, for example the Catholic Church, it is immoral to even take your own life. I believe it is also quite illegal in many jurisdictions. That doesn't sound like "exclusive right to use" to me.



Ed:
You people that try to claim the fleas own the dog. *shakes head* It's sad, really, that you can't understand the web of life and how intertwined it all is. To suggest any kind of "natural" ownership of or right to any living thing is arrogance at it's finest. It's understandable in this day and age more than any other how people can get so detached from nature, but it's still sad to see it in what I've always assumed are relatively intelligent adults.

Sorry Mo, I have to disagree on this one. You own you. You are responsible for you. No else has the right to own you, your body or your labor without your consent. You can sell or barter your labor to create value. Self ownership is a concept that goes back to the Magna Carta and it has to do with who owns your labor. Free men own their own labor. John Locke used the concept of self ownership in his 2nd Treatise on Government which inspired many constitutions including the US constitution. Thomas Jefferson made reference to it in the Declaration of Independence and even Abraham Lincoln understood the concept of self ownership when he helped to bring about and signed the 13th amendment.....


Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]


If labor has value, which it does, then it can be treated as property and used as trade. That is why slavery existed and why we fought a Civil War. Now, no one can own you or your labor, except you. No one can force you to work or work without compensation. You are free to use or sell your own labor to create value for yourself and/or others. Thats all it is.
 
Yes, there are other ethical rules, and they all interact. Self-ownership does not exist in a vacuum. If one incurs a debt, then one is obliged to pay that debt. If one makes a commitment, one is obliged to fulfill that commitment. There are many rules that govern one's behavior; the idea of self-ownership is only one of several.



Of course... and that means that self-ownership is not an absolute, but a conditional state subject to modification. All too often the self-ownership concept is presented as an absolute, when it obviously isn't. There are caveats, addendums, and quid-pro-quos.... two of which are law and taxes btw... :)
 
Of course... and that means that self-ownership is not an absolute, but a conditional state subject to modification. All too often the self-ownership concept is presented as an absolute, when it obviously isn't. There are caveats, addendums, and quid-pro-quos.... two of which are law and taxes btw... :)
No rights are absolute. In fact, nothing is. There is no guarentee that a right to life will prevent you from dying sooner or later.
 
No rights are absolute. In fact, nothing is. There is no guarentee that a right to life will prevent you from dying sooner or later.

Indeed. Nor does the right to life mean that someone won't kill you. What right to life does mean is that should your life be threatened, you may legitimately respond to the thread. And if someone does infringe upon another's right to life, we can rightfully and justly use government force against said individual.
 
Really? Then who is making the claim ThePlayDrive, that "nobody owns anybody". Give me a typical example in this case, of who is making this declaration, and who this declaration dictates ownership about.
Nobody's making any declarations. Centinal is describing two types of societies and I'm describing a third that he did not include.
 
Of course... and that means that self-ownership is not an absolute, but a conditional state subject to modification. All too often the self-ownership concept is presented as an absolute, when it obviously isn't. There are caveats, addendums, and quid-pro-quos.... two of which are law and taxes btw... :)

Who would be modifying it though? If we extend the argument to what you are implying, that there are these other caveats, etc, in each case we'll come back to the principle of individual freedom (natural rights, or ownership, whatever the confusing word of the day is).

The absolute of natural rights is a concept, it's not that you are free "in reality", it's that the rules of choice and freedom, are only consistently accepted/self-consistent when you start with the premise sentient entities are free to choose. It doesn't mean they ARE free to choose in reality, i.e. they are enslaved and someone is beating the crap out of them...doesn't refute this, any more than it would refute 4+4=8.

I don't think people get the argument, it keeps devolving into a semantic ass grab of "ownership means strictly yadayada", it misses the entire, underlying argument. Always does, natural rights discussions always have yahoos claiming rights only exist when we make them, entirely missing the point of why we make them, and why we make one, over another (it's not random!). Or maybe we just aren't very good at explaining it yet.
 
Nobody's making any declarations. Centinal is describing two types of societies and I'm describing a third that he did not include.

You are describing a third society that either:
1. Has claimed nothing about ownership
2. Has claimed that no one owns anybody.

Which is it?
 
Indeed. Nor does the right to life mean that someone won't kill you. What right to life does mean is that should your life be threatened, you may legitimately respond to the thread. And if someone does infringe upon another's right to life, we can rightfully and justly use government force against said individual.
But even the right to self defense is not absolute. If there are other means of protecting yourself or your property besides the use violence or force then those must be considered first.
 
Last edited:
moot said:
No rights are absolute. In fact, nothing is.
That's a contradiction. I suspect we all have made it (I have), but it always can use a good repeating.
 
That's a contradiction. I suspect we all have made it (I have), but it always can use a good repeating.
Rights are a man made construct and as such are not absolute. Why is that a contradiction?
 
Rights are a man made construct and as such are not absolute. Why is that a contradiction?
You wrote specifically:
No rights are absolute. In fact, nothing is.

Nothing is absolute? Is an absolute statement. Which is contradictory.
We do accept absolutes when we use logic, when we agree on the meaning of a word, etc. They are funny when we claim something in reality "is absolute", but they are serious when we are talking about meaning, math, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom