• 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
Lokiate said:
Indentured servants also agree to their contractual bindings, that doesn't make them any less physical property of the contract holder.
Click to expand...
I agree. A persons that consents to sell their labor to someone else still owns their own self. It's little different than working for someone or signing a contract to work for certain number of years in exchange for wages or salary or stock options. Indentured servants were brought over to the US to work a certain number of years for private individuals in exchange for their ship's passage and their room and board. When their contract expired they were free to go work for whoever or even start their own business.
 
Moot said:
I agree. A persons that consents to sell their labor to someone else still owns their own self. It's little different than working for someone or signing a contract to work for certain number of years in exchange for wages or salary or stock options. Indentured servants were brought over to the US to work a certain number of years for private individuals in exchange for their ship's passage and their room and board. When their contract expired they were free to go work for whoever or even start their own business.
Click to expand...

True, conditions were very harsh though, and they were treated rough. Merrymount actually set his servants free and his colony was the better for it, the Pilgrims on the otherhand haha... Their servants were contracted to go to the virginia colony so the contract was broken, they on the ship, seized power from the majority and made sure the servants stayed. Merrymount was a prime target for runaways :)

Edit:

Now when i say this, I mean the servants could better pay for their travel if not confined by their masters. I actually just wrote about the contracts, which were usually 7 years in a communist enviroment for a few years until they granted stocks in the company and land.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I must congratulate you on getting the absolute maximum number of libertarian cliches into just these small number of lines. Well done!!!! ;)

The thing that is really impressive is how over 200 posts do not seem to matter and the same statements of belief are simply repeated again and again and again like the real world never raised it ugly head into Wonderland. :roll:

Its really quite amazing!!!! ;)
Click to expand...

Please notice how haymarket wrote some words and threw up some smileys but was careful to avoid actually addressing my post. We call that "pulling a haymarket".
 
Thrilla said:
there is nothing evil in saying the people are property... it's an innocuous term , in and of itself... it's simply a term denoting possession.
the term might have nasty historical connotations, but what makes those connotations nasty is that rightful ownership was not applied in those cases.

people being property wasn't wrong.. people being property of the wrong owners was wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually its a belabored and contrived scam designed to led somebody down the garden path so they then accept all the libertarian precepts that will follow as sure as day follows night. Its an elaborate ruse designed to get the unsuspecting to come to the usual libertarian conclusion that government needs to be shrunken and taxes are evil.

Magicians are far more honest with standard misdirection.
 
Centinel said:
Please notice how haymarket wrote some words and threw up some smileys but was careful to avoid actually addressing my post. We call that "pulling a haymarket".
Click to expand...

I am honored that my screen name is being used to describe the use of positive emoticons. :cool: That makes me feel happy.:):2wave:
 
Henrin said:
Do you make a fool of yourself on purpose? Look up what Mason had to say about it. What I said matches.
Click to expand...

Mason? And I should care about that because??????

In this case, the foolish behavior seems solely on your head. You are telling us that the pursuit of happiness does not really mean the pursuit of happiness. This is typical far right libertarianism having to get you to not only learn a new vocabulary to be able to understand half of what they try to say - but in this case UNLEARN the old vocabulary because the words really do not mean what you think they mean.

When you present historical evidence and then interpret for us, what you do is touch upon a controversial matter that is far far far from decided or agreed upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_happiness

A number of possible sources or inspirations for Jefferson's use of the phrase in the Declaration of Independence have been identified, although scholars debate the extent to which any one of them actually influenced Jefferson. The greatest disagreement comes between those who suggest that the phrase was drawn from John Locke and those who identify some other source.
Click to expand...

Once again, you present us with a minority view and then act like its settled law and a done deal that nobody even yawns about anymore.

Sorry, but very few here seem to be buying what you are selling.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Actually its a belabored and contrived scam designed to led somebody down the garden path so they then accept all the libertarian precepts that will follow as sure as day follows night. Its an elaborate ruse designed to get the unsuspecting to come to the usual libertarian conclusion that government needs to be shrunken and taxes are evil.

Magicians are far more honest with standard misdirection.
Click to expand...

Yes, haymarket, ethical principles have implications and consequences. You don't like that, I know, because you are very opposed to people being free.
 
Thrilla said:
well, in practical terms, intangible aspects of people( thoughts, dreams, aspirations, ) cannot be owned by another, they can only be owned by the self.( until we find way to suck them out of people and take them over :lol:) physical ownership, can, however, impact those intangible aspects in great ways.( great meaning "big", not "good")

i'm sorry... "it's crap" is not an argument...it's a judgement with no supporting argumentation.
Click to expand...


Intellectual "property". Thoughts, dreams, ideas translated into original work is copyrighted ....all rights reserved. You were right, self ownership is almost everywhere. :)
 
Centinel said:
Yes, haymarket, ethical principles have implications and consequences. You don't like that, I know, because you are very opposed to people being free.
Click to expand...

What I keep telling you - and what you keep avoiding like the plague - is that this libertarian construct was most likely built from the conclusion backwards. Like nearly all libertarian schemes and dreams, the goal is to weaken or destroy government and provide justification for opposing government programs like paying ones taxes. That is what you folks strive towards. It is your cause celebre. It is your Holy Grail.

This whole nonsense about owning yourself or not initiating aggression or all the other nonsense is just lipstick on the pig. Its belabored and contrived in its Machiavellian purposes.

So I do not want people to be free according to you?

What does that mean?

Could you please cite any of my posts in which I stated that I do not want people to be free?

What I have found over the years is that the radical right uses words like FREEDOM and LIBERTY the way a lounge lizard uses the word LOVE fifteen minutes before the bar closes. And their end goal is exactly the same.
 
haymarket said:
Mason? And I should care about that because??????
Click to expand...

I have told you.

In this case, the foolish behavior seems solely on your head. You are telling us that the pursuit of happiness does not really mean the pursuit of happiness. This is typical far right libertarianism having to get you to not only learn a new vocabulary to be able to understand half of what they try to say - but in this case UNLEARN the old vocabulary because the words really do not mean what you think they mean.
Click to expand...

I told you what was meant by the word happiness. You can argue against it or not.

When you present historical evidence and then interpret for us, what you do is touch upon a controversial matter that is far far far from decided or agreed upon.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

That is interesting in its ignorance but besides that, its completely not worth noting. Anyone that thinks it was Locke needs to ignore Jefferson himself.
 
Boy did that go a mile over your head.

The point is that when you present some rightist interpretation of history to us, you do so like it is a done deal and settled beyond dispute. And it clearly is not as even your response indicates.

Do you get it now?
 
haymarket said:
What I keep telling you - and what you keep avoiding like the plague - is that this libertarian construct was most likely built from the conclusion backwards.
Click to expand...

Yes, you've made this assertion before. Provide your proof, and we can judge whether your claim is true.

Like nearly all libertarian schemes and dreams, the goal is to weaken or destroy government and provide justification for opposing government programs like paying ones taxes. That is what you folks strive towards. It is your cause celebre. It is your Holy Grail.

This whole nonsense about owning yourself or not initiating aggression or all the other nonsense is just lipstick on the pig. Its belabored and contrived in its Machiavellian purposes.
Click to expand...

Again, we'd all be interested in seeing your proof that the tradition of classical liberal and libertarian thought was built from the conclusion backwards.

So I do not want people to be free according to you?

What does that mean?

Could you please cite any of my posts in which I stated that I do not want people to be free?
Click to expand...

Certainly. It means to be free from the initiation of attack, theft, or fraud against one's physical person or one's property.

What I have found over the years is that the radical right uses words like FREEDOM and LIBERTY the way a lounge lizard uses the word LOVE fifteen minutes before the bar closes. And their end goal is exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Interesting. What would you say is their goal?
 
haymarket said:
Boy did that go a mile over your head.

The point is that when you present some rightist interpretation of history to us, you do so like it is a done deal and settled beyond dispute. And it clearly is not as even your response indicates.

Do you get it now?
Click to expand...

How did it go over my head? People think the intent of commerce clause is not settled, but that doesn't make it not settled, but it does make them wrong.

and how in the world is it rightist interpretation when I learned it from a leftist?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
How did it go over my head? People think the intent of commerce clause is not settled, but that doesn't make it not settled, but it does make them wrong.

and how in the world is it rightist interpretation when I learned it from a leftist?
Click to expand...

The answer has something to do with a lounge lizard I think...
 
haymarket said:
Actually its a belabored and contrived scam designed to led somebody down the garden path so they then accept all the libertarian precepts that will follow as sure as day follows night. Its an elaborate ruse designed to get the unsuspecting to come to the usual libertarian conclusion that government needs to be shrunken and taxes are evil.

Magicians are far more honest with standard misdirection.
Click to expand...


gonna provide a real argument anytime soon?.. or are we stuck with your paranoid ramblings?
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's interesting you mention Jefferson. Did you also take note that Locke used "Life, Liberty, and Property" in his Treatise but Jefferson used "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" when he penned the Declaration of Independence? Why do you suppose that is? If Jefferson felt so strongly about the subject then why replace that word? He could have simply added Pursuit of Happiness to the end of Locke's words - but he didn't. I've read several of the letters Jefferson wrote. He seems to have had a very different view on property than what many believe
Click to expand...
Well, if Locke said "Every man has a Property in his own Person" and by "property" he means "life, liberty, and estate." then it probably seemed redundant to Jefferson to reference property thrice in the same clause. So I think he might have replaced "estate" with "Pursuit of Happiness" because that phrase upholds the concept of "exercising ones rights" to pursue prosperity aka property. Essentially it boils down to that happiness is to be secure in one's own possession and after all, isn't that what we are all pursuing? But it's true that some people don't think that Jefferson referenced Locke, but as you can see I'm not one of them.

I'm a sentient being and as such cannot be owned by anyone.
Click to expand...
Sentient just means you have "life" like everything else that has life, plants, birds, insects, etc.. And yes, life can be owned. Self ownership is a concept that compliments a sentient being by giving it exclusivity of ownership over it's own life. It's a basic freedom, a natural and moral right to own one's self. I don't understand why anyone would reject it.

MoSurveyor said:
Ummm, if you look back through the thread I did NOT use Jefferson. Someone else quoted him as though he supported Locke 100% on this matter. I voiced the opinion that he probably didn't agree with Locke on the subject.
Click to expand...
I guess that was me but I don't support the matter 100%, it's more like 60% to 70%. You voiced the opinion that Jefferson probably didn't agree with Locke on the subject, but you really didn't provide any evidence or reasons why. Do you have any because I would be interested to see it?
 
Moot said:
Well, if Locke said "Every man has a Property in his own Person" and by "property" he means "life, liberty, and estate." then it probably seemed redundant to Jefferson to reference property thrice in the same clause. So I think he might have replaced "estate" with "Pursuit of Happiness" because that phrase upholds the concept of "exercising ones rights" to pursue prosperity aka property. Essentially it boils down to that happiness is to be secure in one's own possession and after all, isn't that what we are all pursuing? But it's true that some people don't think that Jefferson referenced Locke, but as you can see I'm not one of them.
Click to expand...

This stupid crap is just annoying. Don't you think its a bit strange that to believe in your theory you have to assume a bunch of things? Mason used the damn phrase and Jefferson admitted stealing it from him. This is NOT an open topic.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
This stupid crap is just annoying. Don't you think its a bit strange that to believe in your theory you have to assume a bunch things? Mason used the damn phrase and Jefferson admitted stealing it from him. This is NOT an open topic.
Click to expand...
Did it ever occur to you that Mason was also influenced by Locke? I assume you can provide the quote of Jefferson admitting "stealing" from Mason?
 

As long as you stay out of prison.:lamo:lamo:lamo :peace
Centinel said:
Ownership simply means that one has the exclusive right to use a particular thing. So yes, I would say that we each own our own physical bodies. We each have an exclusive claim on the use of our physical bodies. No other person has a claim on our bodies.
Click to expand...
 
MoSurveyor said:
Ummm, if you look back through the thread I did NOT use Jefferson. Someone else quoted him as though he supported Locke 100% on this matter. I voiced the opinion that he probably didn't agree with Locke on the subject.
Click to expand...

It was directed at Moot's use of Jefferson, not you. I should have clarified.
 
Moot said:
I agree. A persons that consents to sell their labor to someone else still owns their own self. It's little different than working for someone or signing a contract to work for certain number of years in exchange for wages or salary or stock options. Indentured servants were brought over to the US to work a certain number of years for private individuals in exchange for their ship's passage and their room and board. When their contract expired they were free to go work for whoever or even start their own business.
Click to expand...

After a period of time, they got land too. It was a sweet deal that paid off if they survived. Jamestown was a hell-hole by every meaning of the term.
 
Centinel said:
Yes, you've made this assertion before. Provide your proof, and we can judge whether your claim is true.
Click to expand...

Here is what I said

What I keep telling you - and what you keep avoiding like the plague - is that this libertarian construct was most likely built from the conclusion backwards.

You do understand the term MOST LIKELY is a judgment on my part based on an understanding of the situation but which cannot be proved nor disproved with actual evidence because that is not available to me..... don't you?
 
I stated this about libertarians

What I have found over the years is that the radical right uses words like FREEDOM and LIBERTY the way a lounge lizard uses the word LOVE fifteen minutes before the bar closes. And their end goal is exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Centinel replied with this follow up

Interesting. What would you say is their goal?
Click to expand...

To achieve the climax of their desires.
 
Henrin said:
and how in the world is it rightist interpretation when I learned it from a leftist?
Click to expand...

People can use things or tactics from any variety of sources. That is no secret.
 
Thrilla said:
gonna provide a real argument anytime soon?.. or are we stuck with your paranoid ramblings?
Click to expand...

Again, you want us to get bogged down in examing a tree when some of us want to see the entire forest.

That itself is very revealing of both your tactics and the motives behind them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom