• 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
You do realize that libertarians are socially liberal but, fiscally conservative? Giving the most freedom possible

I have no doubt that there are some libertarians who are liberal on some social issues.

For me, the defining issue of the 21st century is a clear one: what will be the role of the government in the USA? Most libertarians, especially right libertarians, have a view of the role of government that would effectively take us back to the era of the Gilded Age 1800's.

I can think of far fewer ways to destroy American and its people that a course of that nature.
 
No one is going to voluntarily contribute to society. It might work that way for awhile but it's not a stable solution. That way leads to anarchy.

What? It is commonplace for people to contribute. That is the essence of the division of labor and a civilized society. Unless one is a hermit living in a cave, each of us contributes something to those around us, and they in turn repay us by contributing to us.

What libertarians oppose are those who refuse to contribute but simply take what they want and order others about. These people are the decivilizing force.
 
Its a false question, you ARE yourself, that question is circular, its like asking is water wet?

The whole concept of ownership is depends on a seperation between the owner and the thing owned. The only way self-ownership works is if you seperate your ego or soul from your body, but given that for all intents and purposes we ARE our body, self-ownershiip is a confused and rediculous concept.

You ARE yourself.
 
Government's do all of the above. There are plenty of mass-graves to testify to this fact.

History is what history is. I am not defending it and nobody else here has defended those things either. Perfection is not a reasonable standard for man.
 
You do realize that libertarians are socially liberal but, fiscally conservative? Giving the most freedom possible

What libertarians want to do is just hand over the power from the public sector to the private economic power base, thus giving the majority of the people less say over what happens in their lives.

Basically they want to replace publically accountable power with tyrannical private power.
 
What libertarians want to do is just hand over the power from the public sector to the private economic power base, thus giving the majority of the people less say over what happens in their lives.

Basically they want to replace publically accountable power with tyrannical private power.

I don't think most libertarians want to do this, but are naive enough to think it won't happen.
 
You guys always have these funny definitions of freedom. Anarchy has the most "freedom" as you mean freedom. Should we shoot for that?

We should shoot for a social order in which everyone is free to act in any way he wishes as long as he doesn't harm others or their property. This ensures the maximum freedom not just for some, but for all.
 
I have no doubt that there are some libertarians who are liberal on some social issues.

For me, the defining issue of the 21st century is a clear one: what will be the role of the government in the USA? Most libertarians, especially right libertarians, have a view of the role of government that would effectively take us back to the era of the Gilded Age 1800's.

I can think of far fewer ways to destroy American and its people that a course of that nature.

Some? Our presidential candidate is exactly what i just stated, socially liberal yet fiscally conservative. Just cause you want libertarians to fit your bill, does not make it so.

Let me ask you this one question, if you dont mind, when was the idea of america actually created, freedom wise i say... Also when did this pick up traction around the world? And i geuss one more, when was the greatest growth in the united states?

Edit: was supposed to be one hah ;) couldnt help it though
 
Last edited:
We should shoot for a social order in which everyone is free to act in any way he wishes as long as he doesn't harm others or their property. This ensures the maximum freedom not just for some, but for all.

Why should property be included in that, freedom just means the ability to do things you want, many times private capitalist property hinders freedom for most people.
 
Its a false question, you ARE yourself, that question is circular, its like asking is water wet?

The whole concept of ownership is depends on a seperation between the owner and the thing owned. The only way self-ownership works is if you seperate your ego or soul from your body, but given that for all intents and purposes we ARE our body, self-ownershiip is a confused and rediculous concept.

You ARE yourself.

You dont know the definitions to the words your using is the problem...

Ownership: 1 the state, relation, or fact of being
2 a group or organization of owners

There are a lot in this one hah the most relevant though

Property: 2a something owned or possessed

Own: adjective 1 belonging to oneself or itself

Noun: to have or hold as property: possess

There are a lot of good ones in own but i only need the one.
 
Ownership: 1 the state, relation, or fact of being
2 a group or organization of owners

There are a lot in this one hah the most relevant though

Property: 2a something owned or possessed

Own: adjective 1 belonging to oneself or itself

Noun: to have or hold as property: possess

There are a lot of good ones in own but i only need the one.

None of those definitions say anything against my argument, You still ARE yourself, making the question of self ownership logically invalid.
 
Why should property be included in that, freedom just means the ability to do things you want, many times private capitalist property hinders freedom for most people.

Tell me how? Also lets compare private and government hinderances to freedom
 
Why should property be included in that, freedom just means the ability to do things you want, many times private capitalist property hinders freedom for most people.

Do you wish for a social order in which people may take your property? How would you ensure your survival in such a situation with no resources to live on?
 
I don't think most libertarians want to do this, but are naive enough to think it won't happen.

I agree with the first part and for you to think we dont know his couod happen is extreme ignorance... If we fight the society backed governemt what do you think we would do to a corrupt corporation... Also please do not put capitalism in this convo, even though it may further your cause to the ignorant masses
 
Tell me how? Also lets compare private and government hinderances to freedom

Well Capitalism prevents me from having a say in tons and tons of different economic things that affect me, I'd say the workers at Foxcon factories don't have too much freedom, most workers are forced to give up their freedom for most of the day so they can get a peice of the wealth they produce, most people who can't afford property are forced to give up some freedom in order to have a place to live.

If you got rid of private capitalist property, and evyerone had a say over economic issues that effected them, you'd have tons more freedom.

Let me give you an example.

Libertarian have no philisophical problems with a Pullman style town (the capitalist basically owns everything in the town, the stores the housind the main factory and so on), simple because its private property, even though it ends up being a tyranny, but make all that stuff democratic libertarians have a problem with it because it turns into "government." Even though the latter gives more freedom to more people.

Do you wish for a social order in which people may take your property? How would you ensure your survival in such a situation with no resources to live on?

I wish to live in a social order where private capitalist property (distinct from possession) is public, and things that effect the public are accountable to the public, and economic activity is done democratically (since economic activity is by definition social), if your claim to property ends up making things worse for the majority of people in an area, I want that property to be accountable to those people.

BTW private capitalist property hasn't always been around, you've had tons of societies without it.
 
None of those definitions say anything against my argument, You still ARE yourself, making the question of self ownership logically invalid.

So when i am enslaved by society i will no longer be myself? Thats not the argument now is it? Slaves can still be themselves but they are indeed prohibited! Do you understand if i own myself no one can own me, when protected by individual rights, or dare i say property rights, because i do indeed own my body not you, you have no right to tell me what i can do with my body, nor make me work for the common good! Are you slowly grasping this concept or will you continue to argue a flawed argument
 
Well Capitalism prevents me from having a say in tons and tons of different economic things that affect me, I'd say the workers at Foxcon factories don't have too much freedom, most workers are forced to give up their freedom for most of the day so they can get a peice of the wealth they produce, most people who can't afford property are forced to give up some freedom in order to have a place to live.

If you got rid of private capitalist property, and evyerone had a say over economic issues that effected them, you'd have tons more freedom.

Let me give you an example.

Libertarian have no philisophical problems with a Pullman style town (the capitalist basically owns everything in the town, the stores the housind the main factory and so on), simple because its private property, even though it ends up being a tyranny, but make all that stuff democratic libertarians have a problem with it because it turns into "government." Even though the latter gives more freedom to more people.



I wish to live in a social order where private capitalist property (distinct from possession) is public, and things that effect the public are accountable to the public, and economic activity is done democratically (since economic activity is by definition social), if your claim to property ends up making things worse for the majority of people in an area, I want that property to be accountable to those people.

BTW private capitalist property hasn't always been around, you've had tons of societies without it.

What freedoms are they forced to give up, i hear ideological thoughts but no real examples

Edit: sorry didnt notice your example, wait it still wasnt an example
 
Last edited:
So when i am enslaved by society i will no longer be myself? Thats not the argument now is it? Slaves can still be themselves but they are indeed prohibited! Do you understand if i own myself no one can own me, when protected by individual rights, or dare i say property rights, because i do indeed own my body not you, you have no right to tell me what i can do with my body, nor make me work for the common good! Are you slowly grasping this concept or will you continue to argue a flawed argument

No you are still yourself, and you still actually own yourself, your just being coerced ... its like being robbed at gunpoint, your relationship to yourself hasn't changed.

no one CAN own you, slavery is unjustified, its not real ownership.

If you won your own body, who are you? You ARE your body.

No I don't have a right to tell you what to do with your body nor have a right to make you do anything you donj't want to do, but you don't need self ownership for that, you ARE yourself, that just individual autonomy, there is no property relation here, its a whole different thing.
 
I wish to live in a social order where private capitalist property (distinct from possession) is public, and things that effect the public are accountable to the public, and economic activity is done democratically (since economic activity is by definition social), if your claim to property ends up making things worse for the majority of people in an area, I want that property to be accountable to those people.

BTW private capitalist property hasn't always been around, you've had tons of societies without it.

So you're saying that you want to live in a society in which property (distinct from possession) is owned by the government?
 
So you're saying that you want to live in a society in which property (distinct from possession) is owned by the government?

No ....

Where di I say that+

What freedoms are they forced to give up, i hear ideological thoughts but no real examples

I just gave you examples, the freedom to have the product of your labor, freedom of movement, freedom of what to do with your time, freedom of having a say in things that effect you.

Private Capitalist property is a STATE INSTITUTION.
 
No ....

Where di I say that+

Perhaps I misunderstood you when you wrote:

I wish to live in a social order where private capitalist property (distinct from possession) is public...

When you say you want to live in a social order where private capitalist property (distinct from possession) is public, I thought you meant owned by the government. So you're saying that this public capitalist property would be owned privately? I guess I'm somewhat confused by the use of your term public. Do you mean "the government" or do you mean "private individuals or groups of private individuals"?
 
I'm using teh term public braodly, it could mean the community, it could mean the government, it could mean all the workers at a workplace, I basically mean accountable to the people that are effected by something.
 
I'm using teh term public braodly, it could mean the community, it could mean the government, it could mean all the workers at a workplace, I basically mean accountable to the people that are effected by something.

So my original point was that we should shoot for a social order in which everyone is free to act in any way he wishes as long as he doesn't harm others or their property. This ensures the maximum freedom not just for some, but for all.

This still seems like a valid goal. Let's say a group of workers owns a factory. We would not want some robbers to come and steal their inventory or machines would we? Their property ought to be protected by law should it not? Or let's say a community group owns a playground. The law should protect their property rights against a group of vandals who would damage or steal the playground equipment, no? Or if you own a car, the law should protect that car from theft or damage form others, correct?

Property is essential for survival. The law should protect property against theft and damage.
 
What I'm saying is that property is not absolute and that it should be accountable to the community, if a group of robbers or vandals try and destory or take equipment, then yeah, you defend it, but that doesn't mean you need private capitalist property laws for that.
 
What I'm saying is that property is not absolute and that it should be accountable to the community, if a group of robbers or vandals try and destory or take equipment, then yeah, you defend it, but that doesn't mean you need private capitalist property laws for that.

If a group of workers owns a factory, isn't the factory their private property? If they own inventory isn't that inventory their private property? When one group of workers sells a truckload of wheat to another group of workers that owns a mill, doesn't there have to be laws establishing the procedures for the transfer of ownership from one group to another?

The fact that something is owned by a group does not mean it's not privately owned. It just means that ownership is shared. Unless the government owns the property, it is still private property - it is just owned by a group of individuals as opposed to a single individual.

It seems you are not arguing against the idea of property, but you are arguing that group ownership is preferable to individual ownership.
 
Back
Top Bottom