• 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
Nobody. why does someone have to own you? Who owns the bugs in your yard?

I'd agree. That was directed to the people that think we do NOT own ourselves.
 
IMO, land ownership is inheritly wrong...it should not be bought and sold..
However all the fruits of a man's labor should be his, after taxes, of course.

I more or less agree with that.

You just said i still actually own myself, yhen you say this isnt needed. I dont understand your contradiction? I dont need to own myself in order to own myself? This makes no sense hah... Your saying ownership of myself is not needed to protect myself? Your confusing now

I'm saying self ownership is a nonsensicle concept, even non self ownership, its like asking is water wet ... or is water not wet. Its a rediculous question.

being autonomous doens't requre ownership at all.

Air is not property, true, good job, but when you own yourself, and you have unhealthy pollution, you should be proected by property rights.

Property rights were essential to freedom, id have to find my history lesson to explain this lol, its too long, and really i had to shorten it up so i wouldnt be here all day

How? You gonna sue for poluting the air that no one owns? How is someone else responsible for the air YOU breath ... Thats rediculous and you know unworkable in the real world.

Whether or not property rights were historically connected with certain freedoms is irrelivent, you certainly don't need them, and they certainly disrupt actualy workable freedom for a lot of people.
 
I'd agree. That was directed to the people that think we do NOT own ourselves.

That would be me. I think the concept of owning oneself is fine, but unnecessary. It's not an option between owning yourself or someone else owning you, but it also includes the idea that nobody owns anybody. Ownership is an artificial concept. Nobody really owns anything, at best, we temporarily control it.

Really, this whole self-ownership thing is just a ploy to make rationalizing natural rights easier. It's an attempt to define them into existence. It fails.
 
Ummm posting that actually hurt your argument lmao... But okay... I'm not seeing how protection of persons and property has anything to do with altruism...
Let's double-check that original post, shall we???
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.
Nope! No "protection" requirement listed. That still leaves anarchy and anarchy/communism as viable options given the parameters above.



Lying about the requirements then arguing that I'm not meeting them. :lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Last edited:
Let's double-check that original post, shall we??? Nope! No "protection" requirement listed. That still leaves anarchy and anarchy/communism as viable options given the parameters above.

Lying about the requirements then arguing that I'm not meeting them.

As I said above, 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.

As LibertyBurns pointed out, under such a system, the sole legitimate purpose of government agents is to facilitate the protection of life and property.
 
I don't know what name you wish to apply, but I oppose any organization that violates the rules of civilized behavior. It is possible to live by rules without granting special privileges to rulers.
It's possible but is it probable in the next 1000 years? The human race still has a lot of growing up to do, so I seriously doubt it.

I suppose that the most important question is what institutions are necessary to establish peace and justice in a society? And then, is coercive, monopoly government the only institution capable of achieving these goals?
Now you have introduced the "protectionist" clause - at least it looks like you have - which, if true, is different than what you were saying before.
 
As I said above, 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.

As LibertyBurns pointed out, under such a system, the sole legitimate purpose of government agents is to facilitate the protection of life and property.
But your original post doesn't demand government. Are you now saying you WANT government because you demand protection? I'm getting mixed signals here.
 
But your original post doesn't demand government. Are you now saying you WANT government because you demand protection? I'm getting mixed signals here.

I'm unclear of what you mean by government. It could mean any number of things and perform any number of functions. If you could provide some clarity around that, I could provide a better answer as to whether I see government as necessary.

However, I'm proposing a social order in which the law states that no person may damage the person or property of another. If that is the law, then any person may legally protect his own person or property, or may delegate this task to an agent of his choosing.
 
I don't know what name you wish to apply, but I oppose any organization that violates the rules of civilized behavior. It is possible to live by rules without granting special privileges to rulers.

Me too, which is why I oppose Capitalism and capitalist private property.
 
I'm unclear of what you mean by government. It could mean any number of things and perform any number of functions. If you could provide some clarity around that, I could provide a better answer as to whether I see government as necessary.
You used the term "government" in your second post. Between our posts that's the first time it's been used so what did you mean when you used it??

Anarchy is lack of government but still meets the requirements of "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".

However, I'm proposing a social order in which the law states that no person may damage the person or property of another. If that is the law, then any person may legally protect his own person or property, or may delegate this task to an agent of his choosing.
You've created a whole legal system - book keeping, interpretation, judgement, and enforcement. Who will you trust to do the book keeping, interpretation, and judgement? You also seem to have established mercenaries.
 
Let's double-check that original post, shall we??? Nope! No "protection" requirement listed. That still leaves anarchy and anarchy/communism as viable options given the parameters above.



Lying about the requirements then arguing that I'm not meeting them. :lamo :lamo :lamo

Lying? In what way. Their property, private property, that under the system you linked does not advocate.
 
Nobody. why does someone have to own you? Who owns the bugs in your yard?

Zgoldsmith pretty much hit it right on the button. Anyway, what do bugs have to do with ownership of ones own body? It just means that no one can take my property from me due to property rights, if my body is indeed my property, then ahhh no one can take me as a slave. Also you should not be telling me how to use my property, which is not the case any longer in the good ole U S of A...
 
RGacky3 said:
if a group of robbers or vandals try and destory or take equipment, then yeah, you defend it

vs.

Thats not what I'm saying, lets say people's farms have been washed away due to a flood but one guys farm has been saved, I'd say the community has the right to that farm.


I hope the farmer takes the earlier-you's advice and defends his property from the later-you.
 
Last edited:
Me too, which is why I oppose Capitalism and capitalist private property.

Nothing wrong with capitalism, its only when government is strong enough to meddle in the free market that you start to find todays crony capitalism/corporatism.
 
I dont have a problem with communism in theory, its just when it comes into practice that i dont like it. If everyone voluntarily went into this system, i believe it could work, well maybe. Though communism failed miserably in the colonies.
 
I dont have a problem with communism in theory, its just when it comes into practice that i dont like it. If everyone voluntarily went into this system, i believe it could work, well maybe. Though communism failed miserably in the colonies.

Sounds like anarchism or minarchism. Its a system that requires perfect theoretical people.
 
Sounds like anarchism or minarchism. Its a system that requires perfect theoretical people.

It really doesn't require perfect theoretical people, merely a willingness to let people suffer the consequences of their own stupidity, or enjoy the successes of making intelligently sound decisions.
 
It really doesn't require perfect theoretical people, merely a willingness to let people suffer the consequences of their own stupidity, or enjoy the successes of making intelligently sound decisions.

This assumes that good decisions tend to have good consequences and bad decisions have bad ones with no luck or random chance or the influence of other people in the system. This is not reality of course. There are times when objectively bad decisions yield good consequences and the alternative. Often what we refer to as good or bad decisions are probabilities at best, which in many ways invalidates the who theory behind good decisions yielding good consequences, because karma cannot be controlled or relied on.

For example, while my life is pretty good, I have a friend who is a good dad, works hard at his job, and generally makes very good decisions, only to get laid off (right after getting promoted, wtf), get in a car wreck with an old dude who didn't have insurance, (old dude's fault) and other acts of god. Karma doesn't work well enough that it should be relied on as any sort of policy matter. I know a few people who ****heads in general yet good things happen to them. The world isn't some machine that gives you what you give it. To think so is naive.

Also, the second point is that people generally are not prepared to do what you suggest because thats not human nature. Human nature is somewhat monkey like in many respects. Given the chance, the average person will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want (based on some studies I have read). Basing policy on the hope of maturity will never work. Policy should be based on what works more so than any sort of ideal like you are espousing.
 
Last edited:
Lying? In what way.
Because you kept invoking a protection requirement that was not present in the original post and then saying the systems offered didn't meet the original standard because there was no means of protection. You did this more than once even after I pointed out that protection wasn't part of the original post.

Their property, private property, that under the system you linked does not advocate.
The original post only referred to not harming property it did not state that a system of property was required nor was it forthcoming about what kind of property, if any, it might be referring. Those with a "property mentality" often refer to personal possessions, which are present in an anarchy/communist system, as "property" even though the system itself does not use the word "property" or it's basic ideal.


At this point none of that matters since Centinel has been more forthcoming.
 
Last edited:
Zgoldsmith pretty much hit it right on the button. Anyway, what do bugs have to do with ownership of ones own body? It just means that no one can take my property from me due to property rights, if my body is indeed my property, then ahhh no one can take me as a slave. Also you should not be telling me how to use my property, which is not the case any longer in the good ole U S of A...

People are making a false dichotomy here, that if you don't own yourself, then someone else has to own you. The bug example is proof of a third possibility, that nobody owns anyone, even themselves. That does away with the argument, which let's face it, was just trotted out as a means to define natural rights into existence.
 
The dirt my body came from owns me and is where my body is destined to return. All my life I have to satisfy the needs and wants of this body, so it owns me more than anything or anyone else. Is this body all that I am is yet another question but I am not its complete master making part of me feel separate.
 
People are making a false dichotomy here, that if you don't own yourself, then someone else has to own you. The bug example is proof of a third possibility, that nobody owns anyone, even themselves. That does away with the argument, which let's face it, was just trotted out as a means to define natural rights into existence.

So who precisely is making the claim that "nobody owns anybody, even themselves"? Come on Cephus, make the claim.
But if no one is making the claim Cephus, there is no claim being made, it's no different than writing "nothing" on the topic, and being silent on the issue.

That's quite a third option...silence. Good thing our constitution isn't just blank.
 
The dirt my body came from owns me and is where my body is destined to return. All my life I have to satisfy the needs and wants of this body, so it owns me more than anything or anyone else. Is this body all that I am is yet another question but I am not its complete master making part of me feel separate.

Your body's composed of element that were created at moment of origin in the Big Bang. So, going by your logic, you should return to the universe.
 
Your body's composed of element that were created at moment of origin in the Big Bang. So, going by your logic, you should return to the universe.

I agree the energy my body came from is part of the universe. Most scientific absolutists will assert that my body is all that I am and yet since my bodies energy is part of the universe, maybe I'm more than I know?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom