Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

Mach · Jun 21, 2012

megaprogman said:
The premise that property applies to humans is false.
This has been pointed out repeatedly.

The very first reply addressed that though.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/128570-do-you-own-yourself-self-ownership-41.html#post1060613472

I think the OP may have a point regardless though:
Ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The living human body is, in most modern societies, considered something which cannot be the property of anyone but the person whose body it is.

The OP is about owning yourself, not property. Wikipedia apparently makes the claim that most modern societies consider consider it true that individuals own themselves...

Slartibartfast · Jun 21, 2012

Mach said:
The very first reply addressed that though.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/128570-do-you-own-yourself-self-ownership-41.html#post1060613472

Do you have a post number? Your link just goes to the top of this page.

Mach said:
I think the OP may have a point regardless though:
Ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The OP is about owning yourself, not property. Wikipedia apparently makes the claim that most modern societies consider consider it true that individuals own themselves...

Yes, many cultures do consider this to be true...

There are cultures that think cows are sacred and that the islands of Japan is made of divine cum ...

Cultures have beliefs about all sorts of things that other cultures may consider crazy, I don't see that this matters in our discussion.

Einzige · Jun 21, 2012

Mach said:
The OP is about owning yourself, not property. Wikipedia apparently makes the claim that most modern societies consider consider it true that individuals own themselves...

It's possible for modern society to be right and wrong on the subject at the same time. 'Modern society' endorses what basically amounts to a limited, halting form of self-ownership, held to out of a metaphysical concern for the individual's soul. It's pretty far removed from what I think of when I consider the phrase 'self-ownership'.

Thrilla · Jun 21, 2012

megaprogman said:
The premise that property applies to humans is false.

This has been pointed out repeatedly.

it's one thing to say it's false, it's quite another to provide a compelling argument as to why it's false ( I'd say proof, but we are talking about an matter of ethics here, and proving ethical concepts right or wrong is difficult)

as a matter of practicality, property.. as applied to humans.. is true.
one need only to acknowledge the existence of slavery to see that it is true... Humans can be, and are, property( at least partially)... that is indisputable.

self-ownership is, primarily, a matter of ethics...it is an ethical standard in which we have based our government, our economy,our laws, our policies and regulations, and our culture on.... sorry, but it's not false concept.

Einzige · Jun 21, 2012

Thrilla said:
self-ownership is, primarily, a matter of ethics...it is an ethical standard in which we have based our government, our economy,our laws, our policies and regulations, and our culture on.... sorry, but it's not false concept.

If it's an 'ethical standard', or based in 'objective morality', as Randians are wont to pose it, then it's a self-defeating, nihilating premise: if I own myself, then I am free to dispose of myself - and my ownership over myself - as I wish; I do not have to own myself.

Slartibartfast · Jun 21, 2012

Thrilla said:
it's one thing to say it's false, it's quite another to provide a compelling argument as to why it's false ( I'd say proof, but we are talking about an matter of ethics here, and proving ethical concepts right or wrong is difficult)

as a matter of practicality, property.. as applied to humans.. is true.
one need only to acknowledge the existence of slavery to see that it is true... Humans can be, and are, property( at least partially)... that is indisputable.

self-ownership is, primarily, a matter of ethics...it is an ethical standard in which we have based our government, our economy,our laws, our policies and regulations, and our culture on.... sorry, but it's not false concept.

I have addressed slavery already

megaprogman said:
Property is something that is acted on, land and stuff fit into that category. These objects have no will of their own and thus are subject to being property or whatever we want to define them as basically. We just settle on property because that's how people tend to think. A person is a subject, not an object and something with will. Also one cannot really separate one's body from one's will, because they the same thing (namely the brain). Because of this, the concept of property does not really apply. This is why the idea of ownership over a person presents a false distinction, because falsely categorizes what people are.

Slavery happens and slavery is tragic, but keep in mind, its only tragic to people with an ounce of morality and many people do not have any sort of morality and do not see slavery as tragic. Morality is a common feature of humanity though as its its inbuilt by evolution to enable social behavior which increases our chances of survival. Because of this, we like to think of ourselves and our will as sacred due to this inbuilt desire, but objectively, it is not true. However, social instincts are the source of our rejection of slavery, but people should not confuse their emotional rejection of these kinds of things with any sort of valid philosophy. Many libertarians do though and base their arguments on this sort of emotional appeal. Look beyond the emotion into what is true.

There is some grey area in how I see things, like brain dead people, animals, advanced AI (if it ever happens) but maybe I will work through those questions or maybe not. Its an admitted flaw in my viewpoint though.

rof Ethics very from people to people, its a terrible thing to base an argument on since its only a matter of opinion and not something that can be proven or disproven.

So yes, you like the idea of self ownership, but ultimately this means very little in terms of whether the concept can be verified as sound.

I am glad you like your opinion though :thumbs:

Einzige · Jun 21, 2012

megaprogman said:
Ethics very from people to people, its a terrible thing to base an argument on since its only a matter of opinion and not something that can be proven or disproven.

So yes, you like the idea of self ownership, but ultimately this means very little in terms of whether the concept can be verified as sound.

You've just hit on a fundamental problem for 'objectivist libertarian' arguments for freedom (which I consider inclusive of, but not limited to, capital-O Objectivism). It is a philosophy that holds one is condemned to be free; you cannot choose not to be free - in which case, you are not free at all.

Self-ownership and freedom are, and have to be, located in the subjective realm of individual experience.

Thrilla · Jun 21, 2012

Einzige said:
If it's an 'ethical standard', or based in 'objective morality', as Randians are wont to pose it, then it's a self-defeating, nihilating premise: if I own myself, then I am free to dispose of myself - and my ownership over myself - as I wish; I do not have to own myself.

not, it's not self defeating
an extreme 'disposal" of ownership/autonomy/sovereignty is... suicide.
a less extreme, and far more common example, is... contract.

the concept predates Rand by hundreds of years... it makes no sense to bring her up.
now, if you want to bring up modern philosophers/prominent thinkers etc... that's where we get into the liberal/libertarian argument for the concept being axiomatic... but as i have said, the concept is not new.. it's not a libertarian-born concept... it's an enlightenment thing, a liberal thing.

Slartibartfast · Jun 21, 2012

Einzige said:
You've just hit on a fundamental problem for 'objectivist libertarian' arguments for freedom (which I consider inclusive of, but not limited to, capital-O Objectivism). It is a philosophy that holds one is condemned to be free; you cannot choose not to be free - in which case, you are not free at all.

Self-ownership and freedom are, and have to be, located in the subjective realm of individual experience.

Human will can be subverted very easily though by manipulation or other means. What's interesting is that even while it is being manipulated, the person can still maintain that they are free, and they might very well be, because even though they are being manipulated they are still making choices which they believe are optimal. Its a very complicated problem.

So you are probably right, I need to think on this.

Einzige · Jun 21, 2012

Thrilla said:
not, it's not self defeating
an extreme 'disposal" of ownership/autonomy/sovereignty is... suicide.
a less extreme, and far more common example, is... contract.

Self-sovereignty means self-sovereignty: it does not mean "limited self-ownership under which I recognize a higher, more abstract authority". I am either free or I am not, after all; and I am free when I recognize that my freedom emanates from within myself, and is a product of myself, and is not inherent to reality.

Again I reference Max Stirner, and anyone who hasn't read his The Ego and Its Own and is interested in the subject really ought to.

I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique. In the unique one the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness and pales only before the sun of this consciousness. If I concern myself for myself, the unique one, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say: all things are nothing to me.

the concept predates Rand by hundreds of years... it makes no sense to bring her up.

Rand sought to create an objective framework for that Enlightenment-rationalist philosophy. She tried to codify it.

Moot · Jun 21, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
No they don't - and they certainly don't have (recognized) exclusive rights to it's use or the government couldn't outlaw prostitution.

The SCOTUS ruled women have recognized rights up until viability of the fetus. Interesting that you would compare prostitution to having an abortion. Unless I'm mistaken women don't sell their aborted fetuses as a commodity or to create value. Some women do however use their bodies as a commodity (prostitution) and as such it has value as long as someone is willing to pay for it. The government has chosen not to protect that right but it doesn't mean that women don't use their bodies as property that can be sold with or without their consent.

As I understand it, that does not undermine the SCOTUS position on abortion, though, since I believe that's based on privacy, not property?

Well what it is the protected right to privacy if not the reasonable expection without government interference to have privacy in one's home (property) and health information (property) and identity (property)?

If no one can own a person then there is still no conflict.

You can own yourself. The conflict as I see it is the emotional objection to being considered property and yet that is exactly what the government considers a "person". The government and insurance companies even go further to give a "person" value according to his/her most productive years in the labor force as if they were a commodity. Employers consider the employee a commodity that can be bought to help add value to a product.

Thrilla · Jun 21, 2012

megaprogman said:
I have addressed slavery already

rof Ethics very from people to people, its a terrible thing to base an argument on since its only a matter of opinion and not something that can be proven or disproven.

So yes, you like the idea of self ownership, but ultimately this means very little in terms of whether the concept can be verified as sound.

I am glad you like your opinion though :thumbs:

it's already been verified as sound... as I said, there is really nothing in our society that is not based on this concept of property.

i've read a few critiques on the concept from other philosophers ( Cohen,Van Parijs,Gorr,Ingram.. and even an unknown UCLA professor whose name escapes me).. all acknowledge the self ownership or "property in the person" is part and parcel of our shared moral consciousness.. and not only ours, it's simply the foremost virtue of liberal democracies wherever they exist ( it is, after all, a fundamental liberal concept)..all acknowledge that there is , at least, a " close association" with self ownership and individual rights... even the philosophers who offer critiques ( which are generally little more than " there oughta be a different way to look a things, this feels icky.. and libertarians suck") aren't opposed to anything i've said thus far.

Slartibartfast · Jun 21, 2012

Thrilla said:
it's already been verified as sound...as I said, there is really nothing in our society that is not based on this concept of property.

:lol: you yourself said it was an ethical, not a philosophical argument. You are now contradicting yourself. If it can't be proven, it can't be held as sound.

it's one thing to say it's false, it's quite another to provide a compelling argument as to why it's false ( I'd say proof, but we are talking about an matter of ethics here, and proving ethical concepts right or wrong is difficult)

Thrilla said:
i've read a few critiques on the concept from other philosophers ( Cohen,Van Parijs,Gorr,Ingram.. and even an unknown UCLA professor whose name escapes me).. all acknowledge the self ownership or "property in the person" is part and parcel of our shared moral consciousness.. and not only ours, it's simply the foremost virtue of liberal democracies wherever they exist ( it is, after all, a fundamental liberal concept)..all acknowledge that there is , at least, a " close association" with self ownership and individual rights... even the philosophers who offer critiques ( which are generally little more than " there oughta be a different way to look a things, this feels icky.. and libertarians suck") aren't opposed to anything i've said thus far.

Ok, so someone who wrote a book said it, it must be true!

Thrilla · Jun 21, 2012

Einzige said:
Self-sovereignty means self-sovereignty: it does not mean "limited self-ownership under which I recognize a higher, more abstract authority". I am either free or I am not, after all; and I am free when I recognize that my freedom emanates from within myself, and is a product of myself, and is not inherent to reality.

umm.. i'm confused... how did you get any of that from what i posted?

Again I reference Max Stirner, and anyone who hasn't read his The Ego and Its Own and is interested in the subject really ought to.

cool, i'll check it out.

Rand sought to create an objective framework for that Enlightenment-rationalist philosophy. She tried to codify it.

that's all well and good... unfortunately, the concept was codified long before she was a gleam in her daddy's eyes.

Thrilla · Jun 21, 2012

megaprogman said:
:lol: you yourself said it was an ethical, not a philosophical argument. You are now contradicting yourself. If it can't be proven, it can't be held as sound.

umm.. ethics = moral philosophy.

Ok, so someone who wrote a book said it, it must be true!

I know that's not the best you can do.....

Slartibartfast · Jun 21, 2012

Thrilla said:
umm.. ethics = moral philosophy.

The point being that you first said it can't be proven and then you said it could. In which case were you wrong?

Thrilla said:
I know that's not the best you can do.....

You are correct sir, I tend to respond to arguments with arguments or agreement. Some people wrote a book about it is not an argument. At best, its an appeal to authority. You could have at least bothered to try and cut and paste something...

Thrilla · Jun 21, 2012

megaprogman said:
The point being that you first said it can't be proven and then you said it could. In which case were you wrong?

no, i didn't say it can be proven... I said it's been verified as sound.... there is a subtle distinction there.
it exists in our society, and as such, it's implementation has been verified to be sound.... now, if it really is false, and we are living a lie, as it were... the lie is still verified as sound.
sounds a lil goofy, but that's the best i can do on a moments notice:lol:

You are correct sir, I tend to respond to arguments with arguments or agreement. Some people wrote a book about it is not an argument.

if you see the concept as something that some dude wrote in a book, and that it... then you aren't interested in or prepared to debate the subject at all.

Slartibartfast · Jun 21, 2012

Thrilla said:
no, i didn't say it can be proven... I said it's been verified as sound.... there is a subtle distinction there.
it exists in our society, and as such, it's implementation has been verified to be sound.... now, if it really is false, and we are living a lie, as it were... the lie is still verified as sound.
sounds a lil goofy, but that's the best i can do on a moments notice:lol:

If thats your meaning, than Mach already brought it up and I addressed it.

megaprogman said:
Yes, many cultures do consider this to be true...

There are cultures that think cows are sacred and that the islands of Japan is made of divine cum ...

Cultures have beliefs about all sorts of things that other cultures may consider crazy, I don't see that this matters in our discussion.

However, I do agree on the fundamental point that as a society we should implement what is shown to be useful in promoting our wellbeing, prosperity, happiness, etc. This is an argument based on usefulness or consequentialism, not on whether something is logically true or not.

Thrilla said:
if you see the concept as something that some dude wrote in a book, and that it... then you aren't interested in or prepared to debate the subject at all.

I have been debating it all thread and in many other threads, the difference being that other people managed to present an argument.

notquiteright · Jun 21, 2012

This reminds me of the mumbo-jumbo of most self help guru BS books, seminars, no money down own your own home dribble.

It isn't deep, just quicksand for the gullible.

Or a sophmoric debate after way too many over priced crapacinos. :roll:

Slartibartfast · Jun 21, 2012

notquiteright said:
This reminds me of the mumbo-jumbo of most self help guru BS books, seminars, no money down own your own home dribble.

It isn't deep, just quicksand for the gullible.

Or a sophmoric debate after way too many over priced crapacinos. :roll:

So you have nothing to add to the conversation then?

Thrilla · Jun 21, 2012

megaprogman said:
If thats your meaning, than Mach already brought it up and I addressed it.

you addressed it by eqauting it to sacred cows and divine cum.... not exactly an apt comparison:lol:

However, I do agree on the fundamental point that as a society we should implement what is shown to be useful in promoting our wellbeing, prosperity, happiness, etc. This is an argument based on usefulness or consequentialism, not on whether something is logically true or not.

ahh yes, consequentialism .. or as we usually refer to it "the ends justify the means"

I have been debating it all thread and in many other threads, the difference being that other people managed to present an argument.

well tehn, i guess we are done.... if you call what you jsut did an argument, and what i've been doing as having no argument, there is no use in carrying on.... i'm not interested in opposite-land.

Slartibartfast · Jun 21, 2012

Thrilla said:
you addressed it by eqauting it to sacred cows and divine cum.... not exactly an apt comparison:lol:

The point being that something being a part of a culture is not an argument as to whether something is true or not. It would be an argument as to whether people believe in it though. We have nearly a billion Muslims in the world, do you think that their view of things is true because it exists within a cultural context?

appeal to popularity or whatever this fallacy is called

Thrilla said:
ahh yes, consequentialism .. or as we usually refer to it "the ends justify the means"

I guess that's an aspect of how I view things, however if the means are something I find unacceptable than I don't worry about the ends either. Consequences matter greatly though as do the means. Far more than some notion of truth that may not have any practical use.

Thrilla said:
well tehn, i guess we are done.... if you call what you jsut did an argument, and what i've been doing as having no argument, there is no use in carrying on.... i'm not interested in opposite-land.

I don't call my response an argument, there was nothing in your statement "some authors think this" for me to counter or agree with beyond whether this fact can be verified or not. That's fact checking not a discussion about the nature of the world. There is no logic there, no axioms, no real world examples, nothing.

MoSurveyor · Jun 21, 2012

Mach said:
Concise!

Identify the premise Mosurveryor and it's trivial.

1. Mach has beaten his wife.
2. It has either stopped, or not.

Your premise 1. is false. See how easy it is when you are reasonable? Thanks Mo, you debate efficiently.

Which premise of mine was false? I pointed it out in one quick response, surely anyone can do the same instead of all the typing.

So I take it you wanted that third option after all.

Why don't you put forward your options as simply as I did?

MoSurveyor · Jun 21, 2012

Mach said:
I think the OP may have a point regardless though:
Ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The OP is about owning yourself, not property. Wikipedia apparently makes the claim that most modern societies consider consider it true that individuals own themselves...

Did you miss the "citation needed" note at the end??

Cephus · Jun 21, 2012

Mach said:
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.

I was pointing out the false dichotomy that people were using, that you had a choice between A and B and they presented an option B that most people didn't like. That doesn't make A true, especially when, as you point out, there are lots of other alternatives available.

And yes, I'll take that option, nobody is owned by anybody including themselves.

Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

Do you own yourself (self ownership)? Should or shouldnt you own yourself?

Yes (should)

Yes (shouldn't)

No (should)

No (shouldn't)

Jesus loves you.

Elitist as Hell.

Elitist as Hell.

Jesus loves you.

Elitist as Hell.

Jesus loves you.

Elitist as Hell.

Jesus loves you.

Jesus loves you.

Jesus loves you.

Jesus loves you.

Jesus loves you.