• 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
The political left does argue that what one does to one's own body effects others, based on the fact that we now socialize the cost of the eventual negative consequences of unhealthy behavior. But they don't actually want to control anyone's self-sabotaging behavior. Rather they just want to control the taxpayer checkbook to be able to write off the suffering of the stupid. They essentially want to tie everyone's shoelaces together and declare "See!? We're all in this together! Now follow me."
If "socializing" the cost helps lowers health insurance and medical costs for everyone, including you, then what is wrong with that?
 
If you sell or donate one of your kidneys then aren't you trading a piece of your property?

Ones its detached from you its not part of you.
 
If "socializing" the cost helps lowers health insurance and medical costs for everyone, including you, then what is wrong with that?

Well it doesn't, so there's something very wrong with that.
 
Yeah it does, look at the statistics of which countries pay more for healthcare with what results.
 
Well it doesn't, so there's something very wrong with that.

cost_longlife75.gif


Though one could argue that the standard of healthcare given by these countries may not be the same, I seriously doubt Scandinavian countries have institutions with low standards. This chart lays out life expectancy vs. cost of health care per person.
 
Last edited:
Physician assisted suicide could be considered one such law. As it stands, I think it's not a crime to commit suicide (at least not a crime which is punishable - what are they gonna do? Put the corpse in jail?) However it is a crime to help somebody commit suicide. This IMO is the equivalent of being legally allowed to smoke marijuana but making it a crime to sell it.

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, which Amendment provides that: “[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The government doesn't recognize or protect the self owner's right to have a physician assisted suicide. But I would think the self owner would still have the right to commit suicide if he can do it without any external help. Like you said, "what are they gonna do, put a corpse in jail?"
 
Last edited:
Without the due process of law ... i.e. you could have a euthenasia process of law.
 
Ones its detached from you its not part of you.
But your kidney is a part of you and you have the same bundle of property rights to use, transfer, exclude and immunity from expropiation over your body as you would if you owned a piece of land. Of course once you've consented to sell or donate a kidney and it is removed then you have "transfered" your right of "use" of your kidney to someone else.
 
But your kidney is a part of you and you have the same bundle of property rights to use, transfer, exclude and immunity from expropiation over your body as you would if you owned a piece of land. Of course once you've consented to sell or donate a kidney and it is removed then you have "transfered" your right of "use" of your kidney to someone else.

Once you remove it, its not part of you ... Its not "you," thats my point, if you sell your kidney but keep it part of you then that sale is meaningless.
 
Without the due process of law ... i.e. you could have a euthenasia process of law.
Wouldn't that require an amendment to the Constitution?

As a side, "due process of law" originated from the Magna Carta....

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

Oliver Cromwell once said, "I care not for the Magna Farta." lol
 
Once you remove it, its not part of you ... Its not "you," thats my point, if you sell your kidney but keep it part of you then that sale is meaningless.
Your point was taken.... "Of course once you've consented to sell or donate a kidney and it is removed then you have "transfered" your right of "use" of your kidney (property) to someone else"...and it is no longer a part of you.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I suppose so.
 
Doesn't matter if you buy it. Society controls how you act in many ways. You cannot opt out of society's rules without leaving the society. So long as you are a part of the society, you are bound by those rules. Welcome to the social contract.

As long as you buy the idea of implied consent.
 
If "socializing" the cost helps lowers health insurance and medical costs for everyone, including you, then what is wrong with that?

Just because it can arguably be said there is a benefit to all, does not make it right.

There would also be a benefit to all to strictly control diets, exercise, what products are manufactured and what technology is used. None of that is right either.
 
Wouldn't that require an amendment to the Constitution?

As a side, "due process of law" originated from the Magna Carta....

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

Oliver Cromwell once said, "I care not for the Magna Farta." lol

And who today could be considered free men?
 
Just because it can arguably be said there is a benefit to all, does not make it right.

Ok, but you cannot argue that a private system is better than.

There would also be a benefit to all to strictly control diets, exercise, what products are manufactured and what technology is used. None of that is right either.

All of those things restrict personal freedom, socialized medicine does now, infact it expands it.
 
Rewrite that in english and I will consider responding to it.
In other words, "I have no defense so I'll attack your character instead". Got it. Thanks for playing. :)
 
Last edited:
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, which Amendment provides that: “[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The government doesn't recognize or protect the self owner's right to have a physician assisted suicide. But I would think the self owner would still have the right to commit suicide if he can do it without any external help. Like you said, "what are they gonna do, put a corpse in jail?"

Yes, that has little actual bearing on whether or not 1 person can assist another in suicide. It's about the role of the state in regard to a person's life. If I "own" my body, given the definition given here - I should by definition be able to entrust it to those I see fit after I am no longer able to hold my own faculties. With that said, a law banning assisted suicide WOULD infringe on my ability to do as a please with my body as long as I am not affecting anyone.
 
Since we don't "own" our bodies in perpetuity or control all aspects of them completely the definition would be more like "leased" or "loaned".
 
Thats rediculous, your doing drugs, who you sleep with and so on are not the buisiness of society at all.

Tell that to society, which is defining laws that control all of that.
 
Physician assisted suicide could be considered one such law. As it stands, I think it's not a crime to commit suicide (at least not a crime which is punishable - what are they gonna do? Put the corpse in jail?) However it is a crime to help somebody commit suicide. This IMO is the equivalent of being legally allowed to smoke marijuana but making it a crime to sell it.

It actually is illegal in most states to commit suicide, although you're right, there's not much they can do to punish you if you succeed. If you attempt suicide and fail, you can be jailed, etc.
 
As long as you buy the idea of implied consent.

Go shoot someone. Tell the responding officers you have not consented to be held accountable under the law. See where that gets you.
 
Yes, that has little actual bearing on whether or not 1 person can assist another in suicide. It's about the role of the state in regard to a person's life. If I "own" my body, given the definition given here - I should by definition be able to entrust it to those I see fit after I am no longer able to hold my own faculties. With that said, a law banning assisted suicide WOULD infringe on my ability to do as a please with my body as long as I am not affecting anyone.
I agree, but an infringement on one of your ownership rights does not mean you don't still own yourself because you still have a bundle of other ownership rights.


The problem with assisted suicide is that you are relying on the consent of other people to exercise your right for you which suggests that assisted suicide is not self right.
 
Back
Top Bottom