So the the master of a slave does not have ownership of that person but, they do own them. That is only in a society that accepts people as property though? So a nation that rejects people as property cannot own a person? Nor can a nation with strong property rights protect their citizenry from being enslaved if they are considered property?
Classical liberal thought in my opinion goes hand in hand with contracts, property rights, and the free voluntary trade between peoples.
So, hypothetically, if someone comes up with a way to hypnotize or otherwise control your mind, they still will not "own" you?
Property is a social construct. Therefore, the only objects that are property are those deemed property by the society in question. In the US, people are not property. Consequently, I do not own myself in the sense that I am my own property.So the the master of a slave does not have ownership of that person but, they do own them. That is only in a society that accepts people as property though? So a nation that rejects people as property cannot own a person? Nor can a nation with strong property rights protect their citizenry from being enslaved if they are considered property?
Classical liberal thought in my opinion goes hand in hand with contracts, property rights, and the free voluntary trade between peoples.
That's a long, drawn out statement that is much more than - and in some ways contradicts - the simple definition he used earlier: Would you care to defend his definition and how it applies to the ownership of a human being as an "ethical principle"?
I'll continue to advocate for a society in which a person can be owned only by himself and nobody else. The alternative is one person owning another, which is to say slavery.False. A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability.
Well, I suppose that's possible too. I guess saying, "I possess my mind is almost redundant since I exists within the mind," but I that's another thread.Or do your thoughts (e.g. your consciousness) "possess" your body?
I agree that people can own others physically and cannot own others mentally. However, I disagree with the understanding of ownership that founds the belief that the military owns those within it. The military has authority over those within it, but I don't think that such authority constitutes ownership.Self ownership is an archaic term based on 18-19th century sociopolitical philosophy. I take it to mean ownership of the person as an entity, not property by todays standards. By that I mean one can physically own a person (via slavery, indentured servitude, and/or contractual obligation, such as military service), but they cannot own what makes the person a [wo]man, and not an animated piece of meat. The mind, the intellect, the wants, etc of the individual. For example, the Army owned my physical self for four years, but they did not own "me". I was still my own person, subject to tell whoever to eat a dick at any time.
I think this type of "ownership" is the Dollhouse sort of thing wherein they can actually remove your consciousness and insert something else into your body that they have programmed for certain ends.
That's a blatantly false dichotomy. The other alternative is that nobody owns anybody.I'll continue to advocate for a society in which a person can be owned only by himself and nobody else. The alternative is one person owning another, which is to say slavery.
Ownership: the state, relation, or fact of being an owner. Is this the definition your using?
Edit:
Property: 2a: something owned or possessed.
That's a blatantly false dichotomy. The other alternative is that nobody owns anybody.
In many groups, for example the Catholic Church, it is immoral to even take your own life. I believe it is also quite illegal in many jurisdictions. That doesn't sound like "exclusive right to use" to me.
Ed:
You people that try to claim the fleas own the dog. *shakes head* It's sad, really, that you can't understand the web of life and how intertwined it all is. To suggest any kind of "natural" ownership of or right to any living thing is arrogance at it's finest. It's understandable in this day and age more than any other how people can get so detached from nature, but it's still sad to see it in what I've always assumed are relatively intelligent adults.
Yes, there are other ethical rules, and they all interact. Self-ownership does not exist in a vacuum. If one incurs a debt, then one is obliged to pay that debt. If one makes a commitment, one is obliged to fulfill that commitment. There are many rules that govern one's behavior; the idea of self-ownership is only one of several.
No rights are absolute. In fact, nothing is. There is no guarentee that a right to life will prevent you from dying sooner or later.Of course... and that means that self-ownership is not an absolute, but a conditional state subject to modification. All too often the self-ownership concept is presented as an absolute, when it obviously isn't. There are caveats, addendums, and quid-pro-quos.... two of which are law and taxes btw...
No rights are absolute. In fact, nothing is. There is no guarentee that a right to life will prevent you from dying sooner or later.
So, hypothetically, if someone comes up with a way to hypnotize or otherwise control your mind, they still will not "own" you?
Nobody's making any declarations. Centinal is describing two types of societies and I'm describing a third that he did not include.Really? Then who is making the claim ThePlayDrive, that "nobody owns anybody". Give me a typical example in this case, of who is making this declaration, and who this declaration dictates ownership about.
I'm fine with that. As long as no person owns another person. I think that was the gist of the OP.That's a blatantly false dichotomy. The other alternative is that nobody owns anybody.
Of course... and that means that self-ownership is not an absolute, but a conditional state subject to modification. All too often the self-ownership concept is presented as an absolute, when it obviously isn't. There are caveats, addendums, and quid-pro-quos.... two of which are law and taxes btw...
Nobody's making any declarations. Centinal is describing two types of societies and I'm describing a third that he did not include.
But even the right to self defense is not absolute. If there are other means of protecting yourself or your property besides the use violence or force then those must be considered first.Indeed. Nor does the right to life mean that someone won't kill you. What right to life does mean is that should your life be threatened, you may legitimately respond to the thread. And if someone does infringe upon another's right to life, we can rightfully and justly use government force against said individual.
That's a contradiction. I suspect we all have made it (I have), but it always can use a good repeating.moot said:No rights are absolute. In fact, nothing is.
Rights are a man made construct and as such are not absolute. Why is that a contradiction?That's a contradiction. I suspect we all have made it (I have), but it always can use a good repeating.
You wrote specifically:Rights are a man made construct and as such are not absolute. Why is that a contradiction?
No rights are absolute. In fact, nothing is.