Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
AndrewB

Do you agree with the fundamental principle of self ownership?

Agree?  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. Agree?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      7
    • Undecided
      4


Recommended Posts

earn = own

I assume. I, personally, do not, at least not once it's out there in the public domain. Once I declare that my intellectual property is out there for other people to read / buy, then it is also acceptable for other readers / buyers to modify said content for fun or profit.

I am drunk as fuck. But at least I am a socialist drunk. I only ask that people wait till my art is finished to a level I find acceptable before releasing it.

Share this post


Link to post

In principle, it's fine. In practice, damn expensive. I'm still paying off accrued interest from when I was too young to hold down a full time job. :(

Share this post


Link to post

If Wikipedia's article on self-ownership is the kind of self ownership you're talking about, then yes. Nobody should be able to tell you what you can't do to yourself, so long as whatever it is you're doing doesn't harm others without consent.

Share this post


Link to post

If by self ownership you mean self ownership then yes.

If by self ownership you mean the lolbertarian version then no.

Share this post


Link to post

The Wikipedia definition is what I meant. I didn't realize there were other interpretations.

Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life.

Marnetmar said:

If by self ownership you mean self ownership then yes.

If by self ownership you mean the lolbertarian version then no.

What's the difference?

Share this post


Link to post

And how does criminal behavior fit in with this idea?

I mean the fundamental idea sounds reasonable, but suppose that I murder someone. Do I still have "individual sovereignty" or is it justified for someone (government, etc.) to throw me in jail or otherwise punish me for my actions?

Share this post


Link to post

No - because it sets a dangerous precedent of a human being as property.

It could then be argued that a person is free to relinquish his/her property, at which point it becomes possible for a person literally to sell his soul under duress. When you apply the concept of homesteading - which is absolutely feasible, given the Libertarians' neverending search for an invincible, universal moral code - then it can also be argued that an individual should submit his/her property (person) to another if he/she is "neglecting" it.

Of course, any Libertarian will tell you that only you can own yourself. Asking how that's possible only invites a deluge of special pleading and platitudes. It's also fun to listen to someone who considers himself an ultimate realist explain in objective terms what the "self" is. At any rate, it's a characteristically self-serving philosophy that creates more problems than it solves, and doesn't work for society at large.

Share this post


Link to post

I certainly believe that one should be free to do as one chooses, so long as one isn't violating the rights of others, if that's what you mean. If, however, you're taking it to the next level and saying that taxes are bullshit or whatever, I disagree on that point. The infrastructure of our nation is necessary for us to function as a free society. Any profits you make depend upon that infrastructure, and so I absolutely believe there's nothing wrong with a small contribution to the funding of that infrastructure being mandatory.

Share this post


Link to post

Can we use it to launch personal IPOs and earn cash? Do we lose our self ownership there once we aren't majority owners? Can we mortgage some bodily organs if we default on our self-incurred debts?

A bit more seriously, I'd say some principle of individual sovereignty is reasonable, but not something as absolute as the idea described in the Wikipedia article.

I'd simply say that, the more something is personal and private, the more sovereignty we have over it as individuals. This could form a ring-styled series of levels of personal sovereignty. What pertains to you, to your family, your community, your nation, your region, are all types of progressively diluted but broader sovereignty. But even the individual is not something that can be cut out as a separate entity.

Our genetic links already dilute our individuality, and that becomes more evident with the general treatment of children, which start off as part of their parents and gradually become independent citizens. Even at the end of the road, in full adulthood, we still retain some traces that tie us as part of our families.

Even without that family aspect, the nature of human sentience is partially embedded in biological and cultural forces that reduce our individuality, from within (we're masses of cloned cells rather than a unit, after all) or without (in the collective sense) ourselves, and in a way our freedom of choice is more of a vital political construct linked to our perception than something concrete and verifiable.

The only real privacy is in my privates, as they say. Practically anything we do becomes social and political, in different degrees. Still, I'm all for gradual levels of self-determination and human emancipation, but with all the conditions I noted. Existence doesn't really allow a more simplistic and absolute principle, which can only be a false stratagem.

Share this post


Link to post
Bucket said:

No - because it sets a dangerous precedent of a human being as property.

It could then be argued that a person is free to relinquish his/her property, at which point it becomes possible for a person literally to sell his soul under duress. When you apply the concept of homesteading - which is absolutely feasible, given the Libertarians' neverending search for an invincible, universal moral code - then it can also be argued that an individual should submit his/her property (person) to another if he/she is "neglecting" it.

Pretty much what I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post

The Wikipedia article even mentions "voluntary slavery", which rings as plausible as "asking for" rape. That said, the general working conditions of a huge chunk of labor in the planet are not far from the idea of enslaving oneself. The "voluntary" part is the one that fails, of course.

In the bottom of this, the fundamental problem is the concept of self in libertarian or individualistic thought. It's a type of self that could only be possible in a God, with the power to detach itself from being mired in time and space, and it suggests a division between mind and body that gives the illusion of freedom from worldly conditioning. Thus it should not surprise people when the Tea Party attracts both economic liberals and religious zealots.

Share this post


Link to post

Could we all maybe for once not just assume that everyone knows the terms we're asking about and post a little bit more than just "If no, why?"

Share this post


Link to post

oh right. I get it now.

Pretty sure that the state owns us all, no? I mean I can't voluntary opt out of paying tax or obeying the laws and the government takes a nice, wet pimp-bite out of everything I earn.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in inalienable rights; that the government doesn't grant them to you. It merely acknowledges that you have them from birth. For example, every man and woman should be born with the freedom to pursue their life as they see fit as long as they don't harm others. The government has nothing to do with that, other than protecting and ensuring those very rights. Moreover, through a social contract that we are all part of, through our participation in a polity, as citizens; we also have to acknowledge that the government could suspend those freedoms to law breakers.

So I guess in theory we do own ourselves; but we could not, and should not own others. But if we did own others, it would completely violate the idea of self-ownership. Therefore, it would cease to be true in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that everyone who thinks he/she can own other person or its parts should get his face smashed and genitals removed.

Those people think they are more than others and they could eventualy think that they are more than me. Unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×