Does every person own themselves?

What is a person? Is it a soul or a body? Does a soul exist - if it did would it have a different owner?

Does 'own' meaning control? Are most people in control of themselves? Or are they owned by News outlets, advertising agencies, marketing and products? Or political ideologies?

Is it different for different people and classes? Are some people in the third world owned by the West? Are the working class owned by the Capitalists?

We need more data - the answer is undeniably 'no' but we need to know WHY.....

I need to know what "own" is. Do children own themselves? They have to do what their guardians says. People that are incarcerated aren't free. Does the state own them? They still have some individual rights.

What about DNA? Wasn't there a court ruling where an individual's DNA was patented by a company?

We'll admit that "own" is an ambiguous word here... but...
The answer depends on the laws governing the political entity of which you are a member.

Why? Why do we have to obey such laws? What gives someone the right to pass a law regarding ownership of someone else?

If you accept - as I do - that everyone is existentially (ie over and above any laws) an equal and no-one is born 'better' or 'higher' than anyone else for any reason then how can this position be true?

Because, right or wrong, we live within the societies we create... and we have created various rules within those societies.

I didn't mean to imply that it was morally correct... just that that's the way it is.

Now... If you want to live in fantasy-land... then sure, you are the master of your own destiny!

But I was thinking the original poster was asking a more metaphysical/philosophical question but I could be wrong.

If he is though then the above does not apply because it is not a natural state - we were not like that in the caves or for the vast part - millions of years as opposed to say, around 5000 years - of our history.

Does every person own themselves?

Yes.

Does this mean every person is free from external influences or environment?

No.

NEXT...........

Seems odd....I've seen you get owned here on a daily basis Trumpy....

Leave the bedroom out of this Sego.

Remember I told you the hot chat costs extra and there isn't much left on your credit limit.

+1 :d

If people did really own themselves, wouldn't they be allowed to take drugs if they like? Or commit suicide? So, no - there is only limited ownership of your own body.

Maybe they start off owning themselves but sell themselves and all associated rights into slavery ?

Everything has two aspects: an enslaving aspect and freeing aspect.

You have a religion that can free you and a religion that can enslave you. Politics that can free you and politics that can enslave you. Ideas that can free you and ideas that can enslave you.

But the trick is that they are the SAME ideas, the SAME religion - there is no 'good' or 'bad' aspect really. It's an illusion. People who want to be free can use things for that. People who want to be enslaved will use the same thing to that end.

All it really comes down to is this: if you want to own yourself and think you do then you do.

If you want to be a slave - and most people do, even if unconsciously - then you will make this choice.

That's why some people who want to take drugs do so....and others who 'respect the law' don't.

They can't do it if you don't give them permission though - that's my point.

There are many forms of this permission: 'the ballot box', 'democracy', 'God', 'tradition and patriotism'.

I see them as like aliases on the desktop that used to point to something real but that somehow got changed to a contract where you sign away your life if you click it.

But it's obvious and many people see through it - you and me for instance - it's not hard. Those who want to uphold the status quo do so because they actually don't want the responsibility of being free. That's just my opinion though....if they were to be individuals then it requires an ongoing commitment of effort and thought as well as other things....some people just can't be bothered and want their simple material life.

Is fair enough.

No, we are born into slavery. Only the very rich have the capability to renounce their citizenship and become worldwide nomads that own themselves, everybody else is shackled to the invasive laws of the state that they live in.

The western nations have the greatest chance of becoming free - most of the laws that the US has that violate the whole "you own your own body" concept come from Christianity. Trying to enforce religious moral code via the legal system results in you not owning your own body. You should be allowed to do anything to yourself that does not hurt anyone else.

Luckily, religion is dying here - there are 10% fewer religious people than there were 10 years ago, and 6% more atheists. A similar generational change occurred in Quebec in the 1980s - the church used to run everything, and then all of a sudden people stopped going and they lost most of their power.

Only to the extent they are conditioned to accept 'the Law'.


I feel you are describing yourself a bit.... you may see everything in terms of money but many people don't. They choose not to even.

Question: do you obey all laws?

If you answer 'no' to that then you invalidate your position as you are not 'shackled to them' if you disobey them. You are free.

And of course you would be choosing to disobey...


Err....ok...right....

The West are the most successfully enslaved - I doubt the mass of people will ever see though it now. They tried in the 60s and they won't get another chance.


I think from a US interpretation of Xianity but I take your point...


True.... religions should never impose anything. Actually they all state this themselves so I guess the people that try to do it are not really religious.


I think you might be a tad overoptimistic.... religion is in no way dying in the US...Islam is rising and I see no sign of Xianity or Christianity waning.

Atheists are getting noisier that's true but this is just a fashion thing by a few B-list 'creative types' and the odd egomaniac 'thinker'

Will soon peter out....at least we'd better hope so or I'll probably be among the first at the stake or firing squad or whatever it is they choose as a leitmotif...torture probably if they appoint Harris as the Witchfinder.


Strange...I thought that Canada had some form of religious revival in this period. Maybe they stopped going to orthodox churches...there are others, you know that right?

But you can only choose to disobey for so long until you are thrown in the brig. At that point are you free? It certain aspects I would say yes but in this sense no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution

I was wrong about the time - it was the 1960s, not the 1980s. Canada is very secular - I grew up in a redneck small town in British Columbia, and only 40 or so (out of 1000) people went to church.

The reason that I think that the west is more free, is that you see more body modification, acceptance of gays, etc, here. Choosing to disobey laws and getting away with it is besides the point - if they catch you they punish you if you use heroin, you are not free to do so, so you don't own that aspect of your body - the government does.

And here is why I think religion is dying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...#ARIS_findings

We are all under GOD'S control.He is the controller of mankind.

Control and ownership are very different.

I agree we are all 'owned' by God but for someone who does not believe in God they would need to argue a different philosophically position.

Personally, even though I do believe in God, I do not accept that we are under God's control as such. Perhaps we are pre-destined to certain things but that is different again.

What if you borrow you friend's car for a month - when you drive it you control it but you do not own it do you?

Conversely, if you own say 50,000 dollars but you know nothing of investment and have committed to a financial scheme where a trusted advisor manages your money on the markets for a set period during which you cannot get it. You own it but do not control it.


I agree with this in the main - a lot depends on one's theological position but from mine 'God' is the thing that has always existed and always will and nothing else shares this characteristic (or else they would also be God). Given that, it is kind of an irrelevance the question of free-will or control - it's more that all created things will pass away regardless of their state and only God will remain so - in a sense - the ownership question is immaterial.

But others will have a different religious view - in any case, it is possibly not relevant to the discussion here and now.

Let's just call this thread what it is. The original poster wants to say that taxes are stealing and government is evil, all predicated on a concept of self-ownership. What the original poster ALWAYS neglects, though, is that if he wants to live in a society, he has a certain responsibility to that society. It has nothing to do with ownership. It has to do with responsibility in exchange for the privilege of living within said society.

The original poster really needs to just go off the grid and become a mountain man already.

People don't own themselves, they own objects, houses, pets and such.

If you want to make an argument against someone harming you, it's not necessary to add your body to the list of things you own, you just need to point out that you have individual rights.

At what stage does responsibility become enslavement?

Should you come to my house and be my servant all because I declare you live in a society, I have unmet needs and darn it, you have a responsibility to meet them?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

You are born. You are free. You have the right to pursue aka engage in action to do what makes you happy. Governments are created to facilitate this, not enslave one party to another.

As for mountain man, and grid, they may end up better off when we can't produce electricity in California due to a tortoise, can't grow food due to a minnow, and have the little you can do taxed and regulated at prohibitive levels.

Straw man straw man silly silly straw man. Straw man straw man not worth responding to.

On this forum, that song might just go platinum.

You read it folks, the Declaration of Independence is a strawman.

The straw man was the idiotic servant comment. Don't be so obtuse.

Yes they do and No they don't. For sure they are stewards of themselves. Whatever the case, spiritually, I believe we do not own ourselves. In the US, we like to think we own ourselves, and at a basic physical level we do as we can reclaim control of ourselves at any time. However, the comments earlier about ownership being predicated by control is only partly right. I think that ownership is predicated by the right to return control of the object in question to ones self. Yes one can loan a car and the control of that car in in the hands of the then steward of the vehicle. But that person is not the owner of said vehicle and at any time the true owner can come and reclaim control rightfully.

Anyhow, not a simple open and shut case, could be an interesting discussion, but I have a feeling it won't be based on what I have seen so far.

It think in the context it was clear I was referring to objects other than your body.


The right not to have physical force initiated against you (the NIF principle as Libertarians would call it). What is it based on? The idea that humans survive by thinking, and violence is antithetical to thought (as Objectivists would say). Not based on "owning" yourself.