Self-ownership

[Mavorpen]

Your life motto, I take it?

Well, you're the one who ingored my posts.

And you're surprised by this?

[Korouse]

I'll concede that point but that doesn't mean selling oneself into slavery must be legal.

Why would you concede something that doesn't make any sense?

It's a hypothetical - in theory, someone can do it.

[Arkolon]

You ARE your person but you OWN yourself. That is what I'm trying to say here.

No, because that doesn't make sense. A person is not a relationship between people. That's nonsense.

A person is made existent with the body, as I said in the OP. As such, the body belongs to the person.

I love how the liberal left will defend the legalisation of marijuana on the basis that it's "my body, my choice!" but as soon as we use this exact same logic anywhere else it immediately becomes reprehensible.

Firstly, this seems irrelevant.
Secondly, I'm not a liberal. Those people are generally all about the "self-ownership" nonsense.

So how do you justify the legalisation of marijuana in your ... views? What are you, by the way?

[Arkolon]

You ARE your person but you OWN yourself. That is what I'm trying to say here.

I love how the liberal left will defend the legalisation of marijuana on the basis that it's "my body, my choice!" but as soon as we use this exact same logic anywhere else it immediately becomes reprehensible.

There is utility in being stoned, man.

A net positive utility of 420, dude.

[Camelza]

The monarchy was "ceremonial", as was the role of the ten archons, ie; Britain may be de-jure a monarchy but in reality is a crowned republic.
As such, Athens was de-jure a monarchy, but de-facto it was the attrocity I described in my other post.

It was, if anything, an oligarchy where the tyranny of majority ruled. Only under demarchy did some power shift from the oligarchs to the populace.

One fault I think can be attributed to Socrates was that he still decried the tyranny of the majority and preferred the "monarchy," when in fact under the monarchy he wouldn't have the liberty to speak for himself, or the multiple chances he had to amend or leave his situation.

Socrates(and by "Socrates" i presume you mean Plato's works: "Symposium" and "The Republic") advocated a meritocratic/technocratic authoritarian republic, not a monarchy. However, while "authoritarian" sounds bad in our age ,his works set the basis for representative democracies, the concept of human, civic and civil rights and basically what we refer to as "western societies".

[Arkolon]

Your life motto, I take it?

Well, you're the one who ingored my posts.

I make one-to-three points in every post I make. If you give me a vague answer, I will not know what you mean. Not to mention that English is not my first language, and have only been able to speak it for about nine years soon. If there was a problem, point me to exactly where the problem was, and then tell me what your exact problem with it is.

[WestRedMaple]

Correct, it cannot.

Whether that would be acceptable is a matter of personal opinion. I would argue no. It doesn't benefit any rights, though. There is no right to the labor of or ownership of others.

Slavery exists because some people don't care as much about the rights of others as they care about satisfying their greed

So you aren't arguing on a utilitarian principle, beyond the subjectivity of morality.

Likewise, I'd argue that under no circumstance is slavery acceptable, except when it's voluntary, non coercive slavery. African slaves were treated better than Roman slaves, but it doesn't expunge the fact that their self ownership was violated.

I'm discussing rights. Utilitarian principles are largely irrelevant to that. Likewise, morality doesn't have that much to do with it. Some people think violating rights can be moral. I disagree. Those are both just opinions about it

[Trotskylvania]

The point is that a person is a legal entity.
My person owns my human, but does not own itself as that would be nonsense.

Given that the OP starts all philosophical, i'm guessing this debate is focussed on persons not complex protein amalgamates.

You ARE your person but you OWN yourself. That is what I'm trying to say here.

I love how the liberal left will defend the legalisation of marijuana on the basis that it's "my body, my choice!" but as soon as we use this exact same logic anywhere else it immediately becomes reprehensible.

Because your choice to sell yourself into slavery affects more than just you. Supporting the institution of slavery and contributing to its perpetuation has massive consequences for the body politic. It is a cancer on the polity that brings destruction, despotism and pain with it. Legitimating slavery and forced labor is the short path to banana republics and caudillos.

[Camelza]

Well, you're the one who ingored my posts.

And you're surprised by this?

Not as much as I am with my will to continue "debating" in this thread.

[WestRedMaple]

It was, if anything, an oligarchy where the tyranny of majority ruled. Only under demarchy did some power shift from the oligarchs to the populace.

One fault I think can be attributed to Socrates was that he still decried the tyranny of the majority and preferred the "monarchy," when in fact under the monarchy he wouldn't have the liberty to speak for himself, or the multiple chances he had to amend or leave his situation.

Socrates(and by "Socrates" i presume you mean Plato's works: "Symposium" and "The Republic") advocated a meritocratic/technocratic authoritarian republic, not a monarchy. However, while "authoritarian" sounds bad in our age ,his works set the basis for representative democracies, the concept of human, civic and civil rights and basically what we refer to as "western societies".

Odd, isn't it, that authoritarianism is practically considered a dirty word, and yet is the most popular

[Arkolon]

You ARE your person but you OWN yourself. That is what I'm trying to say here.

I love how the liberal left will defend the legalisation of marijuana on the basis that it's "my body, my choice!" but as soon as we use this exact same logic anywhere else it immediately becomes reprehensible.

Because your choice to sell yourself into slavery affects more than just you. Supporting the institution of slavery and contributing to its perpetuation has massive consequences for the body politic. It is a cancer on the polity that brings destruction, despotism and pain with it. Legitimating slavery and forced labor is the short path to banana republics and caudillos.

Why would someone sell themselves into slavery?

[Camelza]

Well, you're the one who ingored my posts.

I make one-to-three points in every post I make. If you give me a vague answer, I will not know what you mean. Not to mention that English is not my first language, and have only been able to speak it for about nine years soon. If there was a problem, point me to exactly where the problem was, and then tell me what your exact problem with it is.

That you completely ingored entire posts of mine that were responding to your posts.

[Geilinor]

Socrates(and by "Socrates" i presume you mean Plato's works: "Symposium" and "The Republic") advocated a meritocratic/technocratic authoritarian republic, not a monarchy. However, while "authoritarian" sounds bad in our age ,his works set the basis for representative democracies, the concept of human, civic and civil rights and basically what we refer to as "western societies".

Odd, isn't it, that authoritarianism is practically considered a dirty word, and yet is the most popular

Dictator wasn't a dirty word back in Roman times. Now it is.

[Camelza]

Socrates(and by "Socrates" i presume you mean Plato's works: "Symposium" and "The Republic") advocated a meritocratic/technocratic authoritarian republic, not a monarchy. However, while "authoritarian" sounds bad in our age ,his works set the basis for representative democracies, the concept of human, civic and civil rights and basically what we refer to as "western societies".

Odd, isn't it, that authoritarianism is practically considered a dirty word, and yet is the most popular

No it is not; Plato's system was pretty much a stalinist state, a dystopia that would be considered despicable today, however humans took the good aspects of that dystopic state and developed an entirely new concept; liberal democracies.

[Mavorpen]

And you're surprised by this?

Not as much as I am with my will to continue "debating" in this thread.

This is how threads about libertarianism always end.

1) Libertarian makes stupid straw men about intricate and deeply thought out philosophies.
2) People rightfully tear down these straw men and attack the blatant contradictions in their ideology
3) Libertarian ignores these points, shouts something about "LIBERULLLLS!"
4) People point out that they haven't addressed their point
5) Libertarian repeats "taxation is slavery!" like a mantra
6) People again point out that they haven't addressed their point.

And 5 and 6 is recycled over and over.

[Trotskylvania]

Because your choice to sell yourself into slavery affects more than just you. Supporting the institution of slavery and contributing to its perpetuation has massive consequences for the body politic. It is a cancer on the polity that brings destruction, despotism and pain with it. Legitimating slavery and forced labor is the short path to banana republics and caudillos.

Why would someone sell themselves into slavery?

Because your libertarian state, without a welfare state, has left them no other choice to sustain their existence. Or because they signed an agreement believing that they would be able to live up to their repayment terms, and because of ill fortune have been forced to by the terms of their contract.

[Salandriagado]

What utter tripe. I had doubts about selling off some old books last week. That didn't stop the sale from being voluntary.

Were you coerced into doing so? Did someone make you sign a contract that forced you to sell those books?

No. I simply did it, whilst having doubts about it. This idea that doubts stop something from being voluntary is utterly stupid.

[Conscentia]

No, because that doesn't make sense. A person is not a relationship between people. That's nonsense.

A person is made existent with the body, as I said in the OP. As such, the body belongs to the person.

Persons are a legal entity. Humans are generally speaking recognised as persons under law. The flesh then becomes the personal property of the person, but's not the flesh owning itself. It's the person owning the flesh. There is a distinction between physical reality, and our social constructs.

Firstly, this seems irrelevant.
Secondly, I'm not a liberal. Those people are generally all about the "self-ownership" nonsense.

So how do you justify the legalisation of marijuana in your ... views? What are you, by the way?

I don't necessarily. Why would you assume I do?
I justify the use of it's active ingredients for the medical utility, which is already done to some extent.
My position of legalisation of recreational use is more complicated, and it also happens to be irrelevant.

What do you mean "what are you, by the way?"?

[Arkolon]

I make one-to-three points in every post I make. If you give me a vague answer, I will not know what you mean. Not to mention that English is not my first language, and have only been able to speak it for about nine years soon. If there was a problem, point me to exactly where the problem was, and then tell me what your exact problem with it is.

That you completely ingored entire posts of mine that were responding to your posts.

It's half past three in the morning and I'm trying to post on different threads at the same time. If you want me to answer you now, quote the post I missed out. To err is human, after all.

[The Liberated Territories]

It was, if anything, an oligarchy where the tyranny of majority ruled. Only under demarchy did some power shift from the oligarchs to the populace.

One fault I think can be attributed to Socrates was that he still decried the tyranny of the majority and preferred the "monarchy," when in fact under the monarchy he wouldn't have the liberty to speak for himself, or the multiple chances he had to amend or leave his situation.

Socrates(and by "Socrates" i presume you mean Plato's works: "Symposium" and "The Republic") advocated a meritocratic/technocratic authoritarian republic, not a monarchy. However, while "authoritarian" sounds bad in our age ,his works set the basis for representative democracies, the concept of human, civic and civil rights and basically what we refer to as "western societies".

When I talk about Socrates, I mean the fictional (if we can agree on that) character, and that he preferred the "monarchy" of Athens to the "democracy."

http://books.google.com/books?id=a-h35n ... hy&f=false

What I am saying, is that Socrates as a character was written in the way to support the "republic" even when his actions seemed illogical or contradictory. This was possibly due to Plato's authoritarianism, which doesn't make sense if he painted Socrates as a libertarian character. The author was trying to push the idea that the republic of few was superior to the democracy of many, yet handwaved the liberties given to him under it.

And of course, like I said he placed too much value on the type of government that the actions (what was really relevant in the story), and that makes it contradictory.

[Camelza]

Not as much as I am with my will to continue "debating" in this thread.

This is how threads about libertarianism always end.

1) Libertarian makes stupid straw men about intricate and deeply thought out philosophies.
2) People rightfully tear down these straw men and attack the blatant contradictions in their ideology
3) Libertarian ignores these points, shouts something about "LIBERULLLLS!"
4) People point out that they haven't addressed their point
5) Libertarian repeats "taxation is slavery!" like a mantra
6) People again point out that they haven't addressed their point.
And 5 and 6 is recycled over and over.

Sadly, I can spot similarities with religion threads.

[Salandriagado]

Because your choice to sell yourself into slavery affects more than just you. Supporting the institution of slavery and contributing to its perpetuation has massive consequences for the body politic. It is a cancer on the polity that brings destruction, despotism and pain with it. Legitimating slavery and forced labor is the short path to banana republics and caudillos.

Why would someone sell themselves into slavery?

To pay of debts? To provide money for a starving family?

[The Liberated Territories]

So you aren't arguing on a utilitarian principle, beyond the subjectivity of morality.

Likewise, I'd argue that under no circumstance is slavery acceptable, except when it's voluntary, non coercive slavery. African slaves were treated better than Roman slaves, but it doesn't expunge the fact that their self ownership was violated.

I'm discussing rights. Utilitarian principles are largely irrelevant to that. Likewise, morality doesn't have that much to do with it. Some people think violating rights can be moral. I disagree. Those are both just opinions about it

I agree. That's what I was trying to prove in the first place by using rights.

Anyway, since we come to a conclusion, can you tell me if it is totally consistent to follow up on self ownership by ownership of property?

[Arkolon]

Why would someone sell themselves into slavery?

To pay of debts? To provide money for a starving family?

If I grant you four trillion dollars, and you will then be under my possession, the four trillion dollars equally come under my possession. There is no way to win anything at all from selling yourself into slavery.

[Trotskylvania]

Socrates(and by "Socrates" i presume you mean Plato's works: "Symposium" and "The Republic") advocated a meritocratic/technocratic authoritarian republic, not a monarchy. However, while "authoritarian" sounds bad in our age ,his works set the basis for representative democracies, the concept of human, civic and civil rights and basically what we refer to as "western societies".

When I talk about Socrates, I mean the fictional (if we can agree on that) character, and that he preferred the "monarchy" of Athens to the "democracy."

http://books.google.com/books?id=a-h35n ... hy&f=false

What I am saying, is that Socrates as a character was written in the way to support the "republic" even when his actions seemed illogical or contradictory. This was possibly due to Plato's authoritarianism, which doesn't make sense if he painted Socrates as a libertarian character. The author was trying to push the idea that the republic of few was superior to the democracy of many, yet handwaved the liberties given to him under it.

And of course, like I said he placed too much value on the type of government that the actions (what was really relevant in the story), and that makes it contradictory.

Socrates of the Apology and the Crito isn't depicted as a libertarian character. In the Crito, he argues in favor of the prevailing Athenian communitarian ethic, saying it would be unjust of him to abscond because he disagreed with the boule's verdict (which he goaded them into. As depicted by Plato and Xenophon, it's less of a show trial against an unpopular man and more the suicide by cop of an old man who had some questionable ties to the now deposed Spartan imposed oligarchy.)