Self-ownership

[Arkolon]

You people really have a problem with what 100% means.

Do you believe 100% free will exists?

Define free will.

[Camelza]

In governmental land? Allowed to be habited by me since I accept the constitution and laws of my state?

You're in a thread about self-ownership. If you own yourself and you did not give explicit consent to be governed, then the government is trying to "own" you, which is illegitimate. What did you answer in the poll?

I don't believe in the ownership of human beings, including myself.

[The Serbian Empire]

In governmental land? Allowed to be habited by me since I accept the constitution and laws of my state?

You're in a thread about self-ownership. If you own yourself and you did not give explicit consent to be governed, then the government is trying to "own" you, which is illegitimate. What did you answer in the poll?

I hope it wasn't yes.

[Arkolon]

"We".

You've literally hidden behind everyone else in every thread I've been in.

What does this even mean? You do know what a forum is, right? You can't "hide behind" anyone.

If Trotskylvania is the one throwing the punches, you're the one watching him and shouting "Yeah! Yeah! Get him! Man, he sucks!", without even rolling up your sleeves even once.

[Trotskylvania]

Why are we debating this if you don't think anyone would do it?

It's out of principle. Trotskylvania made a strawman assuming I support slavery because I support self-ownership, and I answered it, and now we're here.

No, lets get the record straight.

I argued, correctly, that by accepting the principle of self-ownership, you must thereby accept the legitimacy of slavery. A contention you agreed upon, but attaching provisos to it to sooth your aching conscience, not based on your first principles, but based on consequentialism, running contrary to your libertarian principles. After all, you would have the state interfere with private contracts and property, and prevent creditors from seeking satisfaction in repossessing a person's selfhood, infringing their property and contract rights.

[Arkolon]

You're in a thread about self-ownership. If you own yourself and you did not give explicit consent to be governed, then the government is trying to "own" you, which is illegitimate. What did you answer in the poll?

I don't believe in the ownership of human beings, including myself.

Magical exception card.

So if I chop your arm off, is this legitimate? I mean, nobody owns it, so it's free to take, is it not?

[The Serbian Empire]

More like invisible shackles of slavery. The government's slogan should be "Make Every Man, Woman, and Child a Slave!"

Pretty much.

The nature of government is to enslave everyone that they can. If anything, it makes me feel even more against the government on philosophical ideals.

[Mavorpen]

What does this even mean? You do know what a forum is, right? You can't "hide behind" anyone.

If Trotskylvania is the one throwing the punches, you're the one watching him and shouting "Yeah! Yeah! Get him! Man, he sucks!", without even rolling up your sleeves even once.

When did I ever mention Trotsky? If I wanted to do that, I'd have responded to him directly and said that. Simply stating the fact that "we," understand that this 100% gibberish you're shouting is irrelevant to the main argument being made against you is nowhere near what you're making it out to be.

So again, the hell are you talking about?

[The Serbian Empire]

I don't believe in the ownership of human beings, including myself.

Magical exception card.

So if I chop your arm off, is this legitimate? I mean, nobody owns it, so it's free to take, is it not?

You robbed the state. That's why felony trials are "The State of (fill in the blank) vs. Defendant".

[Great Kleomentia]

It's out of principle. Trotskylvania made a strawman assuming I support slavery because I support self-ownership, and I answered it, and now we're here.

No, lets get the record straight.

I argued, correctly, that by accepting the principle of self-ownership, you must thereby accept the legitimacy of slavery. A contention you agreed upon, but attaching provisos to it to sooth your aching conscience, not based on your first principles, but based on consequentialism, running contrary to your libertarian principles. After all, you would have the state interfere with private contracts and property, and prevent creditors from seeking satisfaction in repossessing a person's selfhood, infringing their property and contract rights.

Owning yourself literally has nothing to do with slavery.

[Arkolon]

It's out of principle. Trotskylvania made a strawman assuming I support slavery because I support self-ownership, and I answered it, and now we're here.

No, lets get the record straight.

I argued, correctly, that by accepting the principle of self-ownership, you must thereby accept the legitimacy of slavery. A contention you agreed upon, but attaching provisos to it to sooth your aching conscience, not based on your first principles, but based on consequentialism, running contrary to your libertarian principles. After all, you would have the state interfere with private contracts and property, and prevent creditors from seeking satisfaction in repossessing a person's selfhood, infringing their property and contract rights.

Where is the consequentialism? And what do you not understand about 100% being a requirement for totally legitimate, totally voluntary slavery?

[Geilinor]

No, lets get the record straight.

I argued, correctly, that by accepting the principle of self-ownership, you must thereby accept the legitimacy of slavery. A contention you agreed upon, but attaching provisos to it to sooth your aching conscience, not based on your first principles, but based on consequentialism, running contrary to your libertarian principles. After all, you would have the state interfere with private contracts and property, and prevent creditors from seeking satisfaction in repossessing a person's selfhood, infringing their property and contract rights.

Owning yourself literally has nothing to do with slavery.

If you own yourself, that means you have the right to sell yourself.

[Trotskylvania]

More like invisible shackles of slavery. The government's slogan should be "Make Every Man, Woman, and Child a Slave!"

Pretty much.

This attitude is repulsively ignorant, and mocks the millions of people around the world who are actual slaves.

[Camelza]

I don't believe in the ownership of human beings, including myself.

Magical exception card.

So if I chop your arm off, is this legitimate? I mean, nobody owns it, so it's free to take, is it not?

That's why I decided to live in a society where it is unacceptable to act in such a way and you would end up in a jail. If I wanted I could live in a jungle and you could come and cut my hand without facing any judicial problems, it would be my mistake.

[Arkolon]

If Trotskylvania is the one throwing the punches, you're the one watching him and shouting "Yeah! Yeah! Get him! Man, he sucks!", without even rolling up your sleeves even once.

When did I ever mention Trotsky? If I wanted to do that, I'd have responded to him directly and said that. Simply stating the fact that "we," understand that this 100% gibberish you're shouting is irrelevant to the main argument being made against you is nowhere near what you're making it out to be.

So again, the hell are you talking about?

What have you contributed to this thread apart from "You're stupid" with alternating synonyms?

[Costa Fierro]

Do you own yourself, NSG?

No. I'm currently on sale for exactly $829.

[Mavorpen]

No, lets get the record straight.

I argued, correctly, that by accepting the principle of self-ownership, you must thereby accept the legitimacy of slavery. A contention you agreed upon, but attaching provisos to it to sooth your aching conscience, not based on your first principles, but based on consequentialism, running contrary to your libertarian principles. After all, you would have the state interfere with private contracts and property, and prevent creditors from seeking satisfaction in repossessing a person's selfhood, infringing their property and contract rights.

Where is the consequentialism? And what do you not understand about 100% being a requirement for totally legitimate, totally voluntary slavery?

This is unbelievable. You don't understand his argument even while having debated him for the entire thread while I get it from reading only two of his posts.

[Arkolon]

Magical exception card.

So if I chop your arm off, is this legitimate? I mean, nobody owns it, so it's free to take, is it not?

That's why I decided to live in a society where it is unacceptable to act in such a way and you would end up in a jail. If I wanted I could live in a jungle and you could come and cut my hand without facing any judicial problems, it would be my mistake.

So if I brought you to an unclaimed jungle and chopped your arm off, you would have NO reason at all to think this is unfair, or not right?

[The Serbian Empire]

Pretty much.

This attitude is repulsively ignorant, and mocks the millions of people around the world who are actual slaves.

The reality is that if we don't follow the government slavemaster's every wish, we can end up in a prison cell for that.

[Great Kleomentia]

Pretty much.

This attitude is repulsively ignorant, and mocks the millions of people around the world who are actual slaves.

Any actual slave who feels mocked by this really has his/her priorities backwards, to say the least.

[Trotskylvania]

No, lets get the record straight.

I argued, correctly, that by accepting the principle of self-ownership, you must thereby accept the legitimacy of slavery. A contention you agreed upon, but attaching provisos to it to sooth your aching conscience, not based on your first principles, but based on consequentialism, running contrary to your libertarian principles. After all, you would have the state interfere with private contracts and property, and prevent creditors from seeking satisfaction in repossessing a person's selfhood, infringing their property and contract rights.

Where is the consequentialism? And what do you not understand about 100% being a requirement for totally legitimate, totally voluntary slavery?

I somehow doubt you feel the same way about other property. You're making a special exception in the case of selling yourself which runs contrary to the fundamental principles of self-ownership because slavery makes you feel icky.

[The Serbian Empire]

This attitude is repulsively ignorant, and mocks the millions of people around the world who are actual slaves.

Any actual slave who feels mocked by this really has his/her priorities backwards, to say the least.

Or is in gilded shackles.

[Great Kleomentia]

This attitude is repulsively ignorant, and mocks the millions of people around the world who are actual slaves.

The reality is that if we don't follow the government slavemaster's every wish, we can end up in a prison cell for that.

You don't even have to not follow their wishes. Generally speaking, authority can do whathever it pleases with you at all times for no reason. Which we see every day.

[Arkolon]

Pretty much.

This attitude is repulsively ignorant, and mocks the millions of people around the world who are actual slaves.

There is more than one definition of slavery. Not all slavery is shackle slavery. Partial slavery is a thing. And even if slavery was the wrong word to use, any of its synonyms could be just as viable as we use slavery now.

[Mavorpen]

When did I ever mention Trotsky? If I wanted to do that, I'd have responded to him directly and said that. Simply stating the fact that "we," understand that this 100% gibberish you're shouting is irrelevant to the main argument being made against you is nowhere near what you're making it out to be.

So again, the hell are you talking about?

What have you contributed to this thread apart from "You're stupid" with alternating synonyms?

More than you, from what I can tell.