Do You Own Your Own Life?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

If I claim to own my own life then I must also recognize the natural right of self ownership for all people.

If I claim to own my own life then all forms of aggression are immoral: how can I claim to own my life and at the same time contradict the rights of someone else?

If I claim to own my own life then I must be ready to defend myself; I cannot force others to offer me protection against their will because this is aggressive and therefore immoral.

If I claim to own my own life then all interpersonal relationships and associations I make must be voluntary otherwise I am committing an act of aggression.

If I claim to own my own life then I must accept responsibility for all of my actions and decisions I make; outside of being coerced all actions and choices I make are my own.

If I claim to own my own life then I must reject all forms of collectivism because I am an individual suited to my own nature give abilities and talents; though I can identify with certain groups of individuals that share specific traits I am not defined by membership in those groups nor do I owe allegiance to any one group that I identify with.

What does it mean to own your own life?

What are some other consequences of self-ownership?

2

So if all interpersonal relationships must be voluntary,having children is an act of aggression towards the children,since their participation in it was unvoluntary?

3

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
So if all interpersonal relationships must be voluntary,having children is an act of aggression towards the children,since their participation in it was unvoluntary?[/quote]

No. A Child comes about, for the most part, as a voluntary sexual act between a male and a female and therefore becomes the property of those parents until the child decides to take ownership of his or her own life. To call it aggressive is nonsensical since it is by nature an act of production. While it is not voluntary it does not matter since the nature of the relationship is that of ownership.

Children have no rights of their own excepts as the property of their parents. While your child is your property no one else can own your child. That is the only way child rearing can work.

4

…you do not own your life. You sacrifice and make concessions towards this alleged ownership each day. The extent of which may differ from person to person, that’s true enough, but you can’t build a tribe based on this philosophy. A hermit wouldn’t mind, but most humans are social creatures…

5

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So if all interpersonal relationships must be voluntary,having children is an act of aggression towards the children,since their participation in it was unvoluntary?

No. A Child comes about, for the most part, as a voluntary sexual act between a male and a female and therefore becomes the property of those parents until the child decides to take ownership of his or her own life. To call it aggressive is nonsensical since it is by nature an act of production. While it is not voluntary it does not matter since the nature of the relationship is that of ownership.

Children have no rights of their own excepts as the property of their parents. While your child is your property no one else can own your child. That is the only way child rearing can work.[/quote]

You do of course realize how ludicrous that sounds,don’t you?It negates any natural inherent rights one may try to advance as existing.Children as chattel?Tough sell.

6

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you do not own your life. You sacrifice and make concessions towards this alleged ownership each day. The extent of which may differ from person to person, that’s true enough, but you can’t build a tribe based on this philosophy. [/quote]

Why not? I think one can and it is called voluntaryism.

If you live in a residential area or neighborhood, you have formed a “tribe”. You and your neighbor exist through cooperation. A center of power didn’t tell you to move into that neighborhood and “get along”, you (and your neighbor) did it yourself. And what sacrifices did you have to give up to do this? None that I can speak of.

Besides, I don’t have an issue with making sacrifices or concessions if I did it voluntarily.

7

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If I claim to own my own life then I must also recognize the natural right of self ownership for all people.

If I claim to own my own life then all forms of aggression are immoral: how can I claim to own my life and at the same time contradict the rights of someone else?

If I claim to own my own life then I must be ready to defend myself; I cannot force others to offer me protection against their will because this is aggressive and therefore immoral.

If I claim to own my own life then all interpersonal relationships and associations I make must be voluntary otherwise I am committing an act of aggression.

If I claim to own my own life then I must accept responsibility for all of my actions and decisions I make; outside of being coerced all actions and choices I make are my own.

If I claim to own my own life then I must reject all forms of collectivism because I am an individual suited to my own nature give abilities and talents; though I can identify with certain groups of individuals that share specific traits I am not defined by membership in those groups nor do I owe allegiance to any one group that I identify with.

What does it mean to own your own life?

What are some other consequences of self-ownership?[/quote]

Actually, “I think therefore I am”. I think in true self reflection, the only think I can claim is that I own me. I cannot truly say others own themselves. Philosophically, if I decide to give rights to others, that is my prerogative.

8

[quote]Dustin wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…you do not own your life. You sacrifice and make concessions towards this alleged ownership each day. The extent of which may differ from person to person, that’s true enough, but you can’t build a tribe based on this philosophy.

Why not? I think one can and it is called voluntaryism.

If you live in a residential area or neighborhood, you have formed a “tribe”. You and your neighbor exist through cooperation. A center of power didn’t tell you to move into that neighborhood and “get along”, you (and your neighbor) did it yourself. And what sacrifices did you have to give up to do this? None that I can speak of.

Besides, I don’t have an issue with making sacrifices or concessions if I did it voluntarily. [/quote]

…perhaps you still have that option due to your location, but i don’t. I don’t lament the fact i have my ‘ownership of life’ curtailed, but in an urban setting options are limited…

9

…philosophically speaking the notion of ‘ownership of life’ is ridiculous. If anything, life owns you…

10

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…philosophically speaking the notion of ‘ownership of life’ is ridiculous. If anything, life owns you…[/quote]

Actually, society owning you is even more ridiculous. A non-existent collective owning an “intangible”.

11

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…philosophically speaking the notion of ‘ownership of life’ is ridiculous. If anything, life owns you…

Actually, society owning you is even more ridiculous. A non-existent collective owning an “intangible”.[/quote]

…indeed it is, philosophically speaking…

12

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you do not own your life. You sacrifice and make concessions towards this alleged ownership each day. The extent of which may differ from person to person, that’s true enough, but you can’t build a tribe based on this philosophy. A hermit wouldn’t mind, but most humans are social creatures…[/quote]

Tribes are voluntary associations. If they are voluntary then those in them must also own their own lives otherwise no association could have come about at all. How can communal relationships be coercive?

In fact we know that many individuals leave the tribe voluntarily so how can they not own their own life in making this choice?

If you do not own your own life who owns you?

13

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…philosophically speaking the notion of ‘ownership of life’ is ridiculous. If anything, life owns you…[/quote]

Life cannot be an owner. Life is a process not a thing.

Only rational beings are capable of ownership.

14

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So if all interpersonal relationships must be voluntary,having children is an act of aggression towards the children,since their participation in it was unvoluntary?

No. A Child comes about, for the most part, as a voluntary sexual act between a male and a female and therefore becomes the property of those parents until the child decides to take ownership of his or her own life. To call it aggressive is nonsensical since it is by nature an act of production. While it is not voluntary it does not matter since the nature of the relationship is that of ownership.

Children have no rights of their own excepts as the property of their parents. While your child is your property no one else can own your child. That is the only way child rearing can work.

You do of course realize how ludicrous that sounds,don’t you?It negates any natural inherent rights one may try to advance as existing.Children as chattel?Tough sell.[/quote]

No. Children cannot own their own lives; one requirement, as was already stated, is that a person who claims to own themself must be responsible for their own actions. A child cannot take responsibility for their own actions. This is why they are technically understood as the property of their own parents.

Consequently, they have no rights except as the property of their parents. Their parent raise them and care for them until they can take care of themselves when they inherently become their own owners.

Thus is the way all humans come into adulthood.

15

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So if all interpersonal relationships must be voluntary,having children is an act of aggression towards the children,since their participation in it was unvoluntary?

No. A Child comes about, for the most part, as a voluntary sexual act between a male and a female and therefore becomes the property of those parents until the child decides to take ownership of his or her own life. To call it aggressive is nonsensical since it is by nature an act of production. While it is not voluntary it does not matter since the nature of the relationship is that of ownership.

Children have no rights of their own excepts as the property of their parents. While your child is your property no one else can own your child. That is the only way child rearing can work.

You do of course realize how ludicrous that sounds,don’t you?It negates any natural inherent rights one may try to advance as existing.Children as chattel?Tough sell.

No. Children cannot own their own lives; one requirement, as was already stated, is that a person who claims to own themself must be responsible for their own actions. A child cannot take responsibility for their own actions. This is why they are technically understood as the property of their own parents.

Consequently, they have no rights except as the property of their parents. Their parent raise them and care for them until they can take care of themselves when they inherently become their own owners.

Thus is the way all humans come into adulthood.[/quote]

Who determines the entry into adulthood then?Other ‘adult human beings’,obviously(parents,society?).So then your right to ownership of your life is a ‘right’ given to you by others,not inherent in your very existence.So as you have explained it,your right to ‘self ownership’ starts off already reliant or dependent on the whims of others for its existence and validation.

Not a particularly solid position,logically or by most other measures.While as a child you may be able to argue a state of stewardship under parental care,the complete lack of rights and position of the child as nothing more than goods under ownership till some magical process comes about where the rights are then bequeathed upon the child by some mechanism from without,is frankly repugnant and complete bollocks.

16

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…you do not own your life. You sacrifice and make concessions towards this alleged ownership each day. The extent of which may differ from person to person, that’s true enough, but you can’t build a tribe based on this philosophy. A hermit wouldn’t mind, but most humans are social creatures…

Tribes are voluntary associations. If they are voluntary then those in them must also own their own lives otherwise no association could have come about at all. How can communal relationships be coercive?

In fact we know that many individuals leave the tribe voluntarily so how can they not own their own life in making this choice?

If you do not own your own life who owns you?[/quote]

Well,as you put it,when you are young,your parents own you.So you are obviously born a slave then,by your reckoning.The mechanisms of obtaining emancipation,if one even ever could in some cases,remain hidden.Since we are born with no rights,and all that.

17

Yes, I own my life. And about 20 others. Might pick up another this weekend if I spot a good deal.

18

Does the gazelle own it’s own life? How about when the leopard has it by the throat? Why’s it any different for man? You don’t really own your life so much as the strong, the more numerous, allow you to use it. But, in reality others could own it, and even dispose of it.

19

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yes, I own my life. And about 20 others. Might pick up another this weekend if I spot a good deal.[/quote]

If you find some that are out of your price range,but would really like to own,I’ll willingly split the costs with you.Like timeshare.

20

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…you do not own your life. You sacrifice and make concessions towards this alleged ownership each day. The extent of which may differ from person to person, that’s true enough, but you can’t build a tribe based on this philosophy. A hermit wouldn’t mind, but most humans are social creatures…

Tribes are voluntary associations. If they are voluntary then those in them must also own their own lives otherwise no association could have come about at all. How can communal relationships be coercive?

In fact we know that many individuals leave the tribe voluntarily so how can they not own their own life in making this choice?

If you do not own your own life who owns you?[/quote]

Are Property Rights Enough?
Should libertarians care about cultural values? A reason debate.

Libertarians traditionally have viewed coercion, especially when institutionalized in the form of government, as the main threat to freedom. But cultural pressures outside the state also can restrict peopleâ??s ability to live as they please. Is that another limit on liberty worth criticizing, or is it a function of voluntary choices?