Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tipitaka]

Nobody but me holds legitimate claim to my life, liberty, property, or possessions. Not government leaders, not Gods, not my parents, not the clubs I subscribe to, not any political party or religious organization; nobody but me, myself, and I.

However, there are illegitimate claims resulting in de-facto slavery.

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, there are no legitimate claims on my self ownership. Period. Choosing not to die at the hands of the robber is not the same thing as consenting to be robbed.

I just said there were no legitimate claims. And then I noted a fact, that illegitimate claims had been made. And then in the part you didn't quote me on, I said that fighting those illegitimate claims. What's the problem here?

[MamaLiberty]

However, there are illegitimate claims resulting in de-facto slavery.

I just said there were no legitimate claims. And then I noted a fact, that illegitimate claims had been made. And then in the part you didn't quote me on, I said that fighting those illegitimate claims. What's the problem here?
[/quote]

Sorry, read that as "legitimate claims."  This whole subject gets crazy... sigh

[Tipitaka]

However, there are illegitimate claims resulting in de-facto slavery.

I just said there were no legitimate claims. And then I noted a fact, that illegitimate claims had been made. And then in the part you didn't quote me on, I said that fighting those illegitimate claims. What's the problem here?

Sorry, read that as "legitimate claims."  This whole subject gets crazy... sigh
[/quote]

It's okay, I was just trying to understand why you were upset with what I said.

[Currawong]

Contrary to popular belief I do not make statements just for the sake.
The principal reason for my contention that the State owns me is due to the fact that it has all my personal information
and records.
In exactly the same manner we 'own' bits of each other or rather we allow others to 'own' bits
of us in the sharing of info.
The State holds a version of our identity which it thinks it knows us by and sadly and consequently thinks
it 'owns' us by. This tragic state of affairs is the result of us volunteering said information or being made to give it.
If we have to give information under force or in any other coercive way then indeed we are living under a form of
totalitarianism, tyranny or dictatorial rule. The rule is certainly unfree.

Although we may feel self ownership this is a pipedream I'm afraid. All we may be referring to is our own sense
of self ownership but the State has our identity. What are we to do about that? Here in the UK there is a Freedom of
Information Act which I know about but have not studied in great enough detail in order to get ALL of myself back
from the State, build it high in the garden and set alight to it. Only then will my spirit, my identity and my ownership
 feel free. I'm not dealing with some popcorn in the sky ideal but am resolving a problem of my identity and
my ownership of me.
People go beneath the radar for their own reasons but I bet one of them is that wonderful knowledge that perhaps
no one knows where you are. I've done it so I speak of experience.

''Who owns you?'' is a bigger animal than we realise. It's a whole herd of related animals that range through
the grasslands and habitats of our minds and lives.
Tell me what you see.

[MamaLiberty]

Contrary to popular belief I do not make statements just for the sake.
The principal reason for my contention that the State owns me is due to the fact that it has all my personal information
and records.

You just seem to have a different definition of "ownership." I totally and completely reject your definition, that's all. My "sense" of self ownership is the only thing that is important. Even though it is wonderful when others recognize and respect it, that is not necessary for it to exist. I think you would agree that people must be responsible for their choices and actions, to live with the consequences without theft or other aggression against others... but that is only possible with self owners. Self ownership is the flip side of the coin. There has to be both sides, ownership and responsibility.

It does not require a perfect world, or the absence of aggressors. Self ownership/responsibility is the REASON I reject and resist the imperfect world and the aggressors. If I didn't believe I owned myself, was responsible for myself, I wouldn't care and it wouldn't matter.

[Currawong]

The question is bigger than how it has so far been addressed for it involves what we mean be such things as autonomy, one's relationship with the State and race memory/history.
Choices and their responsibility and their relevance to being a 'self owner' appear to me to be too simple a correlation.
It may be argued that from these two important aspects of our lives flow that which we make happen; the
consequences and results of our actions.
But it is what lies at the heart of and behind our reasoning to act in the way we do that motivates my life.
For me it is ''Where am I coming from?'' rather than ''Where am I going?''.

Yes, our definitions are certainly different but so our historical mindsets: mine an old hierarchical European
system and yours a modern, young frontierism.
I respect the difference and it's outcomes for us both.
Blessings.

[MamaLiberty]

No problem. As long as you don't try to impose that definition on me, we can agree to disagree.

If I do not have a goal, a motivation for what lies ahead, I have absolutely no reason to give a damn about the past. The past is the experience needed to build the future. They are both important, but we live only in the now, which inexorably is building the future... It is impossible to actually live in the past.

[mouse]

I've been reading this thread for some time but now I've just got to "wade in" with my view.  Yes, the state DOES "own" you (at least your body).  Albeit illegitimately (they have TAKEN ownership by force and you had no choice in that, you didn't "sell" or "give" ownership) but state ownership of your body exists as a practical fact.  Short of leaving "society" and living out your life in the wilderness, "living off the land", there is nothing you can do about it.

This "ownership" (of YOU at least, not your body) ends when you die.  Then you go to the rightful owner - Christ.  However, the state still has control over your body - they can, and do, demand that your death be "registered", tribute paid to them for the privilege of "death registration", and they claim the right to do with the body what they like, i.e. "the rules" with regard to disposal must be adhered to.  At the moment your relatives have the final "say" with regard to organ donation, but the state will soon take over this role.  The state has already made it clear that they can "trump" what ever a relative says about what happens to a body.  The relative can "have a say" that is about the extent of it, the state will make the decision.

When you were in utero your mother "owned you" but the minute you were born, the state TOOK you.  Your parents gave their consent to this (OK, they were tricked into doing so) by the fact that they "registered" you with the state and accepted any help that state agencies had to offer "for a new born bady".

Why do you think that the state "throws its weight around" with regard to vaccinations, "child health" and "over-rules" parents where the state thinks that the child "needs" medical treatments like chemotherapy?  The state always has the "final say".  The state thinks it has the right to TAKE (back?) children "will nilly" if the state's will with regard to the child is not being adhered to.

The state thinks it has the right to demand that you "go to school" and be indoctrinated with their beliefs.  If they didn't think that they "owned" you they would not be able or want to "mould you" into being an "obedient unit".

When you grow up the state thinks that it has a right to conscript its own property into the military, demand that its own property "obey he rules" of society (ie drive at the "speed limit, don't smoke pot etc.).  The state thinks that it has the right to "number its own property" (SSNs), issue ID cards (real ID) to keep track of it's property, and the state simply cannot let its slaves start getting "uppity", owning guns, using them to "get their way" and "get the state off their back", taking things (like land or rainwater - things that rightfully belong to the state) and getting the idea that can have control over them.

So the state DOES own you whether it it legitimate or not, moral or not, it is an existing fact.  Not because we have given our consent or “allowed it” but because the state has a monopoly on violence, it has force on its side and it TAKES what it wants.  Also this happens because there are so many people out there who think that it is a good thing that the state has these powers and even think that these state powers were somehow divinely delegated to them.

The biggest obstacle we who believe in freedom face is convincing others who believe in “the divine right of the state” that there’s nothing “divine” about the state at all.  I’ve even heard “God delegated some of his powers to the king, but we no longer have a king as parliament has taken over but parliament has these delegated powers because they got them off the king (the execution of king Charles the first in 1649 and “parliament taking over his powers” - or substitute the word "president" for "parliament").  Others believe that state has powers over people – ownership “because Romans 13 says so”.  These people are the biggest “enemies of freedom”, not “the state” itself because “the state” is made up of state employees who are not very bright, just bright enough to “do what they’re told” and know that their livelihood “comes from the state” (they don’t even realise that it actually comes from the people) and their allegiance would soon change if that paycheque were to stop coming.

The state even has the final say over what name you will have.  If your parents want to call you something "totally unreasonable", the state will "over rule" it.  The state believes it has the right to imprison you "at will", execute you, make you work (sentence you to "hard labour"), force you to "pay taxes" and therefore work to get the money, to make you "fight for your country" (ie "the state").  Now they believe that they have the right to "regulate" your medical care (Obamacare) because your body really belongs to "us" -the state, not you.

The only way to assert real self ownership is if someone is born in a remote location, never "registered" with the state, never requires "proof of ID" of any sort and dies without the state knowing about their existence.

God is probably laughing about all this and thinking "how can they really think they own my people?  It is ridiculous".  It may not be a "fact" as such, but state ownership does exist because so many people believe that it does.

[MamaLiberty]

Well, mouse, we can agree to disagree as well.  Again, I think there's a difference in the definition of ownership.

Control is not the same as ownership. If a thief steals your horse and rides away, the ownership of the horse remains in your hands. If you sell it or give it away, then the ownership is transfered. If someone burns down your house, don't you still own it? If someone holds you captive, you are no less a human being than before. Human beings own themselves, no matter what situation they are in, or what others may do. 

The prisoner in the deepest dungeon continues to own his body and soul. We own ourselves as long as we live, and we can't really get out of that responsibility by insisting that the "state" somehow owns us because "we" - society in general - allow it to abuse us. That rejection of responsibility is one of the greatest things that allows the state to continue, actually.

Parents do not "own" their children either. They take on responsibility for them over a limited time, but are only custodians. They own themselves, period.

And the creator of the universe doesn't own us either. We can say we give our life/soul away if we choose, but we still have the choice, and responsibility.

[mouse]

Well, mouse, we can agree to disagree as well.  Again, I think there's a difference in the definition of ownership.

Control is not the same as ownership. If a thief steals your horse and rides away, the ownership of the horse remains in your hands. If you sell it or give it away, then the ownership is transfered. If someone burns down your house, don't you still own it? If someone holds you captive, you are no less a human being than before. Human beings own themselves, no matter what situation they are in, or what others may do. 

The prisoner in the deepest dungeon continues to own his body and soul. We own ourselves as long as we live, and we can't really get out of that responsibility by insisting that the "state" somehow owns us because "we" - society in general - allow it to abuse us. That rejection of responsibility is one of the greatest things that allows the state to continue, actually.

Parents do not "own" their children either. They take on responsibility for them over a limited time, but are only custodians. They own themselves, period.

And the creator of the universe doesn't own us either. We can say we give our life/soul away if we choose, but we still have the choice, and responsibility.

"Ownership" of something is only a reality if the owner can use it, or see it, or do with it what ever he wants.  If someone steals your horse (like in your analogy) you cannot call the horse and expect it to come - it will not hear you.  You cannot ride it as someone has taken it away and you cannot even feed it because it is not there to see the food or eat it.  Sure you still "own" it, THEORETICALLY, but what good is that if (say) you advertise it for sale and I agree to buy it and go to see it but you say "you cannot have it because someone stole it"?

As for "if someone burns down your house, don't you still own it".  Well maybe you own the ashes of the house, but you no longer own a house, it is not there any more, it has been destroyed.  You no longer have a house, you no longer own a house, you cannot live in ashes or sell ashes as a house.

"The prisoner in the deepest dungeon continues to own his body and soul", sure he continues to own his soul, but not his body.  His body can be violated at any time, he can be "force fed" anything he doesn't want to eat, his body can be subjected to any form of "experimentation" or abuse that his captors want it to be, his body can be forcibly tattooed, marked, scarred or damaged by forced labour or the like and there is nothing he can do about it.  How is that "ownership"?

[MamaLiberty]

Well, you folks use your definition, and I'll use mine. Seems sad to me, but it's your life.

[RagnarDanneskjold]

I am constantly amazed at the arguments I get on Facebook from libertarians and voluntarists about the concept of self ownership in general. The same with the idea of "rights". The 2 are intertwined, of course.

[Currawong]

Yeah,great isn't it. Just shows the avid interest angle. Of course it is about rights too but what always gets me is State interference and
control. I reckon most people hate those daily messing about with one's rights.

[Elias Alias]

I am constantly amazed at the arguments I get on Facebook from libertarians and voluntarists about the concept of self ownership in general. The same with the idea of "rights". The 2 are intertwined, of course.

Ragnar, check out this dissertation on self-ownership:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpcfZzx8xY0

Salute!
Elias Alias

[MamaLiberty]

One of my recent blog posts. Someone made the top statement, and this was my response.

This is a Public Service Announcement
Posted on February 3, 2014 by MamaLiberty   

“EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS THE RIGHT TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON”

Correction:

Every human being (or sentient being, if you want to get technical) has the absolute, inalienable AUTHORITY of self ownership, which includes the use of any tool whatsoever, for any purpose whatsoever. Every self owning individual ALSO has the absolute and inalienable AUTHORITY to defend themselves, by any means he/she finds necessary, from any other individual who offers credible threat of great harm or death.

No person or group of persons has any legitimate authority to decide anything different for any other individual.

This isn’t limited to “Americans,” and it isn’t limited to “concealed weapons” or even guns.

Just so you know… if you even wondered.