Who owns you?

Animals can be owned by humans because they haven't enough or no self consciousness.

 

About 6 or 7 thousand years of recorded history. People come along and talk about natural rights every so often but then society (and its militant wing the government) just up and shows them how wrong they are.

 

So, do you have a rational argument for why, in a natural state, you don't own yourself? Does society own you and, if so, where did this abstract concept get such authority from? Does your theory of rights rely solely on "might makes right"? Nothing deeper than that?

 

Why make it deeper than that when "might makes right" is all there is?

 

That's cool, but what difference does it make that you would say that? Slavery wasn't an underground criminal activity, it was happening in broad daylight and endorsed by the governments and society. If you went back in time and pointed out to all the government officials in South Carolina that the blacks' rights were being infringed, the response would be the same as if someone today complained that the rights of seeing-eye-dogs are being infringed. That response is, what are you talking about, they don't have rights!

I would not say rights are willy-nilly, but I would say they are not objectively, absolutely, inalienable. Look, I would love it if you were right. I think it would be great if the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were exactly what it claims to be. But I am willing to look at the world and acknowledge that that is not true. In the U.S., fortunately, we have the Ninth Amendment that basically defends our right to do whatever we want so long as there isn't a law against it.

What is your basis for "objective justice?" If it's some intrinsic sense of right and wrong, then you're describing a conscience. If your position is that your conscience is the source of people's rights, then why is your conscience better than someone else's?

The delineation is that you will be prosecuted by the government for locking someone in your basement. Who is going to prosecute the U.S. government for locking up enemy combatants in Gitmo? Will another government prosecute us? Will we prosecute ourselves? If so, on what basis?

 

The only fact is that they did fight a war over it, and as a direct result of that war, blacks were recognized as freemen and later as citizens of the U.S. I don't know what point you're trying to make with the reference to other countries, but obviously the U.S. Civil War did not resolve the issue of slavery for all human beings on earth since several countries continued to permit the practice of slavery well after that.

 

Actually, I believe it was people saying that very thing that led to the end of slavery. It was people relying on government to define rights that allowed one human being to own another. There was one camp, slaveowners, saying, "I have the right to own other human beings because some group of politicians wrote down on a piece of paper that I could." Then there was another camp, abolitionists, saying, "It doesn't matter what some schlub writes down on a piece of paper, no human being has the right to own another human being." In the end, the logic of the abolitionists argument won out and the government eventually decided to protect this pre-existing right. There is a logical argument to be made that each human owns their own life. There is no logical argument for one human being taking another human being as property.

So, there's no room in your world for a logical argument concerning self-ownership? It all boils down to an all powerful government that can will "rights" in and out of existence on a whim?

I see. So, in the absence of a government, you would say that someone who claims to have a right to kill a toddler in cold blood has a just as valid an opinion on the matter as someone who recognizes that the toddler's life is his own and that nobody has a right to take it for no reason? Both views are equally valid and logical?

Correction, I may be prosecuted. It isn't a foregone conclusion. If I have successfully locked someone in my basement and the government isn't aware of the situation and doesn't come for them then am I not effectively "the government" as far as that captive is concerned? Wouldn't the government be just as powerless as whatever government (aka organizational structure, which is all a government really is) the Gitmo detainee owes allegiance to? There is effectively no difference. The US government could raid my house and the World Court could prosecute the US for war crimes. It would seem that in your view, my captive only has his rights infringed IF I am prosecuted and the Gitmo detainee only has his rights infringed IF the US government is prosecuted. In those cases, you would have to say that they have no rights while captive and then IF a prosecution materializes then you would retroactively change their previous status from "having no rights" to "having their rights infringed".

The way I see it you can't have it both ways unless you are willing to elevate "government" to some kind of deity status that not only "grants" rights out of thin air but somehow magically keeps these rights intact even when their authority has been sidestepped.

- - - Updated - - -

So, I ask for a third time, does "society" own you?

 

Lincoln always said the war was about saving "the union", not slavery. My point about other countries is that no other country had a war to end slavery, they all did it by peaceful means. The US is unique in ending slavery by war. This is getting off-topic so I'll understand if you don't respond.

 

Only two kinds of people believe this: slaves and slavemasters.

Enjoy.

 

If logic had won the argument, there wouldn't have been a war. But even if logic had been all it took to convince everyone blacks had the right to be free, my point is that the rubber didn't meet the road until society at large bought into that logic.

Sure there's room, after all, I'm part of the society that believes in people's right to be free. I'm just saying that no matter how much I want everyone to have such rights, not everyone has them. The average citizen of North Korea has virtually zero rights, and yes, the N. Korean government can will rights for its citizens in and out of existence on a whim.

I didn't understand this as a response to my question of what is your basis for "objective justice." In the absence of government (or, as you put it, organizational structure), I would say that might makes right. That's not a prescription for success, it's just a description of reality.

I think you missed my point here. The U.S. is holding the Gitmo detainees in broad daylight, just like slave owners had slaves in broad daylight back in the 18th century. There is/was no fear of repercussion or prosecution because there are/were no violations of rights.

But you're the one talking about a set of rights that are somehow written into the code of the universe... THAT evokes thoughts of deity. I believe that some governments simply recognize, protect, and limit or regulate rights (like the U.S.), while other governments "grant" rights (like North Korea). Just because we have it so good in the U.S. doesn't mean everyone does.

 

That a certain right wasn't protected by "society" in the past is not evidence that it didn't exist.

No, I'm asking if there isn't room for the logical argument that a human being rightfully owns their self regardless of some magic words written by a bunch of fat politicians? Do their words have such power that they can defeat logic or do you just not find the idea of self-ownership to be logical?

Aren't you saying that "might makes right" regardless of whether there is a government or not? After all that is where a government gets its power from, the monopoly they claim over the initiation of violence.

I think I'm still missing your point. Are you saying that whether or not someone is having their rights infringed upon is directly decided by whether the people who claim to have a right over them operate in the open or not? That seems quite arbitrary.

If you consider human logic to be written in the code of the universe then, yes, that is what I'm talking about. I don't, however, see how that evokes thoughts of deity.

 

Why is it wrong to disagree with the DOI, or at least your interpretation of it? It's just a piece of paper, written by some people with some ideas.

Aside from that, who is "their Creator?" Under self-ownership, we are our own self-creators.

Lastly, if rights come from another entity, then that entity can take them away. That would contradict the notion, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, that the rights of which they speak are "self-evident" and "unalienable." If God is the source of rights, do you argue that He can't take them away?

- - - Updated - - -

And, yet, it doesn't say "The Creator" it says "their Creator". I don't believe that the difference is negligible.

 

So you would argue that might is right?

 

Nobody owns me. I have an inherent right to myself. I'm inseparable. The concept of self ownership is pointless and redundant. It implies that I'm two separate entities.

 

That is an interesting perspective but I don't see much difference between the statements, "I have an inherent right to myself," and, "I own myself." If one is contradictory then so is the other. To me the two statements are interchangeable especially considering, by argument, the latter statement could be phrased, "I inherently own myself," with 'myself' being classified as everything that makes up the unique entity that is me.

If you read the OP again, I think you'll come away with an idea that I was basically saying, as you say, "I have an inherent right to myself."

 

Someone is always telling me my lot in life. I accept my shortcoming with a smile on my face knowing it will all end someday.

 

Given the overwhelming historical evidence and for all practical purposes, yes.

Be it military might, political might, economic might, ultimately it is those that wield such might that shape society.

Might in and of itself is not a bad thing, in fact, it is a fundamental component of human society.
It is what those who possess it do with it that determines bad or good.

 

More to the point, by your logic it's always a good thing.

Actually, by your logic it is those who possess it who determine that.

 

Not at all.

Might is neither good nor bad.

exactly.

 

You can call it 'government' all you want, but it is really society you are bucking.

Define 'ownership' and then answer your own question.

 

It doesn' matter what you 'believe'. The only thing that counts is 'what is'. Rights are not intrinsic based on some goofball Ayn Rand rhetoric. You don't have any rights outside the society you live in - as the slaves found out 400 years ago.

 

l'm here trying to figure out if it matters. How does it change things if you have a deed to yourself?

 

The natural right to rape, murder and plunder? Those are "natural rights" when you don't have government, aren't they?

But isn't your definition just your own view of what rights we should have?

Every "right" infringes on another "right". Your "right" to own land infringes on my "right" to go freely wherever I want. Your "right" to life" infringes on my "right" to kill people who bug me.

That's just your opinion, and it sounds nice in principal, but it creates differing opinion. Your "natural right" to live in a society without gays infringes on a gay person's "natural right" to get married and live openly gay.

In then end you're just applying a label to make your view of what rights we should have seem more important.

That seems like a pretty unique view of "natural rights"

- - - Updated - - -

I think we are saying the same thing. The reason you can make the contract for the cow is that it is not prescribed by government, and in fact you can enforce it through the government.

 

OK. It doesn't seem like self ownership if they can draft your ass to fight in the jungles or throw you in jail for resisting.

Sure you are. "I certainly do own myself. That is a self-evident truth. All rights are derived from that simple concept." That is simply a statement of your belief as to what rights should be.

I never said it was singular. Sure their can be more than one.

 

That is not what I mean at all. I mean rights come from the consensus of society through the government.

Exactly. Of course. Everyone determines what rights they think we should have for themselves. But of course each individual's views aren't what determines the rights we actually have, because there are conflicting view as to many rights people think we should have.