Close Topic Options

The Impact Of Ownership

Who owns you? If you own you, then can you do whatever you want? If you say 'yes', then are there circumstances under which you cannot do what you want?

Some societies allow you to make agreements (contracts) with others on either a limited or unlimited basis. These contracts are between you and them. However, the government seems to always want to get involved in the contract between 'you and them' as in marriage, owning a car, etc.

If you marry someone then it is a contract between you and that person, but if you do this through the government then you are giving the government jurisdiction over your marriage, it is almost like a contract between three now.

Consider if you decided to contract by words that you will with someone (like marriage) without doing it by the 'authority' of government, then it is only between the two, so why do most humans involve government? Just to make things more difficult?

Consider other things that we do in life where this may also be true.

What are your thoughts?

Ownership Impact The

I own the "me" inside of me. No one, government or individual, could possibly own my thoughts and feelings -- the inward "me."

The outward "me" is subject to the laws of the land in which I live.

Even in a totally so-called "free" society (which doesn't currently exist, in my opinion), a person can't just do whatever they want. There has to be organization, respect for persons and privacy and property, there has to be Law. Due in large part to the inevitable conflicts that arise between the "me" and the "you." The "We" doesn't always agree.

Mostly, because the government gets involved with *us*. There are laws that must be followed, and hopefully, for the most part, these are just laws and not unjust laws.

In my opinion.
Roz

The Impact Of Ownership History & Civil Business Politics

I own me. But by entering into an agreement with the government, I give them jurisdiction over me and my body. ultimately I have the right to remove myself from its jurisdiction and join another government. Although I have to give up certain liberties when I enter into a civil society, the liberties I retain are better protected. The government interferes with our lives because it is struggling to create an equal environment in which everybodys rights are best protected. If I exit society, I forfeit the benefits and protections the government has provided for me. I am then at the mercy of those who are stronger than me. Human beings, in my opinion, desire to live above all else. If this is so, then it is logical that we as humans allow government to interfere as much as it does because we understand that it provides the best protection of our rights. It may be that one government protects rights better than another, but any protection is better then none. Once the government enters a state of total anarchy, then the citizens should create a new government to replace it. Revolution may depose a tyrannical government, but if it occurs every time the population becomes disgruntled, government would be unable to protect human liberties.

Man perfected by society is the best of all animals; he is the most terrible of all when he lives without law, and without justice.
- Aristotle

Happy holidays

Ownership Impact The

Student, I may have to disagree with you. Before I go ranting and raving, though, I must clarify:

"anarchy" is generally a term used to describe a state of total chaos
"anarchism" is a term used to describe the beliefs held by anarchists (such as myself)

Now then, you did say in your post, "anarchy". This is about "anarchism".

The heart of anarchism, whatever its form (Socio-, Communist, Federalist), is respect for others. If a true anarchict society was built by true anarchists, it would not be a place of total disorder as many believe, but actually a very peaceful and well-organized society.
As for rules and laws, anarchists believe in a true democracy. No true democracy has been implemented as of yet. In America, we live in a Republic under a constitution - this has become the most popular form of government, partially from the American government imposing their views on other sovereign nations. In an anarchict society, suggestions for rules could be brought forth by anybody (probably at a weekly village meeting), but ratification would require either a simple or a 2/3rds majority favor. Whether or not rules would be written down or not is another matter. Anybody in violation of the rules in any way, rather than being imprisoned, would be brought in front of everybody at the village meeting and discussed as a problem. Anybody refusing to adapt to the rules implemented by the majority would be ostracized from that society.

I have written a 5-page essay on anarchism that failed to highlight all aspects of it, so I will not get into further detail. But in a few words, I believe Aristotle and Plato were incorrect in their political beliefs, and the ideal government would indeed be a true democracy were everyone is equal and there are no lords or peasants (which we still have today).

Ownership Impact The

I believe in self-ownership and the reason why I believe in that is extremely well put across in this Flash presentation:

https://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Student, you say you must give up certain liberties if you enter a society? Is that necessarily so? Should it be so? What do you mean by liberties?

Jefferson said - and I quite agree - that "the idea is unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right." (The Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson)

Governments were instituted to provide for the protection of our rights, they do not grant or abolish them.

This, getting to the previous post, is why I believe self-ownership incompatible with democracy. The Founders rejected democracy because they understood history and knew it was a form of government that was incompatible with property rights (which is what self-ownership means).

In a democracy for instance a majority (or a government pretending a majority) could vote to ban your religion, take your money, put you to death, all based on a vote...

A person, I believe, does own themselves and their justly-acquired property and so may do anything they wish with that ownership so long as they do not violate that same self-ownership in others - government therefore exists to provide a force upon which those injured, or in danger of injury, may call. Thus government is no more than the organization of the right to lawful defence.

I also believe a person, as a part of self-ownership, does have the right to contract about their own affairs - to enter into mutual agreements willingly with others. And that a person should be held accountable if they do not keep their part of the bargain.

The presentation above really covers this whole subject regarding self-ownership.


Dubhdara.

The Impact Of Ownership

I also believe in self-ownership, and anarchism (or any true democracy) does not necessarily conflict with this. What anarchism does do is eliminate personal ownership of the means of production and distribution - factories, fleet lines, mines, &e.)

I believe what Student was referring to (correct me if I'm wrong) is Plato's idea of the Social Contract. He argued that there is an unwritten contract between any government and the people who live under it, and that every citizen agrees to the contract by the simply act of agreeing to live under the government.
I disagree with Plato on this because, more often than not, a government makes it prohibitively difficult to leave and move to a different country. For example, Cuba. According to Plato, the people living in Cuba agree to the term's of Cuba's social control simply because they do not leave. However, looking at it from another perspective, when people try to leave from Cuba, they face capture, torture, or being shot.

I also disagree that the people who founded this nation believe in the inalienable right of personal ownership. Many of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence were slave owners. With the expansion the Pilgrim's to form the original 13 colonies, and then the new Federation to expand Westward and eventually form the current government, millions of Indians who occupied this land before we did were forced to leave their homes and move. In the process, buffalo were made extinct when the government decided the best way to move the Indians was to eliminate their food supply.
Even today, religion is largely suppressed. The government now regulates what can and cannot be preached using the broad definition of "hate" crimes. The religious rights of students have often been alienated, and even in recent elections, proof has come forth of many blacks being disenfranchised from the vote.
I believe that I own myself, but I also believe that that right can be stripped from me, and is being stripped from me, by our current government.

The Impact Ownership

I dont think that anyone can own a person inside or out yes there are lwas saying what we can and can not do. Even with those laws we are still free as long as we follow them we can pretty much do anything we choose to do

The Impact Ownership Politics Business Civil & History

Within reason. Do we own anything? Personally I don't think we do it is an illusion of ownership. The same goes for freedom and choice. We are restricted, can I go to work naked? Not unless I want to be arrested for indecent exposure? Can I make the choice, again no. It is not society acceptable. We follow the norms set by society, but who is or what is society?

If you stop and look around you, don't you notice how so automated we are, with what we do, what we buy. Some choose to buy red t-shirts instead of white. Choice or just what is available set by the fashion and retail industry. Just how many others that day chose the same as you?

As for people, people are not chattel. I don't own me I am me. If you are going down that route, does that make parents the owners of their children?