Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 275

Thread: Who Owns You?

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Who Owns You?

    The purpose of this thread is to request ideas on phrasing and conversational tactics when asked about my OC’d defensive sidearm.

    Here’s the back story.
    I recently encountered a young woman who was totally bent out of shape with a historic district regulatory agency inflicting demands on how she maintained her home.As a very freedom-minded fella, I saw my chance,and pointed out that it was really a question of ownership—who owns your home? You? The regulatory agency? Or, the tourists who would view your home in the historic district?

    My point penetrated. She hadn’t thought about it before in those terms or from that angle. We had a great conversation; she was very receptive. But, it was on ownership, not OC.

    Later,I realized that the self-ownership angle could really, really penetrate if I could just figure out how to apply it to OC.
    I recalled a youtube anti-smoking ad where a young girl signs away her freedom on a narrow strip of paper that then rolls itself into a cigarette. Wow! That angle really strikes home.


    So,I got to wondering how to apply self-ownership when asked by a stranger in public why I OC.
    The self-defense answer does work—I used it a lot. But, it occurs to me that the self-ownership angle will likely strike home even better.


    Just the other day, I was asked by a fella why I OC’d.
    I almost forgot that I wanted to try the self-ownership angle. But, I did get it in.Man! You could see the wheels turning on his side. But, it was a little bumpy. Not very polished.


    I want to make it even better.
    Thus, this thread.

    Lets say someone asks me about my OCd gun. If I want to promote the self-ownership point, what do I say next? I’m kinda partial to saying, “Well, its really about self-ownership." This will tend to prompt a question, “???”. Then, I would ask, “For example, who owns you?”

    Take it from there fellas. Ideas?
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-19-2015 at 08:23 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    The purpose of this thread is to request ideas on phrasing and conversational tactics when asked about my OC’d defensive sidearm.

    Here’s the back story. I recently encountered a young woman who was totally bent out of shape with a historic district regulatory agency inflicting demands on how she maintained her home. As a very freedom-minded fella, I saw my chance,and pointed out that it was really a question of ownership—who owns your home? You? The regulatory agency? Or, the tourists who would view your home in the historic district?

    My point penetrated. She hadn’t thought about it before in those terms or from that angle. We had a great conversation; she was very receptive. But, it was on ownership, not OC.

    Later,I realized that the self-ownership angle could really, really penetrate if I could just figure out how to apply it to OC. I recalled a youtube anti-smoking ad where a young girl signs away her freedom on a narrow strip of paper that then rolls itself into a cigarette. That angle really strikes home. So,I got to wondering how to apply self-ownership when asked by a stranger in public why I OC. The self-defense angle does work—I used it a lot. But, it occurs to me that the self-ownership angle will likely strike home even better.

    Just the other day, I was asked by a fella why I OC’d. I almost forgot that I wanted to try the self-ownership angle. But, I did get it in. Man! You could see the wheels turning on his side. But, it was a little bumpy. Not very polished. I want to make it even better. Thus, this thread.


    Lets say someone asks me about my OCd gun. I want to promote the self-ownership point, what do I say next? I’m kinda partial to saying, “Well, its really about self-ownership.” This will tend to prompt a question, “???”. Then,I would ask, “For example, who owns you?”

    Take it from there fellas.
    HTH Hope I didn't mess up. But I did read carefully!
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    This is fundamentally an is/ought question. We is owned by who can destroy us. There's a line in Herbert's Dune to that effect.

    We ought, of course, be owned by ourselves by the natural law right to property interest in ourselves.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    I'm not sure I get your point. How do you connect ownership to OC?

  5. #5
    Regular Member FBrinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Henrico, VA
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    The purpose of this thread is to request ideas on phrasing and conversational tactics when asked about my OC’d defensive sidearm.

    Here’s the back story.
    I recently encountered a young woman who was totally bent out of shape with a historic district regulatory agency inflicting demands on how she maintained her home.As a very freedom-minded fella, I saw my chance,and pointed out that it was really a question of ownership—who owns your home? You? The regulatory agency? Or, the tourists who would view your home in the historic district?

    My point penetrated. She hadn’t thought about it before in those terms or from that angle. We had a great conversation; she was very receptive. But, it was on ownership, not OC.

    Later,I realized that the self-ownership angle could really, really penetrate if I could just figure out how to apply it to OC.
    I recalled a youtube anti-smoking ad where a young girl signs away her freedom on a narrow strip of paper that then rolls itself into a cigarette. Wow! That angle really strikes home.


    So,I got to wondering how to apply self-ownership when asked by a stranger in public why I OC.
    The self-defense answer does work—I used it a lot. But, it occurs to me that the self-ownership angle will likely strike home even better.


    Just the other day, I was asked by a fella why I OC’d.
    I almost forgot that I wanted to try the self-ownership angle. But, I did get it in.Man! You could see the wheels turning on his side. But, it was a little bumpy. Not very polished.


    I want to make it even better.
    Thus, this thread.

    Lets say someone asks me about my OCd gun. If I want to promote the self-ownership point, what do I say next? I’m kinda partial to saying, “Well, its really about self-ownership." This will tend to prompt a question, “???”. Then, I would ask, “For example, who owns you?”

    Take it from there fellas. Ideas?
    What did you say?

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    This is fundamentally an is/ought question. We is owned by who can destroy us. There's a line in Herbert's Dune to that effect.

    We ought, of course, be owned by ourselves by the natural law right to property interest in ourselves.
    I think, therefore I am??????

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I'm not sure I get your point. How do you connect ownership to OC?
    That's kinda the core question of this thread.

    Here's the awkward version.

    I own my car. Therefore, if I get angry with it, I can bust up the mirrors, windshield, and tail-lights. Its my car. I can destroy it if I want.

    But, a criminal confronts me, and threatens my body with harm. Now, the only way he can legitimately threaten me with grave bodily injury or death is if he has complete or partial ownership of me. Since I own me, he does not own me. Thus, I am justified in protecting myself by "busting a cap" in him until the threat is ended. Which is just another way of asserting my ownership of myself and exercising that ownership interest.

    Part of what I am trying to do is figure out a very fast way of expressing all that as succinctly as possible to people who ask me about my OC'd gun. What I've definitely noticed is that asking the question, "Who owns you?" brings the recipient to a complete stop. It really, really penetrates.

    I'm trying to figure out a way to capitalize on that.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-19-2015 at 08:56 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    I'm not sure that there is a connection. Maybe in some abstract way. Your question maybe just confuses them and they then don't want to look stupid.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I'm not sure that there is a connection. Maybe in some abstract way. Your question maybe just confuses them and they then don't want to look stupid.
    Oh, there is a connection. I'm trying to figure out a fast, succinct way to present it.

    If you don't own yourself, then you have no standing to defend yourself. If the state (legitimately) owns you, then the state can legitimately say you cannot defend yourself. You would be their property, not your own.

    The same holds true for partial ownership of you. The only way "society" can compel you to turn over some of your produce in the form of taxes is if "society" owns you or owns a part of you. Otherwise, how could "society" demand you use your body to produce value for "society" instead of yourself?

    Same for self-defense. The only way "society" could legitimately interfere with you protecting your body is if "society" was the actual owner of you, or at least partial owner of you. That is to say, if "society" owned enough of you that it could legitimately decide to sacrifice you in the interests of "society's" "greater good".
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-19-2015 at 09:32 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Except for those who lived there before the historic district was created, everyone there signed an agreement to abide by certain covenants. Just like moving into a neighborhood controlled by a HOA. Those agreements to abide by the covenants are considered voluntary because the documents say you had a chance to read and review the covenants and ask clarifying questions before putting your signature at the bottom.

    How many of you really read the legal small print before accepting a computer program? But it's the same thing - by accepting/installing the program you are agreeing to abide by all the mumbo-jumbo contained therein.

    Perhaps a better way of looking at the ownership question s it relates to OC/CC/Self Defense is to look at what, if any covenants are involved.

    CC is easy - read the laws about who can get a permission slip and where you can/cannot employ it.

    OC and Self Defense are a bit more difficult because, as I see things, the covenants are not what you agreed to but what what TPTB have told you they will and will not do. The most often cited is the 5 (count them - five (5)) different SCOTUS rulings that the police have not duty or obligation to protect you except in certain vary narrow and precise circumstances. Having been left out on your own, what options are open to you and which ones do you want to exercise? (Even if I could carry a policeman on my back, he has no duty or obligation to protect me. Lemme see here - 185 pounds on my back or maybe a little over 2 pounds on my hip? And even if I carried a cop on my back and put him down when it came time to defend myself I cannot use him for either concealment or cover. Decisions, decisions.)

    In short, the covenant is that you are on your own - how do you want to handle that?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Except for those who lived there before the historic district was created, everyone there signed an agreement to abide by certain covenants. Just like moving into a neighborhood controlled by a HOA. Those agreements to abide by the covenants are considered voluntary because the documents say you had a chance to read and review the covenants and ask clarifying questions before putting your signature at the bottom.

    How many of you really read the legal small print before accepting a computer program? But it's the same thing - by accepting/installing the program you are agreeing to abide by all the mumbo-jumbo contained therein.

    Perhaps a better way of looking at the ownership question s it relates to OC/CC/Self Defense is to look at what, if any covenants are involved.

    CC is easy - read the laws about who can get a permission slip and where you can/cannot employ it.

    OC and Self Defense are a bit more difficult because, as I see things, the covenants are not what you agreed to but what what TPTB have told you they will and will not do. The most often cited is the 5 (count them - five (5)) different SCOTUS rulings that the police have not duty or obligation to protect you except in certain vary narrow and precise circumstances. Having been left out on your own, what options are open to you and which ones do you want to exercise? (Even if I could carry a policeman on my back, he has no duty or obligation to protect me. Lemme see here - 185 pounds on my back or maybe a little over 2 pounds on my hip? And even if I carried a cop on my back and put him down when it came time to defend myself I cannot use him for either concealment or cover. Decisions, decisions.)

    In short, the covenant is that you are on your own - how do you want to handle that?

    stay safe.
    Thats a convoluted way to try to meld in socialistic social contract theory into a discussion about rights.

    The consitutions of the colonies never granted them the right of self rule.....the king wouldn't have let them form the colonies otherwise.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I'm not sure that there is a connection. Maybe in some abstract way. Your question maybe just confuses them and they then don't want to look stupid.
    It is the connection for all rights. All rights are property rights, property rights originate within ownership of ourselves.

    I used to say all the time when asked why I OC. Because I can. Why can I? Because I own myself.

    The problem many have with pursuing this line of thought is they want to continue the is Nightmare mentioned, the is has become a sliding scale of slavery. The ought which is our goal and which our rights originate from is self ownership no one else owns you. The ought should be the is and the only way to get this to happen is discussion about it, otherwise the is will continue to ramp up the scale of slavery, were others tell us what to do with our property, for example you can't carry a gun or you need permission to do so.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    I like the angle. Unfortunately the premise is flawed as no one owns themselves. We are the property of the Collective.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    How's this; it is the story of Cain and Able writ large across society and history. Cain slew Abel and temporized, "I know not; Am I my brother's keeper?"

    The traditional argument has been that we are indeed all of our brother's keepers ("No man is an island."). Recognizing and accepting this interdependence, greed and self-interest is made a sin. We struggle for independence and self-improvement, while they demand to be made equal.

    Again, this from Aristotle (Politics, Book IV, Ch. 16, from 1301a) paraphrased* from Ancient Greek, "Democracy arose from the idea that those who are equal in any respect are equal absolutely. All are alike free, therefore they claim that all are free absolutely... The next is when the democrats, on the grounds that they are all equal, claim equal participation in everything."

    Here, the equal participation in everything includes the brother's wife (as of Cain and Abel), and wealth, and labor.

    *I have not been able to find the paraphrasing author. My source is 'Sortition' at Wikipedia.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-20-2015 at 07:06 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    ... The traditional argument has been that we are indeed all of our brother's keepers ("No man is an island."). ....
    BS!! Not to you specifically, but to the notion that "no man is a island" generally.

    https://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/island.html

    I prefer to form the premise as "No man wants to be a island if he can avoid it."

    Self reliance does not mandate solitude, but it does mandate a singular focus on self...and sometimes making the though choice to rely only on yourself.

    I am owned by no one, I am controlled by those whom I grant control to, even if that control is to keep breathing cuz da man wants my property as tribute unto Caesar...or else.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    May your fellow 'islanders', and your brothers, make demands of you and against your self-interest? May they demand and take a portion of your life-interest property? Again, differentiate IS from OUGHT.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Thats a convoluted way to try to meld in socialistic social contract theory into a discussion about rights.

    The consitutions of the colonies never granted them the right of self rule.....the king wouldn't have let them form the colonies otherwise.
    http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/...arter-1612.php

    See where self rule fitted in there?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_colony

    New England colonies had ruleswithin their charters under which they were to be governed but the colonies still had "home rule".

    http://www.landofthebrave.info/royal-colonies.htm

    The royal colonies - although the administrative officers were appointed by the king they all had a representative assembly that was elected by the people. Check the pre-revolutionary histories for the times the royal governor and/or his minions were tossed out of office and the king replaced them as opposed to sending the military to reseat them.

    http://www.timepage.org/spl/13colony.html

    Do you read anything about any of the colonies having a "constitution"? Didn't think so.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  18. #18
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    I like the angle. Unfortunately the premise is flawed as no one owns themselves. We are the property of the Collective.
    lol
    ---------------------------------
    One of the most simple arguments establishing self-ownership was simple to deny self-ownership necessarily means that someone else has a higher claim to your life than you. While you might occasionally run into someone that might try to argue that, most people will readily accept (as common sense, or self-evident, or whatever) that no other person has a higher claim to their life than them.

    I think self-defense is ultimately based on self-ownership. That might be one reason self-defense is so readily accepted as justification by reasonable people - they understand, even if they haven't articulated it, that people own themselves and so self-defense makes sense even if they can't explain why.

    If you do not own yourself, you arguably may not have any right to defend yourself.

    It is axiomatic that no one has a higher claim to your life than you. Additionally it is your personal responsibility to defend your life from aggression - you have no claim to demand of others that they provide you with that protection or defense. As long as you don't aggress on others in doing so, you most certainly have a right to acquire property, and seeing as defense of your own life is your own responsibility, it is wise to acquire property that might be used to defend yourself against aggression, or deter aggression from occurring in the first place.
    Advocate freedom please

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Plymouth Plantation was not a colony within the meaning being used here. It was a bunch of lost upstarts who appropriated land belonging to the king who decided having them on this side of the pond was better than arresting them for trespass.

    Connecticut's Fundamental Orders having features similar to a constitution does not make it a constitution.

    "A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed." All well and good except the colonies were either owner by mercantile associations who received a grant from the king or by the crown outright.

    I understand - I think - where you are trying to go. But you can't get there from this argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument .

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/...arter-1612.php

    See where self rule fitted in there?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_colony

    New England colonies had ruleswithin their charters under which they were to be governed but the colonies still had "home rule".

    http://www.landofthebrave.info/royal-colonies.htm

    The royal colonies - although the administrative officers were appointed by the king they all had a representative assembly that was elected by the people. Check the pre-revolutionary histories for the times the royal governor and/or his minions were tossed out of office and the king replaced them as opposed to sending the military to reseat them.

    http://www.timepage.org/spl/13colony.html

    Do you read anything about any of the colonies having a "constitution"? Didn't think so.

    stay safe.
    Sure if you want to narrowly define the word constitution.

    They did indeed have a constitution, its one reason they rebelled.

    It is interesting though that you rant on about semantics instead of countering or rebutting the actual post.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 07-20-2015 at 08:41 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Plymouth Plantation was not a colony within the meaning being used here. It was a bunch of lost upstarts who appropriated land belonging to the king who decided having them on this side of the pond was better than arresting them for trespass.

    Connecticut's Fundamental Orders having features similar to a constitution does not make it a constitution.

    "A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed." All well and good except the colonies were either owner by mercantile associations who received a grant from the king or by the crown outright.

    I understand - I think - where you are trying to go. But you can't get there from this argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument .

    stay safe.
    Actually you are the one who isn't following the logic of the argument by definition fallacy (which you show a definition here that fits the one used by others).

    It matters not whether it was a constitution or a charter or a white rabbit with blood written on it. Did they have the prior agreement to self ownership from the king? Hence having true self rule? NO they did not. If their fellow british citizens followed the british constitution and rights of Englishmen a revolution probably never would have occurred.


    It was also only as so many individuals, each acting for himself, and exercising simply his natural rights, that they revolutionized the constitutional character of their local governments, (so as to exclude the idea of allegiance to Great Britain); changing their forms only as and when their convenience dictated.
    The whole Revolution, therefore, as a Revolution, was declared and accomplished by the people, acting separately as individuals, and exercising each his natural rights, and not by their governments in the exercise of their constitutional powers.- Lysander Spooner

    I was using it the same way Lysander Spooner was using it the same way the dictionary defines it..........
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 07-20-2015 at 08:58 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    lol
    ---------------------------------
    One of the most simple arguments establishing self-ownership was simple to deny self-ownership necessarily means that someone else has a higher claim to your life than you. While you might occasionally run into someone that might try to argue that, most people will readily accept (as common sense, or self-evident, or whatever) that no other person has a higher claim to their life than them.

    I think self-defense is ultimately based on self-ownership. That might be one reason self-defense is so readily accepted as justification by reasonable people - they understand, even if they haven't articulated it, that people own themselves and so self-defense makes sense even if they can't explain why.

    If you do not own yourself, you arguably may not have any right to defend yourself.

    It is axiomatic that no one has a higher claim to your life than you. Additionally it is your personal responsibility to defend your life from aggression - you have no claim to demand of others that they provide you with that protection or defense. As long as you don't aggress on others in doing so, you most certainly have a right to acquire property, and seeing as defense of your own life is your own responsibility, it is wise to acquire property that might be used to defend yourself against aggression, or deter aggression from occurring in the first place.
    The claim is unfortunately not very rare even though it is axiomatic. People are not making the connections and are falling for the "collective" philosophy.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    I agree that many probably fail to consciously make the connection, which is one reason I like Citizen's idea. It is an opportunity to draw that connection and get them to think about self-ownership. Once they start thinking about self-ownership they will likely realize it serves as a foundation to countless other liberties, some that are regularly infringed and some they enjoy every day but never thought about.
    Advocate freedom please

  25. #25
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    citizen, et al., if you have expended more than 30-60 seconds in this type of discussion you propose to have with JQPublic, they are over the conversation since you have exceeded their attention span.

    this coupled with the fact your discussion is esoteric, the timeframe JQPublic will expend on said conversation, is at best < 30 sec since you have exceeded their capability to even begin to understand!

    further conversation will make JQPublic angry as they sense you are showing them how stupid they are so JQPublic will get defensive and off we go into debate mode...

    ipse

    (nightmare ~ speaking from my metaphysically position, of course...)
    Last edited by solus; 07-20-2015 at 02:58 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •