Who Owns You?

[utbagpiper]

.... my name, phone number, and address. It is privileged information...

At least that is what you'd like to think.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

At least that is what you'd like to think.

Charles

Good point.

 

[The Truth]

I don't consider postings here to be entirely anonymous. Sure, my name isn't my username, but information may be fairly easily gathered if one has the know-how. All the Richmond guys know who I am, and I'm cool with that. Posting here is really just a pass-time and a hobby in a way, anyway.

 

[Ezek]

at what point was I positing anarchy? I said the federal government as was instated, after the AofC was a shackled beast, that has transformed into the monster we have today. it's shackles no longer prominent, or restrictive like intended.

this is not anarchy but observation that the rule of law apparently does NOT apply to those in government who deem themselves in a position of power, by obviously FORGETTING they are PUBLIC SERVANTS.

 

[solus]

At least that is what you'd like to think.

Charles

unlike yourself pipper...

ipse

 

[Grapeshot]

Now, now. You all play nice.

We have more important issues to address at the moment than slipping needles to each other.

 

[Lthrnck]

Qwnership & OC

I read about a dozen posts on this topic and wasn't getting the gest of this...

So it's very simple in my mind....When someone asks me why I OC is say....

It's part of my families self-defense plan while I wait for the police to arrive....

I am the one responsible (I'm taking ownership of my responsibility) for mine and my families safety until the police take over.

 

[utbagpiper]

at what point was I positing anarchy? I said the federal government as was instated, after the AofC was a shackled beast, that has transformed into the monster we have today. it's shackles no longer prominent, or restrictive like intended.

this is not anarchy but observation that the rule of law apparently does NOT apply to those in government who deem themselves in a position of power, by obviously FORGETTING they are PUBLIC SERVANTS.

I apologize for unfairly lumping your post in then. I do wonder, OT for this thread, where the full blame lies?

I believe the problem lies at least as much with the American voter as it does with the politician. The Framers laid out a constitution where each branch and level would jealously guard its own power, thus checking the power of the others. Turns out, the real power is in being in office and the easiest way to stay in office at the State level is to accept easy federal money with its strings. In congress, one stays in power by not cutting off the dole, ditto in the executive. If the voters really cared about limited government, I think we'd have it. But they don't. Overtly, the could have voted en mass to amend the constitution. Instead, they tacitly voted to condone extra- and un-constitutional exercises of power by re-elected the guys who engage in such power mongering, spending beyond constitutional boundaries, etc. On rare occasion--such as when Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase without explicit constitutional authority--this tactic approval served us well. Sometimes, on rare occasion, an exercise of power is justified. But it has become the norm. It isn't nearly so much that the politicians have seized power, the simply purchased it from the unwashed mass of voters.

Back on topic, our leading Objectivist started this thread with the philosophical question of who owns each person. Well the answer is seemingly obvious in the asking. Anything but self ownership sure sounds like something akin to slavery. And of course, any aspect of any law that can be framed as to go counter to self-ownership, can then be painted as the imposition of slavery, thus bolstering the anarchists' (not your, but the anarchists') claim that the mere existence of government or any laws about anything other than not imposing material harm on an innocent, to which any individual does not personally consent, is slavery.

Yet, the objectivists generally seem very hesitant to discuss--using objective data or logic--who owns an unborn child. Or in other words, at what point does a mass of cells become a living human being endowed with the rights to life, such that elective abortion moves from being merely a private medical choice on the part of the mother, into an act of aggression against a living human being? The leading objectivists seem to feelz (to use the much maligned term) it would be an imposition against the rights of the mother to ever limit abortion, and so as soon as the discussion began to expose the obvious inconsistency in their views, they went radio silent. Their right to withdraw from a conversation. But the timing speaks volumes.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

"Lets not continue to remove shackles because these aren't as many as what others have to endure"

 

[Citizen]

"Lets not continue to remove shackles because these aren't as many as what others have to endure"

And, lets forget totally that slavery needed government to hold it up and enforce it.

Some seem to forget, overlook, or are ignorant of the Fugitive Slave law(s) passed by the fedgov requiring non-slave states to return courageous slaves who legitimately escaped their enslavers. A secession movement got started in northern states over that law. (See Dr. Tom Woods' book Nullification. Also, possibly videos of his addresses and comments on YouTube.)

In the pre-war South, some state laws forbade manumission--freeing your slaves. For example, you could not write into your will that your slaves would be freed upon your death. Heck, the slaves were not even your own property to dispose of as a slaver--the government apparently believed this "property" belonged to the state such that the govern-ers could dictate how you could dispose of this "property."

Whereas, without government laws requiring the return of runaway slaves, prohibiting arms to slaves and freedmen, treating self-defense by a slave as assault or against manumission, it would be very, very difficult to for slavers to maintain slavery. Your slaves either kill you, or run away. Without government to enforce your interests against the slaves, you're up a creek and out your "investment" as a slaver.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

And, lets forget totally that slavery needed government to hold it up and enforce it.

Some seem to forget, overlook, or are ignorant of the Fugitive Slave law(s) passed by the fedgov requiring non-slave states to return courageous slaves who legitimately escaped their enslavers. A secession movement got started in northern states over that law. (See Dr. Tom Woods' book Nullification. Also, possibly videos of his addresses and comments on YouTube.)

In the pre-war South, some state laws forbade manumission--freeing your slaves. For example, you could not write into your will that your slaves would be freed upon your death. Heck, the slaves were not even your own property to dispose of as a slaver--the government apparently believed this "property" belonged to the state such that the govern-ers could dictate how you could dispose of this "property."

Whereas, without government laws requiring the return of runaway slaves, prohibiting arms to slaves and freedmen, treating self-defense by a slave as assault or against manumission, it would be very, very difficult to for slavers to maintain slavery. Your slaves either kill you, or run away. Without government to enforce your interests against the slaves, you're up a creek and out your "investment" as a slaver.

As pointed out in a few historical references, many northern states didn't get rid of slavery out of altruism, the slaves were killing their "owners". Seems like that gave southern slaves an option of running away when prior there was non.

Look how tightly they now want to control the movement of people through borders. They seem to be restricting the options, not the people.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I read about a dozen posts on this topic and wasn't getting the gest of this...

So it's very simple in my mind....When someone asks me why I OC is say....

It's part of my families self-defense plan while I wait for the police to arrive....

I am the one responsible (I'm taking ownership of my responsibility) for mine and my families safety until the police take over.

So, who OWNS you.

Why we OC is an entirely different thread.

So you did not read even the title of this thread, did you?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[carolina guy]

I do not intend to get into a long, off topic back-and-forth, but I will put forth a contrary view lest anyone think gun owners or even those on this site are unanimous in such opinions.

There are many legitimate complaints about the federal government. As one example, that and how they control some 60% of the land mass in my State is a major bone of contention here in Utah and throughout the West. (Most of those east of Kansas have no idea nor personal concern for such matters it seems.) We here obviously take issue with many (most) federal gun laws.

However, I'm not aware of any form of government (or form of society) documented in secular history (and certainly not in modern times) that has managed to produce as much freedom with as much prosperity for as long, for as many people as has our federal constitution. It isn't perfect. Freedoms have not been perfectly respected. But when compared to actual societies or governments (as contrasted with nice sounding but largely untested theories), our federal constitution comes out on top.

In fairness...there have not been many other large scale attempts at different forms of government, so the poling population is rather small.

The AofC had weaknesses and problems and it wasn't the federalists who "granted themselves power". It was the people and States who chose to adopt a new form of government as Jefferson said is the right of every generation if it discovers its current form of government isn't adequately protecting natural rights.

Again, I don't intend to get into an long, OT, debate with anarchists. I simply post this so anyone who stumbles across this has some evidence that anarchy is not the only (nor even the prevalent) view among gun owners.

It was largely still the same group of people/powerful that were involved with the AOC and the USC. And I think it is safe to say that Jefferson's vision was dashed not too many decades later when that "right" was crushed.

 

[carolina guy]

at what point was I positing anarchy? I said the federal government as was instated, after the AofC was a shackled beast, that has transformed into the monster we have today. it's shackles no longer prominent, or restrictive like intended.

this is not anarchy but observation that the rule of law apparently does NOT apply to those in government who deem themselves in a position of power, by obviously FORGETTING they are PUBLIC SERVANTS.

there are many that feel that the Constitution is not worth the hemp it was written upon. If we rely upon the government to interpret and obey the laws it chooses, how are we any better off than we were under British rule where the King and Parliament get to decide what the rules of the game are at any given moment?

 

[carolina guy]

I apologize for unfairly lumping your post in then. I do wonder, OT for this thread, where the full blame lies?

I believe the problem lies at least as much with the American voter as it does with the politician. The Framers laid out a constitution where each branch and level would jealously guard its own power, thus checking the power of the others. Turns out, the real power is in being in office and the easiest way to stay in office at the State level is to accept easy federal money with its strings. In congress, one stays in power by not cutting off the dole, ditto in the executive. If the voters really cared about limited government, I think we'd have it. But they don't. Overtly, the could have voted en mass to amend the constitution. Instead, they tacitly voted to condone extra- and un-constitutional exercises of power by re-elected the guys who engage in such power mongering, spending beyond constitutional boundaries, etc. On rare occasion--such as when Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase without explicit constitutional authority--this tactic approval served us well. Sometimes, on rare occasion, an exercise of power is justified. But it has become the norm. It isn't nearly so much that the politicians have seized power, the simply purchased it from the unwashed mass of voters.

Back on topic, our leading Objectivist started this thread with the philosophical question of who owns each person. Well the answer is seemingly obvious in the asking. Anything but self ownership sure sounds like something akin to slavery. And of course, any aspect of any law that can be framed as to go counter to self-ownership, can then be painted as the imposition of slavery, thus bolstering the anarchists' (not your, but the anarchists') claim that the mere existence of government or any laws about anything other than not imposing material harm on an innocent, to which any individual does not personally consent, is slavery.

Yet, the objectivists generally seem very hesitant to discuss--using objective data or logic--who owns an unborn child. Or in other words, at what point does a mass of cells become a living human being endowed with the rights to life, such that elective abortion moves from being merely a private medical choice on the part of the mother, into an act of aggression against a living human being? The leading objectivists seem to feelz (to use the much maligned term) it would be an imposition against the rights of the mother to ever limit abortion, and so as soon as the discussion began to expose the obvious inconsistency in their views, they went radio silent. Their right to withdraw from a conversation. But the timing speaks volumes.

Charles

At least for me...can't speak for anyone else...

First...please tell me what you mean by "Objectivist" as that would seem to be an important term to be clear about. It makes it appear (to me at least) that you are claiming to be a "Subjectivist".

Second...at least from a practical point of view, it appears that the MOTHER owns the unborn child. Simple reality appears to make that so. Until that child (as yet unborn) is removed from her, they operate symbiotically. The mother lives, the child has a chance...the mother dies, the child dies. Unless someone intrudes upon the bodily integrity of the mother, or the natural birthing process completes, the child remains within the mother and has virtually concept of the world around it nor the ability to interact with it.

Now, if one wishes society to make a determination about when the mother's right to control her own fate no longer superceeds that of the unborn child, that is a further discussion. Then it becomes a comparison of natural law with man-made law.

(personal note: I believe that life begins at the beginning as I believe it is a matter of choice, as is the majority of life. What one does with that choice is crucial and is the difference between a "right" and a "wrong".)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

At least for me...can't speak for anyone else...

First...please tell me what you mean by "Objectivist" as that would seem to be an important term to be clear about. It makes it appear (to me at least) that you are claiming to be a "Subjectivist".

Second...at least from a practical point of view, it appears that the MOTHER owns the unborn child. Simple reality appears to make that so. Until that child (as yet unborn) is removed from her, they operate symbiotically. The mother lives, the child has a chance...the mother dies, the child dies. Unless someone intrudes upon the bodily integrity of the mother, or the natural birthing process completes, the child remains within the mother and has virtually concept of the world around it nor the ability to interact with it.

Now, if one wishes society to make a determination about when the mother's right to control her own fate no longer superceeds that of the unborn child, that is a further discussion. Then it becomes a comparison of natural law with man-made law.

(personal note: I believe that life begins at the beginning as I believe it is a matter of choice, as is the majority of life. What one does with that choice is crucial and is the difference between a "right" and a "wrong".)

He is not being quite forthright. Citizen was willing to discuss it but rightfully pointed out the ****piper was relying on his faith as to what constitutes "life" in a fetus.

I personally do feel at some point it is life in the sense as its a human being, saying it is at life is faith based and not provable by any means. Arbitrary line.

Like the age of consent for adult activities, 21 is usually old enough to move out and take control of their destiny. An 8 year old obviously not. Some can at 15 16 some can't 26.

The answer is never state must mandate.



--Moderator note: Do not turn user names into insult or ridicule--

 

[OC for ME]

Who owns us...or, how much ownership do we cede to another.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Who owns us...or, how much ownership do we cede to another.

Depends on the divorce. Is what I would venture to say.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

He is not being quite forthright. Citizen was willing to discuss it but rightfully pointed out the ****piper was relying on his faith as to what constitutes "life" in a fetus.

I personally do feel at some point it is life in the sense as its a human being, saying it is at life is faith based and not provable by any means. Arbitrary line.

Like the age of consent for adult activities, 21 is usually old enough to move out and take control of their destiny. An 8 year old obviously not. Some can at 15 16 some can't 26.

The answer is never state must mandate.



--Moderator note: Do not turn user names into insult or ridicule--

Certainly not everything that is faith based is arbitrary and not everything that is arbitrary is faith based. So are you trying to argue against using "faith" as a "base", or are you trying to argue against being arbitrary, or are you trying to conflate the two and argue against both as if they're one? Is what you're trying to argue that for some they may "become human" at different points in their development than others?

ETA: The reason consent laws are seen as arbitrary is because we believe that the "age at one may legitimately consent" is different for different people, and so cannot be legitimately defined as one particular age, but it isn't just because the age is defined or even just because it is defined as one particular age. For it to be arbitrary it must be true both that it is defined as one particular age, and we must believe that it cannot legitimately be defined as one particular age because the actual age at which the condition is true for a person is different for different people. So for the analogy to hold over in this case (and for bagpiper's position to be illegitimate due to being "arbitrary"), we would have to believe that the "age" at which a being becomes a human life may be different for different individuals. I personally hadn't really thought about that before, but I can't think of any reason why I'd believe that is true.

ETA: Maybe what I understand "arbitrary" to mean is off - I've never really "looked up" the word but just learned how it is often used. I guess based solely on the dictionary definition we might could say a particular view is arbitrary if it is lacks a foundation of reason and logic.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Certainly not everything that is faith based is arbitrary and not everything that is arbitrary is faith based. So are you trying to argue against using "faith" as a "base", or are you trying to argue against being arbitrary, or are you trying to conflate the two and argue against both as if they're one? Is what you're trying to argue that for some they may "become human" at different points in their development than others?ETA: The reason consent laws are seen as arbitrary is because we believe that the "age at one may legitimately consent" is different for different people, and so cannot be legitimately defined as one particular age, but it isn't just because the age is defined or even just because it is defined as one particular age. For it to be arbitrary it must be true both that it is defined as one particular age, and we must believe that it cannot legitimately be defined as one particular age because the actual age at which the condition is true for a person is different for different people. So for the analogy to hold over in this case (and for bagpiper's position to be illegitimate due to being "arbitrary"), we would have to believe that the "age" at which a being becomes a human life may be different for different individuals. I personally hadn't really thought about that before, but I can't think of any reason why I'd believe that is true.

I am saying his picking of conception is arbitrary and faith based. I am perfectly fine with a person using faith as a base for themselves it is not legitimate to use faith as a bases for what rules others must abide by. I see no conflation there.Nowhere did I say everything is faith based or arbitrary. There is a specific subject that was brought up.Your last paragraph brings up an interesting yet different point than I was making. And very worthy for discussion. I was making the analogy toward those who pick the age ( the rule makers) as being the determination that they can now, drink, drive, live alone etc.... as being similar to those who pick it as life at conception, 2 weeks in , first trimester....etc. I don't think any one would disagree it becomes a life at some point.......but right now that point isn't exactly clear.