TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FAO: American Citizens (and everybody else who's interested)
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Lol. traditional libertarians would say people are born with them.

So are you saying that your body doesn't belong to you?

Look, I'm not trying to stir shit up. I've heard one thing. And I'm looking for answers.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. So are you saying that your body doesn't belong to you?

So you are saying people are property to be bought and sold?


No, a person is a person, and a persons person is not property but something on a much much higher level. That is at least how most humans rights treaties treat the idea of people.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. So are you saying that your body doesn't belong to you? Look, I'm not trying to stir shit up. I've heard one thing. And I'm looking for answers.

That�s cool, I think your question was valid.

Yea, RJ, I know you aren't trying to stir shit up, but I feel blunt responses are the best way to get people to go "WAIT WHAT?" and maybe incline them to do a bit of their own research.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby So you are saying people are property to be bought and sold? No, a person is a person, and a persons person is not property but something on a much much higher level. That is at least how most humans rights treaties treat the idea of people.

Well, they were during the times of slavery.

I would think that your body belongs to you because it's yours. You own it. It's not property the way we traditionally think of property, but property for the sole reason that it belongs to you.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. I would think that your body belongs to you because it's yours. You own it. It's not property the way we traditionally think of property, but property for the sole reason that it belongs to you.

That assessment is a-ok if you�re living in your own country, population 1. But there are constraints to ownership that you agree to when joining society. Ie you can�t sell your organs (at least, not in proper countries) and you can be compelled by a court to give samples of your body in criminal proceedings for instance.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Well, they were during the times of slavery.

Uh, no. The slaves didn't actually BELONG to the slave owners. You can't OWN somebody.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN That assessment is a-ok if you�re living in your own country, population 1. But there are constraints to ownership that you agree to when joining society. Ie you can�t sell your organs (at least, not in proper countries) and you can be compelled by a court to give samples of your body in criminal proceedings for instance.

Okay, but let's take it further. If you and I own a piece of property (and I mean entirely own it), is our ownership under a democracy where majority holds a preponderance over a minority protected?

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Uh, no. The slaves didn't actually BELONG to the slave owners. You can't OWN somebody.

Actually, they DID own the slaves. That's the whole idea behind slavery.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Okay, but let's take it further. If you and I own a piece of property (and I mean entirely own it), is our ownership under a democracy where majority holds a preponderance over a minority protected?

Are you asking me to do your homework for you?

Anyway, I think you�re simplifying things too much. The easy answer is it makes no difference. a government can still lay claim to our property regardless of whether its technically a republic or a democracy.

The protections afforded you in your constitution are changed through democratic processes. I know Americans love to masturbate over the �republic� but I find such distinctions rather semantic.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Actually, they DID own the slaves. That's the whole idea behind slavery.

No, they didn't. They thought they owned them. You can't actually own a person. A person is not a piece of property. They just thought they were back then.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Are you asking me to do your homework for you?

Haha! No. I'm the type of person who does his homework wayyyyy before the deadline.

quote:

Anyway, I think you�re simplifying things too much. The easy answer is it makes no difference. a government can still lay claim to our property regardless of whether its technically a republic or a democracy.

In a republic, the idea is to protect property. What I was getting at is that the U.S. government (a republic) has taken a few liberties for itself to overstep its authority.

quote:

The protections afforded you in your constitution are changed through democratic processes. I know Americans love to masturbate over the �republic� but I find such distinctions rather semantic.

Exactly. I think we've been duped, that's all.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews A person is not a piece of property. They just thought they were back then.

Well, I don't know. I guess we'll disagree when the question whether or not the physical part of a person is a piece of property.

Either way, I must sleep for school tomorrow. The videos are there if anybody cares for a viewing.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews No, they didn't. They thought they owned them. You can't actually own a person. A person is not a piece of property. They just thought they were back then.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. The reason these slaves were thought of as property was because common law [rulings] held they were. States also came up with slave codes, which defined what a slave could do and not do as a form of personal property. States literally deemed slaves to be property in these codes.

My point is that it doesn't matter what the states and courts deemed or what people thought, it doesn't change the fact that they weren't property, just treated as such.

Just because a majority of people agree on something (slaves being property in this case) doesn't make it true.

You're missing the point. We're not speaking about popular opinion here. You're saying it doesn't matter what the courts held? What? Really? Since when? The courts [and high courts, especially] are specifically designed to interpret the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Their holdings are binding. That's the way it goes.

Obviously statutes and common law has changed since then, but saying that the courts' rulings doesn't change anything is preposterous. It 100% does. That's our system.

quote:

Originally posted by Renzo You're missing the point. We're not speaking about popular opinion here. You're saying it doesn't matter what the courts held? What? Really? Since when? The courts [and high courts, especially] are specifically designed to interpret the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Their holdings are binding. That's the way it goes. Obviously statutes and common law has changed since then, but saying that the courts' rulings doesn't change anything is preposterous. It 100% does. That's our system.

But there is a common belief now that there are certain human rights that extend beyond the control of any and all governments. Just because one system says its so doesn't make it the commonly, even if not popularly, considered truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby But there is a common belief now that there are certain human rights that extend beyond the control of any and all governments. Just because one system says its so doesn't make it the commonly, even if not popularly, considered truth.

Exactly.

Maybe, but that's not my point. Your truth will be different than my truth. This isn�t freshman philosophy class. We're dealing with the legality of slaves as personal property. Let's say, in the current system of things, the Supreme Court were to deem slaves as legal and personal property, my opinion and your opinion on the subject is a bit irrelevant at that point. Unfortunately or fortunately. Until that decision is overturned, of course, or something akin.

Case law is binding for a reason. Personal truths are not at play. Only holdings. And statutes, of course.

[I fucking hate this argument here]

So, because the Nazi Courts declared that Jews were less than human and should all be gassed to death that means they were less than human and it was okay to gas them to death?

Just because a court or even a majority of people think something doesn't make it true.

quote:

Originally posted by Renzo Maybe, but that's not my point. Your truth will be different than my truth. This isn�t freshman philosophy class. We're dealing with the legality of slaves as personal property. Let's say, in the current system of things, the Supreme Court were to deem slaves as legal and personal property, my opinion and your opinion on the subject is a bit irrelevant at that point. Unfortunately or fortunately. Until that decision is overturned, of course, or something akin. Case law is binding for a reason. Personal truths are not at play. Only holdings. And statutes, of course.

And international treaty.

"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."
- Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

quote:

Originally posted by Lews So, because the Nazi Courts declared that Jews were less than human and should all be gassed to death that means they were less than human and it was okay to gas them to death?

That depends. Was Quentin Tarantino involved in writing the screenplay?

You are using morality to further your point, when morality has no place in the point I am trying to make. And you use a terrific example to boot. I'm strictly speaking on the terms of something being true insofar as it being enforced in the courts. Not your personal opinion on what is truth. Why do we even have a high court or judicial branch consisting of 1/3 of our system if the opinions of those courts mean absolutely nothing and have no weight on public opinion?

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. In a republic, the idea is to protect property.

No it isn�t. it�s to protect citizens.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. What I was getting at is that the U.S. government (a republic) has taken a few liberties for itself to overstep its authority.

As I explained before, if the SC rules that a law is constitutional, then it is, regardless of what people say about it. which law in particular do you think has encroached on the institution of private property with regards to its constitutionality?

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Exactly. I think we've been duped, that's all.

No, you�re just getting hot & bothered by rather irrelevant semantics.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.