Ramsay Gimp Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Absolutely I agree with the sentiment, but as I said it's just coming at it from different mindsets. To me the relationship between self and body isn't one of ownership, they are the same thing. You don't own your body, you are your body. It's still not where I'm coming from but sovereignty over your body is closer than ownership for me. I don't think property has a negative connotation, it's just inaccurate to me. I suspect it's because property rights are down the totem pole of rights for me, and bodily autonomy is pretty much at the top - if my relationship with my body was one of ownership then this would conflict, and perhaps this is where the difference comes from in other areas as well. If your conception of the relationship between body and self is ownership, that your body is property, then property rights become more important than they are if you don't see it that way. It's another migraine day so I'm having a bad time trying to articulate it, I guess one of the other things is that to me property is something you possess, and you can give it away, sell it, have it stolen or anything else - it's something inherently separate from you. Your body is not something separate, it is part of self and it cannot be given away, sold or rented out. It's one of the reasons I hate so much of the characterisation of sex work as selling your body, it's not selling your body it is selling your time and services - those are things which can be sold, your body cannot. It is inseparable from you because it is you. Sucks about the migraine, but you're articulating your views just fine. I just disagree that "being myself" prevents me from "owning myself" I totally agree with the bolded part though: your argument that viewing "bodily autonomy" as a property right can lead to all sorts of other conclusions, and a deeper respect for property. Pretty insightful, actually. Opposing ideas are not the same as crazy ones......Yes my body is mine, so in some shallow sense you could argue I own my arm, but I can't reasonably sell it, barter with it or exchange it for other goods or services (unless you are really crazy and want to argue against this). It can provide a function for a monetary gain, but that doesn't make it property..... I've worked for a U.S. Senator who was a Democrat and a State Senator who was a Republican. Your ideas exist in an intellectual wasteland....as does all of libertarianism. It's exactly the same as communism, in that both are nice ideas to discuss in a lecture hall or over a beer/coffee with friends and cohorts, but is utter ridiculousness to believe it could ever actually work in the real world! Poor me, living in an intellectual wasteland compared to your exalted "real-world" experience. Everyone knows that congressional politics is the modern School of Athens :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Uh, his opinion on the Hobby Lobby case?? See "for the most part" :p I really can't reconcile that particular stance, no doubt some bizarre logic that makes zero sense to me. Once again another different conception of freedom I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 While I disagree with RG on an awful lot, I feel compelled to defend him here. Oh yea? Well you can just go to hell! :P :cheers: Uh, his opinion on the Hobby Lobby case?? What was hypocritical or partisan about my position? Are you saying that as a libertarian, I should support federal mandates for employers to provide contraception? It was the exact same position me, Commodore, NestorMarkos, etc took on the gay wedding cake case. We disagreed with the views of the private entity but supported their right to refuse service (or in this case, decide how to compensate their employees) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Ayras Lord Commander Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Poor me, living in an intellectual wasteland compared to your exalted "real-world" experience. Everyone knows that congressional politics is the modern School of Athens :lol: Well in working practice, libertarians must flock to the Pauls, else be shunned...And I informed you of that so that you would know I don't really have a side that I'd bleed for. Both are bad, it's just that the Republicans are a little worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 You own you. At heart slavery is an extremely cruel theft of property and labor Then why can't one's body be repossessed due to eg. debt? (the romans did so, debt slavery, actually "you get sold to pay off your debts" debt slavery, is a thing) EDIT: More fundamentally, property is a relationship between a subject (the owner) and an object (the thing owned) since your body is part of you, the subject, you therefore cannot "own" it: It is you. (on a similar kind of logic you cannot own another subject, another person) It's 4 o'clock in the morning, and I wanted to say something about how viewing yourself (or even the things you do, eg. your work) as property is reification (IE: Turning "you" into "not you") and is dehumanizing and going all into the more philosophical side of Marx, but as said, four o'clock in the morning. EDIT2: Solo or Datepalm could probably say something on the subject :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Ayras Lord Commander Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Then why can't one's body be repossessed due to eg. debt? (the romans did so, debt slavery, actually "you get sold to pay off your debts" debt slavery, is a thing) Wasn't there a movie about this where a repoman took people's organs back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 What was hypocritical or partisan about my position? Are you saying that as a libertarian, I should support federal mandates for employers to provide contraception? It was the exact same position me, Commodore, NestorMarkos, etc took on the gay wedding cake case. We disagreed with the views of the private entity but supported their right to refuse service (or in this case, decide how to compensate their employees)Well to my mind the question of liberty in the Hobby Lobby case is that of the individual employee's liberty to direct their compensation for work as they see fit, ie to have health insurance that covers contraceptives. This personal liberty is being trampled on by the "religious liberty" of the corporations which is a liberty that shouldn't even exist in my opinion as corporations shouldn't get to have religious belief, they may be pseudo people for certain legal purposes but they aren't people. So as someone focused on individual liberty it feels like you should be in favour of the individual liberty of the employee despite the fact that you disagree with the mandate (as the mandate is to my mind a separate issue). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 What was hypocritical or partisan about my position? Are you saying that as a libertarian, I should support federal mandates for employers to provide contraception? It was the exact same position me, Commodore, NestorMarkos, etc took on the gay wedding cake case. We disagreed with the views of the private entity but supported their right to refuse service (or in this case, decide how to compensate their employees) The fact that you are supporting an employer dictating the way an employee can use their compensation based on the employers religion. You've been twisting yourself in knots trying to justify it and it's quite funny. Freedom indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Then why can't one's body be repossessed due to eg. debt? (the romans did so, debt slavery, actually "you get sold to pay off your debts" debt slavery, is a thing) There's a long, complicated answer to that, but I lack the energy to get into it and would probably mangle it anyway. It's extremely esoteric, and I've already been told enough that I "don't live in the real world" <_< If you are really interested I'd google "voluntary slave contract libertarianism". There's a minority that think it would be just fine to sell yourself into slavery, but most of us disagree pretty strongly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Ayras Lord Commander Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Well to my mind the question of liberty in the Hobby Lobby case is that of the individual employee's liberty to direct their compensation for work as they see fit, ie to have health insurance that covers contraceptives. This personal liberty is being trampled on by the "religious liberty" of the corporations which is a liberty that shouldn't even exist in my opinion as corporations shouldn't get to have religious belief, they may be pseudo people for certain legal purposes but they aren't people. So as someone focused on individual liberty it feels like you should be in favour of the individual liberty of the employee despite the fact that you disagree with the mandate (as the mandate is to my mind a separate issue). Doesn't look like you have a headache, that was well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Doesn't look like you have a headache, that was well said. I feel like my writing is incoherent when I have migraines, but somehow other people seem to make sense of them. Maybe it's my reading that's the problem :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Ayras Lord Commander Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 There's a long, complicated answer to that, but I lack the energy to get into it and would probably mangle it anyway. It's extremely esoteric, and I've already been told enough that I "don't live in the real world" <_< If you are really interested I'd google "voluntary slave contract libertarianism". There's a minority that think it would be just fine to sell yourself into slavery, but most of us disagree pretty strongly. Well they actually discussed this in Game of Thrones, in the very last episode if you need a quick refresher. It's a horrible system to sell oneself into slavery, thus abdicating one's rights. Contracting services is another matter. Sigh...... Gimpy, You're going to love the 2022 Qatar World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 The fact that you are supporting an employer dictating the way an employee can use their compensation based on the employers religion. You've been twisting yourself in knots trying to justify it and it's quite funny. Freedom indeed... You're just being obtuse. The employees can use their paychecks to buy whatever contraception they want. Declining to pay for your birth control is not the same as preventing you from using it. It's fine that you disagree with me on a policy/philosophical level, but trying to spin my position as "anti-libertarian" is what's actually funny. Call me when Hobby Lobby starts raiding people's home searching for birth control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Well they actually discussed this in Game of Thrones, in the very last episode if you need a quick refresher. It's a horrible system to sell oneself into slavery, thus abdicating one's rights. Contracting services is another matter. Sigh...... Gimpy, You're going to love the 2022 Qatar World Cup. Good point, I recall the episode and the part in the book. Is that actually where it is in 2022? I don't follow soccer, but I hope all those poor laborers riot and ruin the whole thing. It's extremely fucked up what the Qataris do to them. EDIT: Shit, or am I thinking of Dubai? What are you referencing exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 You're just being obtuse. The employees can use their paychecks to buy whatever contraception they want. Declining to pay for your birth control is not the same as preventing you from using it. It's fine that you disagree with me on a policy/philosophical level, but trying to spin my position as "anti-libertarian" is what's actually funny. Call me when Hobby Lobby starts raiding people's home searching for birth control. But the health insurance is part of their pay. This seems to be another one of those disconnects >_> If health insurance with contraceptive coverage cost more than that without, you could make the argument that the employer is only providing "this" level of health insurance as part of the compensation package, however when it doesn't cost more that argument doesn't work and the only remaining argument is about the content of the health insurance. Employers don't get to object to how their employees pay is spent, and this shouldn't be any different. Really you just need to do away with this absurd model of health insurance :P ETA: It's in Qatar btw, just had to google it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Ayras Lord Commander Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Walk into the cut Joff! You're just being obtuse. The employees can use their paychecks to buy whatever contraception they want. Declining to pay for your birth control is not the same as preventing you from using it. It's fine that you disagree with me on a policy/philosophical level, but trying to spin my position as "anti-libertarian" is what's actually funny. Call me when Hobby Lobby starts raiding people's home searching for birth control. Their paychecks are being reduced. The cost differential is not going to be balanced out in the employee's take home pay. Hence the tyrannical big corporation is imposing it's beliefs on its workers. Good point, I recall the episode and the part in the book. Is that actually where it is in 2022? I don't follow soccer, but I hope all those poor laborers riot and ruin the whole thing. It's extremely fucked up what the Qataris do to them. EDIT: Shit, or am I thinking of Dubai? What are you referencing exactly? Yes it is. It's a slave state where employers hire foreign workers from India and Nepal and hold their passports in a safe and they can never leave without the employer's permission, which is never granted. Low end estimates say 4,000-6,000 individuals from just those two countries will die constructing the stadiums over the next 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 They have the right to quit, or try negotiating for a new contract. There is no right to work at Hobby Lobby, nor is there a right to employer-provided contraception Hobby Lobby has the right to leave the country and try to peddle its wares somewhere more amenable to religious fucknuttery, but somehow, that never seems to enter the conversation. edit: Basically, fuck everything about this "they have the right to leave" concept. Just. No. Its asinine and idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 You're just being obtuse. The employees can use their paychecks to buy whatever contraception they want. Declining to pay for your birth control is not the same as preventing you from using it. It's fine that you disagree with me on a policy/philosophical level, but trying to spin my position as "anti-libertarian" is what's actually funny. Call me when Hobby Lobby starts raiding people's home searching for birth control. But employees can't use their compensation for whatever they want. That's the whole point of the Hobby Lobby case that you keep ignoring. Hobby Lobby set out to alter the terms of their employees compensation because of their religious beliefs, without having to bargain with their employees. It's hilarious how you keep ignoring that even from a libertarian framing, this is Hobby Lobby using the courts to try and ex post facto alter the terms of it's compensation scheme by fiat. Where's the enforcement of contracts here? It's why you are a sad hypocrite. You make alot of classical liberal noise but when it comes down to it, you are perfectly ok with shitting on people's freedoms for religious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I feel like my writing is incoherent when I have migraines, but somehow other people seem to make sense of them. Maybe it's my reading that's the problem :pI feel the same way, and everything you've ever seen me post has been done with migraine. That's the main reason why so many of my posts are edited. I find I leave out words, especially verbs, sometimes even phrases or I word things strangely or maybe sometimes it really doesn't make sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 But your body is your property Not really, property is far to weak and derived to describe my relation to my body. Looking at human history, and the animal kingdom there seem to be some rough levels. I can have property only in a society, since it depends on the agreement, and the combined force of a lot of people. And in absence of that society property is meaningless. But I still am me. In the absence of society I can still have possessions, which are only good as far as I can defend them, defined by the force I can apply to the outside world. Compare this for example to animal territories. But if those possessions are taken away, I am still me. My body is me, period, it goes where I go and can only be taken away from me by force. Which makes it more fundamental, more real at some philosophical and practical level, than mere property or possessions. To say my body is my property is, in my opinion, actually diminishing the fundamental importance and inherent control I should have over it in our societies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.