45 votes

Ask every human you see, "Do You Own Yourself ?'

For the past three years, no matter who I am talking to, I ask the same question. Do You Own Yourself ?

I ask this of every human I meet; mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, preachers, priests, cops, military and the list goes on.

It is always a surprise to see their reaction. Most are a little shocked, because they have never contemplated this before.

After they agree that "yes" is the only answer, I explain that they not only own themselves but they own 100% of what they earn, own or inherit.

No other human is entitled to anything of yours unless you volunteer it. Then I explain that any taxation is "force" and is not voluntary.

Their eyes open wide, as I explain, any human that uses force on them or disagrees that they own themselves view them as slaves.

If we so choose, we can live in a voluntary society. "Anything" that is truly needed will be funded voluntarily.

So please, ask the question of everyone. Do You Own Yourself ?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Friendly suggestion

Be prepared when having this discussion for deeply religious folks who find this idea offensive. They do not believe they own themselves. They believe god owns them.

This however is not inconsistent with your position, however, which is why I mention it.

A Christian may not own himself, but he has been given exclusive stewardship over himself, which he, as steward, may not abrogate nor may he transfer to another.

Stewardship of yourself on this world is given to you, and you may not give it back. You may not give it to another. Until God takes it away, no other human may stake a claim against your person. You are responsible for you, and no one else is, or ever can be.

You have been given yourself, and the products of yourself, as exclusive and unalienable.

You have been given yourself, and the consequences of yourself and your actions, as exclusive and unavoidable.

It's an impudent question.

Questions are a burden to others, answers are a prison for oneself.

- from The Prisoner

if you own yourself you can

if you own yourself you can sign a contract turning yourself over to be someone else's property. any law restricting your ability to do so would deny your self ownership.

therefore the law, if there was any, would be responsible for enforcing the contract and thus upholding the property rights of your owner who obtained you through a voluntary contract.

you can say, but there would be no law to enforce contracts or protect property rights, but then you're in bedlam.

those of you who talk this funny talk about owning oneself and taxes being unjust have decided to skip over (ignore, remain ignorant of) some 2500 years + political theory from the classical world on to the founding fathers, and everything in between, after, alongside, and ancillary to.

so i will give you a brief summary.

in a lawless anarchy, the stronger can have their way with the weaker. those with no power have no rights, those with power have whatever they want, and don't need to call it a right.

power can either be based on direct control of resources and other people through force, or indirectly through persuasion or appeals to self interest, loyalty, faith, superior benefits, etc.

if your power over x territory is absolute you are autonomous.

power can also come from cooperating with others. if you depend on others consent, you lack autonomy. that means you have to engage with others in bi-lateral or horizontal political relations.

in this case, your power comes from your association with others, combining to protect your interests from other individuals and groups (your claims to your interests are your 'rights' because you assert them as such, and can be couched in moral terms, or not).

the necessity to form horizontal bonds with others to combine power is basically just the definition of politics for anyone who is not a sovereign warlord over a territory and the others within it.

how best to arrange these political relationships and set rules for the members of the group that best suit their common interests is the focus of centuries of thought, discussion, debate and political literature.

how power manifests itself in a society of law rather than in a lawless anarchy, has also been studied and discussed for centuries.

simply saying "every individual by virtue of their existence must behave as if every other individual by virtue of their existence has equal power and equal rights" because YOU say so is foolish, utopian drivel that has nothing to do with anything remotely mistakable for reality. your wishing it to be so doesn't make it so, and you will accomplish nothing either practical or otherwise by claiming it.

whether peoples eyes light up out of confusion ir because they also like the sound of bullsh1t isn't material.

You're confused and rude.

You're confused and rude. That you can't form sentences or use punctuation, much less grammar, is a sign that any attempt to rectify the confusion would be a long and likely hopeless project.

But never let it be said I will not tilt at windmills.

Law does not require a state. Government does not require a state. Every organization that exists has leaders. The chess club has a president. The philharmonic society has a steering committee. They govern, but by voluntary arrangements.

No one supposes a free society would not have laws or governance. They merely suppose the rejection of the assertion of coercion as the legitimizing factor. We merely need to get enough people to disbelieve the illusion of legitimacy. You may disbelieve this is possible. You may be right. What I find interesting is the hostility you have to the concept, or to people engaged in this endeavor.

In your formulation anyone with more than you has power over you. In your society, as in our current one, we see perpetual conflict over resources where the strong gain more and the weak lose more as a result of this belief. The result of statism, especially anarcho-socialism which must have some cabal with a monopoly on force regardless of the rhetoric, is perpetual conflict over power.

People everywhere believe in certain morality. This morality is resultant from our existence, whether you consider the creator to be god or evolution.

But they have been fooled, into blind belief that what is immoral for you, is moral for others.

There are only two consistent moral positions. Initiation of aggression is right for all, ie nihilism. Aggression is right for none, ie voluntarysim.

Anything else people will always subconsciously or consciously know is bullshit. Knowing this, they will give lip service to the collective while acting for themselves.

Nihilism is consistent, but results in just as much conflict, if more honest conflict.

Voluntaryism is consistent, but doesn't result in conflict. We know this because the vast majority of our interactions are voluntary and do not result in conflict.

Your assertion of inevitability of a ruling gang has empirical merit only to the extent some gang always claims this position, but these claims have vastly varying scope between regimes.

We don't deny these gangs almost always exist, but as well some have had very small temporal claims. The US being an obvious example in the first 50 years or so of it's existence. So it's not implausible that further progress could be made in this regard.

And again one must wonder: why so h8 at the idea? If you believe as Hobbes or Nitche why would you be offended if some deluded fools go chasing rainbows?

the only few points i could

the only few points i could pick out of your reply that addressed anything relevant to what i said i will respond to below.

>There are only two consistent moral positions. Initiation of aggression is right for all, ie nihilism. Aggression is right for none, ie voluntarysim.<

that is not what nihilism means at all but in any case, what is right for me is not necessarily right for you. why do you think otherwise? why do you have to analyze it in terms of right and wrong? why do you need to judge others morally? why do you believe that your interests and actions have to be approved of by everyone else? why do you need to limit your own behavior on the basis of some utopian ideal of how you want everyone else to behave? you have not established the validity of your premise from which all your conclusions are drawn. you've just asserted that this is how it should be because that's how you want it to be. i never said anything about morality.

>Voluntaryism is consistent, but doesn't result in conflict. We know this because the vast majority of our interactions are voluntary and do not result in conflict.<

the vast majority of our interactions are voluntary within the context of the reality of law backed by force. we have no experience with any other reality. our experience with absence of coercive law is anarchy. a state of anarchy is characterized by a lack of predictability in the use of coercive force. law or order is the predictable use of coercive force according to some known principles. this is what enables society and markets to exist and all your cherished voluntary organizations. they don't exist in the absence of coercive enforcement of the law.

>If you believe as Hobbes or Nitche why would you be offended if some deluded fools go chasing rainbows?<

in future please try not to misspell nietzsche's name. thnx.

Every time you go camping or

Every time you go camping or diving or hiking you are living in anarchy. Violence is rare.

Yet where the apparatus of the state exists their is continual violence and coercion.

Further, in the context of the law, it's useless anyway. You will be hard pressed to find a policeman to repatriate any stolen property anywhere on the planet. So what is it exactly that this coercive law accomplishes? Almost exclusively it accomplishes expropriation of property. The tiny bit that is supposed to protect you.. doesn't. That's really left up to you. The massive part that is effective, is there to violate people.

I have no utopian ideal of anything. I'm a consequentialist. Nevertheless it is my duty as an animal to judge morality. I may be wrong about what is right and wrong for me to do, but I cannot escape the decision. I may make a mistaken choice that promotes the opposite of my goal. But I still have a goal. Human's act.

I do not in any way feel my actions and opinions need to be approved by anyone else. If I did I would surely be an unhappy person.

If they approve of moral behavior, well and good. If they wish me to behave immorally or accept immorality, they need to produce a gun.

That's where the state comes in.

i read your reply but i

i read your reply but i didn't see you challenge any of my points. try to be more direct. thnx.



"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

To say that you own yourself is, oddly enough..

to case yourself as both master and slave simultaneously. ‘you’ are asserting that you are the owner exerting absolute power over your "property" and yet somehow, at the same time, the things being owned being the object of absolute power..the result of this annoying argument is incoherent and winds up paradoxical

no i don't own myself.

no i don't own myself. property is a function of law, since otherwise anyone can just steal from you including make you their slave. so according to the law that protects my property, i can be drafted, arrested, taxed, etc. so no i don't own myself. if i tried to resist my owners i would probably lose, so i follow the law.

i do have the ability (not the right) to leave the jurisdiction of the law under which i live, and even go somewhere where no law is operative. if i do so i also forfeit protection provided by the law, and so must defend myself and property on my own from any potential adversary. i don't do this since i would probably lose.

The perfect slave

The perfect slave needs no shackles, they have been conditioned to think their free.

The perfect slave reasons away their slavery, by continuously arguing the degree of their enslavement.

The perfect slave defends the slave master, because the master lets them sit on his porch to keep an eye on the other slaves.

The perfect slave is so easily manipulated by their superstition, because the slave master understands the nature of man.

It is very simple, give the slaves drama and diversion so they can easily be divided and conquered. Let them tear each other down, while they are being rapped and pillaged by the slave master.

Let the slaves think their in control by letting them vote for a new master.

Let them fight about their man made religion, their skin pigment, their sexuality, the degree of their slavery and their God complex.

Poison their food and water and then condition the slave that it is good for them. Take away everything that is natural, then condition the slave to be unnatural.

Make the slaves sick, then offer them a cure. Flood their world with addiction, then make it illegal.

And the most important thing. Make sure you condition the slave to immediately deny their slavery when it is pointed out to them.

That is your cue, reason it away.

Natural Order

The perfect slave believes in

The perfect slave believes in the institution of slavery and believes that they are at their rightful place in a hierarchy. They believe that they are property to be owned and that their master rightfully owns them. I can't image a more preferable slave than one that believes it is property.

Can you imagine a slave master saying, "Yes, I am property"? No, it takes a slave to come up with that nonsense.

This should be a thread.

Not a mere comment.

Make it a thread in the next 13 hours or I will (with link to reference).

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

God owns us

Our bodies are on loan, we are to profit and repay God our Creator, who owns our lives. God's the libertarian master, we're the servants till we are liberated in the freedom of heaven.

"19 Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own ?
20 For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body."
1 Corinthians 6:19-20


"The world has never known more oppressive governments or bigger governments than those which profess the cult of liberty." - Donald Sanborn

No sir.

I am not owned because I am not property.
Even if your god does exist, and did create me, that doesn't mean that it owns me. You don't own your children. Your parents don't own you. You're not property.

I think

Someone asked Klaus Kinski that once....once lol


Here are your answers. All of you.



I would like to have a discussion about this

I can definitely see where you're coming from in how the logic follows once you've established the initial line of reasoning (I agree with the conclusion that you own the product of your labor and that all actions should be voluntary, and I see how that can follow from owning yourself,)

however, my problem is that I'm not entirely convinced that humans are property or that we're owned by anyone. Can anyone explain the line of reasoning behind this?

Why should anyone, even me, 'own' me?

What qualifier of 'property' do I meet?

Am I similar to other property? If so, in what respect?

If I own me, may I pass ownership of myself onto others? Would they then own the product of my labor?

I'm not trying to just shoot down the theory, I just need further reasoning to be convinced. I hope it's just healthy skepticism.

If you don't own you, someone will.

If there is a gold coin on the table in front of some random people, doesn't someone need to own that?

Even if it wasn't owned before, someone soon will!

A life has worth... Much more than the gold coin. If for no other reason that the vast fruit of your efforts over your lifetime.

If you don't claim yourself, there are nearly infinite people out there that would like to do so.

I'm not talking about slavemasters, either. Spouses, Bosses, Clergy, POLITICIANS... The list goes on... They all want to use you for something or some things that benefits them, as if your were a shared slave between them.

Sometimes we're ok with this form of slavery, usually it upsets us, rarely we can't take it... But all forms of it point to there being a need for self-ownership.



"If you don't own you, someone will."

So the notion that I am property is taken for granted and you don't need to validate it?

You mention a gold coin, which I will agree can be property, but how is a human being anything like a gold coin?

"A life has worth... Much more than the gold coin."

Worth in terms of what? Human assignment of value, the same as a coin? As in, "I'll trade you those two humans for five camels and a wagon," or something along those lines? Even if humans do decide to place a value on something, that doesn't mean they own it. I can say that the sky is worth 500 trillion dollars and Bob will inherit it from Frank when he dies, but that doesn't actually make it property. That's just me saying some shit that I made up.

You go further, "If for no other reason that the vast fruit of your efforts over your lifetime."
Wouldn't that just be the value of the fruit of someone's labor, not the worth of their life? Otherwise wouldn't that mean that perpetually jobless people are worthless people? Does it mean that wealthy people's lives are worth more? That's a pretty silly elitist model if so. If human beings are "worth" anything, it's in the sense that they are worth what any other human is worth because we're all equal.

"If you don't claim yourself, there are nearly infinite people out there that would like to do so."

Again, so what?
I claim ownership of all of our solar system! The sun and the Kuiper belt and everything in between belong to me!
Did me wanting it or saying that change anything? Would writing up a bill of sale change anything? You can't own human beings because they aren't property just like you can't own the sun because it isn't property.

"They all want to use you for something or some things that benefits them, as if your were a shared slave between them.
Sometimes we're ok with this form of slavery, usually it upsets us, rarely we can't take it... But all forms of it point to there being a need for self-ownership."

Well now you're just conflating someone being manipulative with ownership. If someone tries to deceive me, even if they are successful that doesn't mean that they now own me. Surely you can't believe that, otherwise you're just using the most malleable version of the word that you can possibly muster just to make it elusive in debate.

You should clearly define your terms if there is some definitive proof. In what way are humans property? How are they similar to other property? Why can't you transfer a human property to a different controller if they are property? If I give my friend a robot, he can become the owner of that robot in every respect - he can control it to the extent that its so-called original owner could. If I give my 'self property' to someone else, they aren't able to control my actions in the way that I do, with their mind.

Try to leave out the, "Well someone's just gonna make you a slave if you don't accept that you own yourself." That's just a cop out. The answer isn't only heads or tails when there's no need to even flip the coin. See, if I don't flip the coin I can't become a slave either. You would have to consent to be owned. A person who says, "I am property, but I'm the owner of me." Is accepting the first principle necessary to become a slave - they agree that they can be owned. A person who says, "I am not property." Is one step further away, not closer, to being a slave. Do you see why? If I don't accept that I am property, and if I can't even own myself, how could I possibly be owned by anyone else? We arrive at the same conclusion but I don't have to imagine that I am property.


I posit that humans and other animate beings are DISTINCT and opposite entirely from inanimate objects. Inanimate objects are capable of being property, but animate beings are not. Animate beings may possess property, but inanimate objects may not.

Therefor another huge problem with this is that it requires two states to work. For example, a rock can't 'own itself.' That's because a rock can't be both the owner and the owned. It has only one state, as an inanimate object that is incapable of owning anything.

If I 'own myself' then that means there are two states in play, the owner and the owned, they can't be the same. As in, my physical properties are owned by my mental properties. My mental properties 'control' my physical properties therefor they 'own' them by a twist of language. But if that were actually ownership, then I could transfer that ownership and another being's mental properties would be able to take over, but we know that's absolute nonsense. Not only that, there are degrees to which any given individual might actually have their mental properties in control of their physical properties, either due to some disorder, reduced brain function, etc.

And this brings another issue to light: mental properties are dependent on physical properties. I would say that really, mental properties aren't any more in ownership of physical properties within a human than the reverse. If someone's brain becomes damaged they can be rendered incapable of controlling their body. Let alone other stigmas like seizures or psychological disorders due to chemical imbalances - the mind obeys the body just as much as the body obeys the mind. Which part is property though? All of it? Which part of it can we give away, and what are we giving it to?

How irritating.

You seem to overlook the indisputable fact that you are controlled.

People around you exert influence over you. Politicians tell you what to do, and cops enforce their wills. TSA agents get to feel your freaking private parts!

Worst of all though; the media teaches HOW TO THINK.

...You don't even KNOW how little you control your own actions.

Unlike a simple claim over you, you REALLY ARE controlled far more than you can detect. Far more than I can detect too, for that matter.

So don't give me that sorry "they don't own you because they influence you" bullshit line... TONS of different influences have cumulatively been piled up on each other to box you in the way you are boxed in right now. For example, your productivity is constantly being farmed by your government to a very high percentage... Well over 50% of the average 'Murican's pay goes back to uncle sam in one tax or another. Some put this number above 70%!

(A slave is defined by 100% of their productivity going to another, BTW.)

So you are in fact between 50% and 70% a slave, JUST TO UNCLE SAM.

I doubt you could possibly recognize yourself without being owned. That goes for me too.


You haven't answered a single

You haven't answered a single one of my questions.

I'm not controlled by any of the things you mentioned.
Nobody exerts any influence over me.
I do not obey laws.
Laws have not been enforced against me.
The TSA has not groped me.
I don't watch 'the media.'
My productivity is not being farmed - I don't pay taxes.

So, what box? What box am I boxed into?

Could you answer my questions and legitimize the view that humans are property, rather than just insisting?

I Thought I Did

...but I'm still waiting for the government to send me the title document. Lost in the mail I guess.

If there is a God, then as

If there is a God, then as Creator of the universe and everything in it, including us, then He would own us, though clearly He has granted us a pretty free hand down here. If there is no God, then "ownership" has no meaning. Nor do "rights", as there is no objective standard for right and wrong. Possession = ownership without any moral high ground implied- because there is no absolute reference point for what is moral and what is not.

Some of the arguments here are stronger than others, but the strongest of them are hard to argue: "The Problem With Self-Ownership"

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Hit and Run Junkers

do not address the logic in my post. Nor do flippant remarks. We want to claim ownership over everything we create. Well, we did not create ourselves. If we are here by accident, we still did not create ourselves, but we have no "rights" either, which would include any "rights" of ownership.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

God just

God just did a face palm.


my TWO words...


We expect excessive taxation and hostile government because we actually enjoy throwing off the natural laws given to us by the Author and Owner of our very lives.

This kind of talk is incendiary...we put people in office who look and behave just like our own immoral selves; then somehow we expect them to practice self-restraint while holding the reigns of power?

Only a man seeking to please His Creator is capable of that feat!

I want better stewardship over our government, by equally created men!

Proverbs 28:2 For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged

Luke 12:48 ... For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required...

Ownership is Conceptual

There are two things in this world.
Reality and Concepts.

Reality is what actually exists, it is locatable, verifiable, and true.
Concepts are internal, subjective, phantoms that we use to perceive reality.

Does "ownership" actually exist in reality, is it a true, locatable thing that can be verified? No.
Is it conceptual, does it exist as an imagination, internal and subjective?

Owning someone/something doesn't actually exist. Therefore nobody can enslave you, as enslavement itself is simply a concept.
What actually exists in this world are the real laws that all of nature is governed by.
Because of this we have the natural laws that we naturally follow, just as the cells that compose us have order and when uninterrupted they do not revolt. When our natural order is not interrupted we are content and do not revolt.

What this all comes down to is we feel our natural order is being impeded/interrupted/attacked and we seek to rebalance ourselves in our natural environment. Let us recognize what is unnatural and remedy it. Obviously, it is those hiding in the ranks of the "deep government" throwing a wrench in the gears of the world. Get rid of them, harmonize, and enjoy life.

I do.

"I Am Mine."



I try to change people every day. Do You?

Let's haul in the native

This is often helpful but also often seen as hostile. But being part native always allows me to take the different perspective.

OK, the answer is no for me because for us, as your definition of wealth is what you CREATE OR CONSTRUCT from the Earth whereas our definition of wealth and our definition of ourselves is based on THE LAND ITSELF.

Now "you" own the land thence we are dispossessed and in a literal sense YOU OWN US. All of the reservations are federally administered and controlled. You are the "dominant culture" to us thence no. And at various points and places we were enslaved to dominant culture but it turned out that we just don't make very good slaves, we die without our connection to the land so "you guys" started importing Africans who turned out to be much more resilient and adaptable to hereditary bond slavery.

Frankly the native side of me is still in stupified amazement that we no longer have our land, we no longer have much of any land and somebody else is living where we used to live and in our way we're SUPPOSED to live there. Who's gonna sing to the waters and the fish? Who's gonna talk to the trees? Who's gonna take care of the animals?

"We do not own land, the land owns us". But now the laws of man separate us from this relationship and the law was simple conquest. Yes there are all kinds of "talking leaves" to document and somehow make official this taking but the fact is that we are a militarily defeated people. We lost, you won, end of story. We tried and tried to beat you but you were too powerful and you beat us.

I am a product of a post-genocide. Why am I "part indian"? Because when the Dutch came for "my people" one of my ancestors had intermarried, had married a white man and him and his buddies tried to hide out as many of their women and the kids and whomever they could. They were in this successful. Here I am. And for a while there we had this dual culture thing going and there were certain things we were able to hide, to preserve for the future. And now is that future so I and certain persons like myself are attempting to divulge. But it doesn't exactly come naturally. To expose things we kept so carefully hidden so so many generations takes time.

So again, no. The only land I or we "own" at this point are a few burial plots and one of them is mine. Two of them actually, I get to lie with my matrilineal side or my patrilineal side and if I get cremated I can lie with both! And this might sound strange but that is an ABSOLUTE NATIVE REQUIREMENT. NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS TO US OR BEAUSE OF US IN THIS LIFE WE, ALL NATIVES HAVE A BIOLOGICALLY BUILT IN INSTINCT TO LIE WITH THE BONES OF OUR ANCESTORS, IT'S EVERYTHING TO US. SO THAT OUR BONES BECOME PART OF THE MOUNTAINS. OUR MOUNTAINS. Which aren't ours anymore.

So we take comfort that we will be ultimately restored to the land which owns us.

So again, no.

And that's a native take.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.