42 votes

Josie the Outlaw: Who owns you? Are you anyone's slave? New Video 2/4/2014

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I can't listen to these offers.

From the onset the words offered launch from obvious error.

The concept of ownership appears to be monopolistic and non-competitive.

Dictatorial definitions of words are precisely what they are as dictatorial definitions of words do not afford anyone the opportunity to offer a higher quality and lower cost definition.

Ownership, says the dictator, is precisely what I say it is, and you must accept the dictatorial definition, no questions, no competition, a monopoly of definitions and that is it, end of story.

So I can't get past the very fragile, baseless, and error prone definition offered as to the meaning of ownership.

I can try to quote it from the source:

"You and you alone have the right to decide what is done with that thing."

"What is yours you can use, you can trade, you can give away, you can destroy."

That is a working definition of control. So what is ownership? Is ownership in this context a synonym for control?

I can control things. Someone else can control the same things as a matter of fact.

So the second effort to define the meaning of ownership as control is competitive from the same source that offers a different meaning of ownership whereby the idea offered has some connection to the term right.

So the one way communication, the dictatorial message, is contradictory on the outset as two different meanings for the same thing.


"You and you alone have the right to decide what is done with that thing."

"What is yours you can use, you can trade, you can give away, you can destroy."

Ownership in the first definition appears to be a moral judgment made by the one who is defining the meaning of the term ownership.

Ownership in the second definition appears to be an amoral judgement of mere fact as ownership is defined as a power commanded by an individual as an individual controls things, uses, trades, offers to others (moral term "give away" offered), or abandons (no longer a moral term), and destroys (moral term offered) or consumes (back to merely factual).

In the first definition and in the moral references in the second definition there are concepts within the words that lead to connections among individuals, not merely individual powers used by individuals who are not connected to other people.

So the offer of two meanings of one word, ownership, is accurately identifiable as two separate things, not one thing.

Individual people commanding control over individual things in time and place.

Individual people connecting to other individual people and therefore there are individual decisions made by those individuals having to do with what one individual may or may not do to another individual in time and place.

Not voicing any recognition of that obvious contradiction, that obvious confusion, can result in compounding of that obvious confusion, so with that in mind it is easier for me to move on and listen further, so as to then comment on any further confusions born out of this major confusion of the meaning of one word.

Back to moral considerations with the next set of dictatorial offers of words?

So a list can be helpful in keeping track of the merry go round:

1. Moral Questions or "rights"
"You and you alone have the right to decide what is done with that thing."

2. Amoral Facts reported:
"What is yours you can use, you can trade, you can give away, you can destroy."

3. Moral Questions or "rights"
"...you and you alone have the right to decide what is done with your body and your mind with your time and your energy; if someone else had the right to decide what is done with your body and your mind your time and your energy, then he would be your owner and you would be his slave."

I do not see the point in narrowing down the observable facts into a self defeating argument over what is right or wrong in a moral sense, and then qualify that self contained argument with an additional layer of confusion concerning observable facts concerning what individuals will control when individuals will control things.

If someone decides to perpetrate crimes upon someone else then the criminal is the master and the victims is the slave in cases when the crime is slavery.

If someone decides to consume the slave then the crime is murder.

If someone decides to capture someone and hold someone for ransom, then the crime is kidnapping.

If someone decides to employ deception while institutionalizing slavery then the crime is fraud and slavery rather than open, honest, slavery.

What does slavery have to do with rights?

Slavery is crime, not rights. Slavery is slavery, so why would anyone other that someone intending to use deception as a means of institutionalizing slavery have any interest in confusing slavery with rights?

Slavery is one thing.

Rights are another thing.

Why would anyone have an interest in confusing the two?

A much more competitive definition of ownership is stewardship, and that may help in avoiding the fraud whereby the criminals use deception as a means by which the criminals institutionalize slavery.


1. Moral Questions or "rights"
"You and you alone have the right to decide what is done with that thing."

A parent can perform 10 abortions right in front of their own child, do so with a coat hanger, do so while the living child of the parent is yet a toddler barely able to grasp the meanings of life at such a young and innocent age.

If ownership is the guiding meaning of life in that case, instead of stewardship, then that example can shine as an example of rights each abortion performed the same way, starting when the living child is 2, then 8 months later, on and on, as a shinning example of rights, ownership, and all that good, moral, stuff.

Stewardship, on the other hand, offers a sense of actually doing better things with the power in command of the owner.

Example 2:

Person B owns enough things to assemble the ingredients that comprise a species killing virus and while at that work the same individual assembles an anti-dote for that species killing virus, all done on this individuals own property owned by this individual.

This individual then places a bottle of the virus at the fence where toddlers at the nearby school can reach through the fence and steal the bottle from the owner of the bottle. The owner of the bottle paints the bottle to look exactly like a bottle of delicious sweet candy.

This individual plans on taking the anti-dote, watching all the children die in minutes, and the plan is to allow about half the population of the world to die off rapidly, and then the plan, call it Plan B, by individual B, just a guy really, just an owner really, planning to do things with his stuff, where the plan is then to sell a few pills to a few people at a price.

The owner is well within his rights as a owner, and this owner is a victim of theft as some negligent parent allowed their children to steal the species ending virus, causing all that death and destruction, and this individual B guy is all ready to save the few survivors from all that unfortunate death.

The criminal, on the other hand, is not a good steward with the power the criminal has at his command.

Moving on in the dictatorial offer of words that starts out as a self made contradiction there is then:

"Do you pay taxes?"

I have paid way too many payments to the criminals so far; but why would anyone call those extortion payments anything other than extortion payments paid by victims to criminals?

What would be the interest in giving any more power to the criminals in addition to the power stolen by the criminals?

Why would anyone call an extortion payment a tax?

Is that what is being offered with the question?

Is the question a question about extortion payments hidden behind a false word called a TAX?

Is the question instead a question about an investment paid by an investor who invests in something that offers the investor a possible return on the investment?

In simpler terms: Is the question concerning a crime in progress involving an involuntary association or is the question concerning a voluntary association where a tax payer is an investor in a specialized service of defense?

If it is a crime in progress then why call the extortion payment a tax? Why give the criminals any more credit, any more power, than the power already being taken by the criminals from the victims?

"Do you feel obligated to obey whatever the politic ans decide to call law?"

Is that another mystery? Is that another confusion of words compounded from the original confusion of words? Is that another example of someone giving credit to criminals by these words that claim that the criminals are "politicians" and not criminals?

An example politician is Ron Paul.

An example criminal is Joseph Stalin or those who financed his rise to power:

An example criminal is Adolph Hitler or those who financed his rise to power:

An example criminal is Franklin Roosevelt or those who financed his rise to power:

An example is Barack Obama or those who financed his rise to power:

An example is whoever is financing the building up of World War III:

You pay the extortion fee, call it a tax to help give credit to the criminals, and you expect a return on that investment?

Oh here we go:

"Do you imagine that someone else has the right to control you, to rule you?"

Here is the problem with this merry go round. The criminals take over the power free people command in defense, which is to control, which is government, which is voluntary association specializing in financing common defense against criminals.

So the criminals take over and they then claim that what they do is good, is right, is defense, is voluntary, is for our own good, and is cause for investing in what they do, because they, and all their minions, say so.

This lady is parroting the company line.

So what do defender do, what can defenders command, control, in common defense against the criminals?

Start with giving even more credit to the criminals by calling the criminals politicians?

Start with giving even more credit to the criminals by calling the extortion fees paid to the criminals a tax?


"Do you vote?"

I voted once for Ross Perot. I voted 2 more times for Ron Paul. I ran for congress, and I saw no reason to vote for myself; I voted in the form of running for congress.

Extortion payments are forms of votes.

What does this lady think a vote is?

"In every political election you are asked to decide who you want owning you."

No. Ross Perot was on the ballot. I voted when I had yet to learn about the fraudulent election process; so I participated as a victim of fraud then. I then voted for Ron Paul twice despite the obvious problems whereby the criminals have taken over, but my effort to vote was a marketing survey for my own understanding of how things were working, from a personal viewpoint, hands on approach.

I am not going further with this offer of words that is offered in such a way as to pretend that the words are authoritative; when the words are not even competitive - not useful - as the best I can say about these words are that these words lend way too much credit to the criminals who took over voluntary defensive government power.



It's painfully obvious many people take the wrong message from this video.

She does not elaborate upon owning oneself concerning moralistic obligation or a family unit, to say nothing of the group. What she does explain are the trappings of state making for the benefit of group initiatives. Nothing more nothing less. In doing so she presents us all with a choice, either stay in the herd(as sheeple) or create your own path.

It's unfortunate many individuals do not see the writing on the wall.

William Quincy Saer

WQS makes the following assertions/observations below upon which I would like to comment:

1. Ultimately, every individual dies.

That seems reasonable to me, or at least reasonably likely.

2. An individual cannot live forever.

OK. That seems to follow.

3. Only the group can do that.

That is, he is saying that only "the group" can live forever. And he goes on to elaborate that he really means DNA can live forever.

Is that right? Forever? Really? Forever. How do you know?

I don't believe it. Even naturalistically, the most likely scenario is that the sun will eventually get hot enough to cook all the DNA, and then that's it. It won't go on forever.

Another question: Does DNA really live? Answer: No.

My conclusions: There is a natural limit to the applicability of this discussion which falls short of "forever." It is perhaps limited by a finite time span of some length. Yes, individuals die, and groups (like the human species) may exist a bit longer, but neither are forever. So, any argument based on the denial of self-ownership in favor of some kind of group ownership because the individual does not live forever is a pretty weak argument (because the group does not live forever either).

Now, it might be argued that actually individuals live forever (in some other sense than as vessels of DNA). But we can't verify it easily or convince one another on such a point, so it seems we are forced to set that aside too.

On to WQS's next point:

4. You do not own yourself.

I guess that is sort of the question here, but it's nice that the assertion is stated up front. It remains to see to whom or what WQS does think ownership belongs.

5. You didn't create yourself.

That's true enough. Having set aside time of existence as a criterion, it is interesting that WQS would bring up a right of ownership by creation. I would assume that were the notion of God to be justified, then this would settle the question for WQS.

I note, on the other hand, that creation does not always imply ownership. I have expressed many ideas on this very forum over the years. Some of them *were* even my own ideas. I might have been said to have created them. But I do not own them. What is ownership? Now there's an interesting question. In any case, I don't think creation implies ownership, at least in all instances.

6. How can you claim to own something you didn't create?

A question. I think WQS means that as a rhetorical question, as if the answer is obvious.

I don't think it is. There are lots of things I claim to own which I didn't create. Back to ownership briefly: Kenneth Royce declares that it should be our objective to own nothing but only control as much as we can. Interestingly, this is the position of the top rulers on this planet---mostly bankers. Why own when you can control?

Exactly. And that is why I disagree. I don't care to control too much, but I do want to own some things. For me, ownership is connected with responsibility. A little story:

The Iroquois, when they were to make a major decision, considered the effect of that decision on 7 generations. If something was determined to be of temporary apparent benefit but could create harm for anyone in the succeeding 7 generations, then that thing was to be rejected.

Did the future generations own their ancestors? Did the Iroquois own their descendants because they were trying to make responsible decisions with them in mind? I would lean toward the latter.

I could agree that our ancestors exercised ownership of us at certain times. Parents exercise a kind of ownership of children at times. These are all temporary kinds of ownership connected strongly with responsibility. They all are relenquished (at least) in death. Dead people don't own things.

7. DNA owns you.

Groups cannot make a decision. Only individuals can. A group does not have a mind. DNA can't make a decision. So I don't beleive in corporate personhood. I don't believe in corporate ownership. A group can't make a claim. Only an individual can own something, because only an individual can be responsibly connected to it. And I certainly don't believe that DNA can own something.

DNA does not have a mind. DNA cannot be responsible. DNA cannot own.

I think we should all want to own something. We have a right and a responsibility to own some land in particular and preserve and enhance its fertility. This is one of the few things where I think we need "balance." In a society (and I agree with the point that individuals must live in some kind of society) we should seek to own (and be responsible for) some things, but not everything---not even as much as possible.


The question is: Do you want a society built on the foundation of slavery? Because that's what we've got. And it seems to me that nonsensical assertions about dead people and groups and non-living, non-thinking genetic material owning individuals which results in the embrace of the ludicrous idea that individuals can turn evil actions into good ones by performing silly rituals (i.e., government) is a poor direction to take.

9. I'll listen and see whether I learn something.

Have you been listening William Quincy Saer?


owns "everyone" who craves possession and material things.
This is the chains of bondage that few will consider.
Ownership of any material items are controlled by others and force you to obey to keep them.

Christ said to the young wealthy Pharisee when asked about the path to God; Give away those things to the poor and needy and follow me,,
(he could not)
True freedom is very hard to have in this world as long as you possess items that others want.
She is a cutie, but a slave none the less,,,


In Black History Month, we know so little of our own enslavement

The enslavement of heart, mind, and soul, are all measured by our giving of our time, talents, and affections to the demands of those unworthy of them. If representatives were to faithfully do as they ought, and NO MORE than they ought, we wouldn't be giving up our freedom to endorse their actions by a vote of confidence; but once that trusted power is exceeded, the penalty to that rep ought be swift and sure, or at that point, we are enslaved to their whims.

Jefferson taught us that it's better to deal with the problems that follow too much freedom, than not enough of it. We've been sold our incremental enslavement, and now we're looking back to where we bought into it, and why.

Since we are made in the image and likeness of our Creator, shouldn't we look to His perspective on our freedoms to love and know Him, and yes, even serve Him; as the best foundation to build our case for liberty in dealing with one another. The tyrants of church and state have been selling us chains to themselves, rather than recognizing the freedom of conscience we all ought to enjoy. Shouldn't we be the keepers of the fruits of our labor, and offer to God and others of what we believe we ought? It's time to become conscientious asserters, rather than just objecters, eh?

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

Like to echo what you've said

Only the Creator of the Universe deserves our whole-hearted devotion, commitment and love. God deserves us to serve Him without reserve because (1) He made us (2)He has our perfect good in mind (3)He redeemed us with His own blood (4)He loves us without reservation (5)He gave all of Himself to us. There are many other points that can be made, but it comes down to this: Whether we are slaves of sin, death, the devil, self or we are the love slave of a wonderful loving and deserving God.

Either way we are slaves, but the questions is who will your master be? And what kind of wages you will receive? So, Who will you choose to serve today?

Gotta Serve Somebody, eh?

Those who love their neighbors as themselves are free to serve the greater good of all, and God's glory.

Those who lust for toys and thrills think winning, at their moment of death, is in having more than those who died with less toys.

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

Thank you

for your thoughts.


Ego, time, money, fear

the utter lunatic frenzy over sports, all serve to enslave us well. But Josie knocks it out the park and makes it clear the path out of the dungeon is first recognizing the power of the individual.

I agree

my friend.


Well actually

I don't really relate to what Josie is saying. It sounds to me like the equivalent of saying that when you take part in a joint activity and accept the direction of an organiser, that you are then a slave to the person in that position, which is utterly preposterous IMO.

We accept all sorts of conditions as a part of communal living, but it isn't because we are slaves, it is a requirement of cohabitation. I think that people are confusing the concept of government with the current behaviour of governments.. which are significantly different.

Freedom is a byproduct of acceptance - judge not.

Well then you are confused

The concept of government and the behavior government is the same... you can't opt out of it... it is not a voluntary group that you join! You're not just taking part in a joint activity... you are tortured, stolen from, caged, and/or killed if you try and not participate in that "joint activity"... you really are slave in your own mind if you can't see that.

So you can't really see it because you still think there must be a horse somewhere on the horseless carriage:

"I've invented a marvelous machine that can propel a wagon and its passengers at tremendous speed all the way across the city! I call it an internal combustion engine."

"It looks heavy, can one horse pull it?"

"No, no, we don't need horses. My machine supplies all the power."

"If the horse is not pulling it, then is it pushing it?"

"No, my good man, you misunderstand me. No horses"

"We need horses, otherwise what will pull the wagons?"

"My machine does it. Look, here it is."

"I don't see anyplace to attach the harness."

"Without horses, we don't need a harness."

"But without a harness, how will the horse pull it?"

"Sir, please stop and consider. Everything we need is in this machine right here. It is not pulled by a horse"

"Oh, I get it, so it carries the horse too? It looks too small to fit a horse. "

"No, it does not carry the horse at all."

"So the horse walks alongside it?"

"No, it goes much faster than a horse can run."

"So the horse won't be able to keep up? If you do away with the horse, what do you replace it with? A cheetah, perhaps?"

"We don't need any animal. This engine does all the work."

"But if you don't replace the horse, then what will pull your wagon?"

"No animal pulls it."

"So your wagon just stays still? Hey! Look everybody, this man has lost his senses, he is trying to sell us wagons that don't move! Hahahah"

By Kyle Bennett

Here are some thoughts

You say that you can't opt out of government... well I say you can. You could choose not to do what those in government decide, and If enough people made a particular choice, the government would HAVE to change to accommodate. It's power is seeded by the people etc...

I am not suggesting this as an appropriate approach to individual autonomy, I am stating it to illustrate what I think the government actually is. By partaking in a society, are you not contributing to everything within that society ?

It is easy to feel like a grain of sand in a sand storm when there are so many other people who shape the conventions which we abide by, but IMO these conventions are still a product of the people, no matter how we arrange our hierarchies.

Freedom is a byproduct of acceptance - judge not.


Do you have a sister?

May your DNA Downline grow forever!!!!

Keep up the great work! Please!!!!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Thanks Josie...

makes a lot of sense. I am in the process of undoing my chains to slavery! Thanks for the post...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

Do You Have a Family?

Do you have a family?
Did you choose your family?
Or, were you placed at birth, without choice, into that collective?

One does not create one's inheritance. That is a gift.
Does one not inherit moral obligation to certain collectives?
Can one morally ignore obligation to family/tribe/nation?

If you did choose your collective, as perhaps by marriage,
can you leave without injustice?

Are you really an individual, without moral obligation?

I don't necessarily agree with every point made, but I enjoy the
Josie the Outlaw series.

If your inheritance is a 'gift', then you owe nothing

If your inheritance is a claimcheck on your life, then where is the agreement that makes it so? If you give something to me freely, I have no obligation to you. But if you give to me in exchange for my time/effort/loyalty/soul, then it is a business deal.

So which is it: business deal or gift?

If a gift, then let's hear no more nonsense about obligations.

When one receives a gift, he also receives obligation.

In a sense, this is conservation of energy.
A gift is an embodiment of energy.
When one receives a gift, one receives energy from the giver.
One also receives a moral obligation to either give an equivalent energy back or "pay it forward". Ignorance of moral obligations causes systemic imbalance; to take without giving is unjust.

The gift of Life is inherited from one's ancestors, a Collective of individuals, whose conscientious stewardship of their own received gifts made one's existence possible. Without the efforts of others, you would not exist. We have a noble obligation to give energy back to the Collective that entrusts the gift of Life to us.
To ignore responsibility is ignoble.

Moral decisions enhance Life.
Immoral decisions do not enhance Life.

Sure, you have free will. You can decide against using your energy for the benefit of the Collective and enhancement of Life. Be whomever you want to be. Far be it from me to try to control anyone. Ultimately, we are only judged by Nature, Life and Death.

If my neighbor gives me his lawnmower....

Am I forever obligated to keep his lawn? If he enforced his claim on me (say, by chaining me to a stake in his lawn) after making his 'gift' would it be reasonable for him to do so? Or should he have had my consent first before 'gifting' me with obligations?

You wax poetic about gifts and obligations, but you confuse gifts which require no quid-pro-quo with contracts which do.

Edit: I reread your comment and I can say that in one sense I agree with you. As a human wanting to have good interpersonal relationships with other humans, it would be a good thing to give back to those who have given to me. But this is a very specific thing...a particular individual who has done something for me may spark me to want to give something to him. However, there are also times when giving back is very imappropriate, as that implies an obligation that the original giver never intended. For example, I do not wish my son to give me anything. I have given him much, but he needs to keep what he has and save it. I did not give him a home, food, education so I could be paid back through some action of his. I gave him those things because I love him and want him to live a good life. Giving back to me implies an obligation that I do not want him to carry. It is not there.

Colltivism isn't about collectives

anymore than capitalism is about capitalists.

Collectivism is the concept that the good of the group outweighs the good of the individual. What this means however is that the rights of one group (the predator class) trump the rights of another group (prey class).

It cannot be otherwise.

The consequence of collectivist ideology is that a set of individuals rules over other individuals.

There is no way around that simple and inevitable logic.
There is no evading the historical evidence.

You may be born into a 'collective', if it pleases you to call your family a 'collective'. I'm old fashioned and I call it my 'family',
I call my spouse my wife, not my comrade, but that's how I roll.

But because you're born into a 'collective', that doesn't mean your dad may tax you for 40% of your income for the rest of your life.

That doesn't mean your mom may put you in a rape cage for preferring a different recreational drug than she does.

You may be part of a collective, but your family (I assume) doesn't indulge in the evil ideology of collectivism.

Collectives may exist perfectly fine and not violate the NAP.

Collectivism must of necessity violate the NAP. If you believe the good of the group outweighs the needs of the individual then you have to justify predation against the individual.

Ironically, (to collectivists) the good of the many is best served when society rejects collectivism, because the good of the many is exactly what we all seek individually when allowed to do so.

Family or Collective

Call it whatever you want. I perceive the group/individual relationship as symbiotic, rather than predator/prey. A group is an organism. An individual is an organ.

What is a group, if not a collection of individuals?
Individuals can't exist without a group. Asexual reproduction?
By natural law, the individual's existence is inherently collective.

Isn't Life about survival?
As the outlaw, Josey Wales, says, "Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy."

Ultimately, every individual, every body, dies.
The human body is a vessel, a living container, for DNA, the Life-giving material with which an individual is entrusted by ancestral generations, the Collective.

An individual cannot live forever. Never gonna happen.
Only the group can do that.
However, within groups, the DNA embodied by an individual can survive.
It is only within collectives that DNA, which creates human individuals, can "live forever", through future, successive generations of offspring.

The only way to ensure Life is to ensure the existence and prosperity of the Collective, the family, of which the individual is a part. Does this not infer an individual's primal, moral obligation to the Collective?

Of course, one can decide against Life.
Personally, I would consider such a decision to be suicide, immoral, selfish, and a violation of one's inherited, ancestral trust; a denial of birthright.

We are GIVEN Life; to whatever extent that we are able to ensure its existence, we OWE Life.

"For every gift, a curse."

You can owe whatever you choose to owe

But no one else may choose that you owe them without your choice. We call that a contract or a moral obligation. Neither of which can happen to you without your consent.

Collectivism is an ideology to justify violence of one group against another. Collectivism asserts the rights of the many, one group of people, the 'deciders' for the collective, trump the rights of other.

If you do not condone that, then you may be part of a collective, but you are not a collectivist.

Families and firms are engaged in collective action and may be called collectives.

They are not collectivist. (well Maybe the Manson family)

They do not typically tax you, tell you what you may or may not buy or sell, or send your boys off to wars 'for the greater good of society' ie the greater good of the people with the guns and titles.

Whether individuals can survive alone is completely irrelevant. No one is suggesting anyone do so unless they wish to. It sounds to me as if you are trying to justify collectivism. As if the fact that we need each other somehow creates an ethical necessity to enslave each other.

The slave 'needs' the master, so says the master, so the master is justified in interpreting the 'greater good'.. for the good of society of course!


Men and woman may need each other but that doesn't turn rape into marriage.

Men may prosper from the division of labor, but that doesn't justify theft.

Like all statists, it seems that you would turn the beauty of human voluntary cooperation into something sordid, selfish, and evil.

You are in Bondage

You are BOUND, in bondage to involuntary servitude, by HONOR.

You can't morally decide against serving the Collective.
That would be immoral, against the interests of Life.

You are arguing semantics which confound your understanding of the real nature of your existence.

First you call me a "satanist", and now "statist". I've said nothing at all about the artifice of "state", which is only the applied collective force of individuals. If all individuals acted selflessly and morally, in the interest of Life, would there even be any need for states? Maybe in closed systems, based on scarcity and competition for finite resources; I don't know. I prefer to believe that noble humans are more inclined toward open systems, based on abundance.
You really are funny. That's funny stuff.

Individuals find it

Individuals find it advantageous to cooperate with other individuals. In no way does this give one individual rights or authority over other individuals. Collectivism means that some individuals (the masters) assigns and withdraws rights from other individuals via coersion and force.

Im not sure where you're going with all that William, however you're using "collective" in terms of categorizing or grouping, not as "collectivism" as a political structure.

You can call your family whatever you want. You're still an invidiual who owns yourself. That doesn't mean you don't make value judgements that place your loved ones as high or higher than yourself on the value scale. For example, I would jump in front of a car to save my daughter's life. Its not because my daughter owns me, its because I place a higher value on my daughter's life than I do my own. That would be a very individualistic, capitalist decision based on my own, long-term self interests.

Where I am going...

...is that you do not own yourself.

One does not create one's self. One's self is inherited; Life is a gift, entrusted by one's ancestors, the Collective to which the individual belongs and, by honor, is morally obligated to serve.

You ain't my ancestor pal.

You're evil, twisted, and wrong, but even by your 'logic' you do not own me.

I do not own you.

You are not my ancestor, and I am not yours.

You will pardon me as I choose not to have truck with statanists.

I have no obligation to you, moral nor contractual, and you none to me.


That has got to be one of the most amusing comments that I have ever read.

You benefit from the evolutionary advantages of the Collective.
You exist due to ancestral efforts of the Collective.
Magwan77, would jump in front of a car to protect his[?] offspring because his DNA has genetically programmed him to ensure it's own continued survival, which cannot happen without a future Collective.
The Collective is more important to survival than the individual.
In the interest of survival, the individual is genetically programmed and bound, by honor, to serve the Collective.
Judging by your ironic comment, Faithkills, I can understand if you lack the ability to comprehend the concepts of honor and moral obligation.

Just to be clear; although pagan Folk have been accused, by those who hate us, of being Satanists for thousands of years, my beliefs have nothing to do with the Abrahamic religions from which Satanism arose.

Thanks for the laughs.

You raise a valid point worth

You raise a valid point worth further discussion, in my opinion. May I ask, do you equate the Federal Government of the United States with "the Collective" which you refer to?

No. I do not equate them

The Federal Gov't is a tool, an artificial political entity, created to serve, not to control, a specific natural Collective, people with common interests, a nation.

Unfortunately, today, it appears that institution has been corrupted by a self-interested oligarchy, whose immoral actions stand in opposition to the Founders' intent and the interests of the People, whom they pretend to represent.

Maybe I should qualify my position.
I don't necessarily disagree with Josie the Outlaw's premise.
However, rather than asserting the idea that WE own OURSELVES,
I believe that we should assert the idea that
WE OWN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Not corporations, not rich bankers, not foreign interests, WE...THE PEOPLE PWN THAT.

As soon as you can proove

As soon as you can proove that someone else owns me and therefore has higher authority over me than I do, then we can talk. Until then, I own myself.