Comment: if you own yourself you can

(See in situ)


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.