Why are most people in the west offended by individual sovereignty - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14834915
Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. y is that ofencive to most westerners when we are sapost to live in a free and open sosidty
#14835228
It seems most prevalent in the US to be honest. In the developed world abortion is allowed with little opposition (aside from by religious nutters). In the US Americans want big government to control what a woman does with her own body instead of just allowing the individual to be sovereign over what is allowed to reside in their own body.
#14842136
Generally it's related to the implications being made / consequences being drawn from the very unique conceptualisation made by those on the libertarian-right which differ quite starkly from what other people on the political spectrum may believe. It's more so this than that a social democrat, for example, would outright deny the existence of individual sovereignty whatsoever.
#14847416
I believe it's because political philosophies other than libertarianism won't hold up under a consistent application of individual sovereignty. Most other philosophies depend upon the concept that the group is greater than the individual. The individual is expected to (if not demanded to or coerced to) sacrifice him- or herself for the "greater good". You are worthless in and of yourself, you're only valuable as another cog in the machine. Put another way, libertarianism rejects the notion that you are nothing more than a tool to be exploited by somebody else.

You the individual are more than the means to somebody else's end. That is anathema to most other political viewpoints.
#14847827
thermf5 wrote:Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. y is that ofencive to most westerners when we are sapost to live in a free and open sosidty


I think what's offensive is the expression of the right to control one's own body and life as a property right. Property is a relation of people to things. If you own a thing, you're free to sell it and thereby not own or control it. So called "self-ownership" is a cheapening of individual sovereignty.

The Libertarian philosopher Walter Block captures it rather well (if inadvertently) in the following passage :

Walter Block wrote:
While people may start out as free self-owners of themselves, they have a right to sell themselves into slavery. That is, if they truly own themselves, they can sell themselves. If they cannot sell themselves into slavery, they are then to that extent less than fully free. If I own my shirt, I can sell it to you. If I cannot sell it to you, then and to that extent my ownership rights are attenuated. In effect, people are “just” commodities, as our friends on the other side of the aisle are wont to charge.

Why would anyone consent to sell himself into slavery?
Suppose my child were ill with a dread disease. The cure costs $1 million. Unfortunately, I do not have anything like that amount to my name. Fortunately, you have long desired to have me as a slave, to boss around and order about, to chastise and even kill me if I in any way displease you, or even on a whim. You value the prospect of my enslavement to you as worth far more than the $1 million it will cost you. I, for my part, value my child’s life more than my own freedom, or even my own life, should it come to that. Thus, as in the case of all voluntary contracts, we both benefit, at least in the ex ante sense, from this commercial interaction.

A voluntary slave contract has nothing to do with the sale of the “will.”2 Just as in the case of being unable to not think about a pink elephant when one is mentioned, it would be all but impossible for me to quell my desires for freedom, once enslaved. Slaves can still want to be free. Very much to the contrary, voluntary slavery pertains only to the law of physical invasion: if a policeman sees you whipping me, he might with alacrity rush to my defense. The operational definition of a slave contract is that upon being told that I have sold myself into slavery to you, the policemen will cease in his efforts to stop you from beating me. If anything, he will hold me down, as he would a horse you were attempting to harness, so as to aid in your right to treat your property (e.g., me) in any way you see fit.


- Walter Block, Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003), pp. 39–85, 2003, Ludwig von Mises Institute.

#14849488
Sovereignty ultimately requires the individual to be wholly responsible for their own well-being, to the exclusion of any social compact; that is if the argument can be made that any measure of sovereignty is yielded by the individual to a social compact, which I think is the case if the individual is not free to abandon any social arrangement at will.
#14902511
Decky wrote:It seems most prevalent in the US to be honest. In the developed world abortion is allowed with little opposition (aside from by religious nutters). In the US Americans want big government to control what a woman does with her own body instead of just allowing the individual to be sovereign over what is allowed to reside in their own body.



Not all Libertarians are pro abortion.
Yes, I am a Christian but my belief is not the only reason I'm against abortion

I agree a woman has the right to her body.
But, the child is it's own person from a scientific definition. Each individual has their own unique DNA which makes them a person.

I believe in the right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.

As far as sovereignty, I think the founders intended us to be free from the control of the government. Even the states were originally sovereign.
#14902516
ACH wrote:But, the child is it's own person from a scientific definition.
A child is only it's own person once it can be separated from the mother. Until then, it's not. That's the scientific definition, and when it comes to abortion, science isn't going to provide the answers, since people still attribute humans to have "souls", which is hardly scientific...

ACH wrote:Each individual has their own unique DNA which makes them a person.
Having DNA does not make you a 'person', however. A fertilized egg, for instance, is not a person, despite having unique DNA.

To address the OP:
I do not think that people in the west are offended by individual sovereignty, and actually, the Constitution of the USA is one of the best documents to that effect. You cannot, however, think that the sovereignty of your person supersedes the good of the society. Your sovereignty ends when it affects others negatively.

Zamuel wrote: By Zamuel - 01 May 2018 23:15 Pos[…]

Born Classified

Discounts! best beauty products for skin ht[…]

Trump and Russiagate

My point, that apparently "mystified" y[…]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkHuXDSzhyA