fluoridatedbrainsoup
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 440
Should be shown to all collectivists - Philosophy of Liberty
- Thread starter fluoridatedbrainsoup
- Start date
This had another thread somewhere and I totally lost track of it. I guess I could search for it, but bleh.
So my thought on this is that it centers on the concept of self-ownership. Then I asked "Who owns themselves?" Everyone, right?
Well, what about children? What about mentally handicapped people?
I knew someone who worked at a home for the mentally handicapped (retarded). These people were put there by their families and they couldn't voluntarily leave. So it was like a jail for retarded people. Do they own themselves? Shouldn't they be allowed to live their lives in freedom?
Then I also brought up the case of non-human animals. Does any animal have the right to self-ownership?
The way you could look at this is to try to determine the line between guardianship and ownership. What's the difference? My answer would be that under guardianship, a person (or animal) would have some protections and recourse under the law, but under ownership, they would not.
In other words, you can't kill your son, but you can tell him what to do. You can't lock him in a home, unless he's retarded, then of course, that's ok.
So my thought on this is that it centers on the concept of self-ownership. Then I asked "Who owns themselves?" Everyone, right?
Well, what about children? What about mentally handicapped people?
I knew someone who worked at a home for the mentally handicapped (retarded). These people were put there by their families and they couldn't voluntarily leave. So it was like a jail for retarded people. Do they own themselves? Shouldn't they be allowed to live their lives in freedom?
Then I also brought up the case of non-human animals. Does any animal have the right to self-ownership?
The way you could look at this is to try to determine the line between guardianship and ownership. What's the difference? My answer would be that under guardianship, a person (or animal) would have some protections and recourse under the law, but under ownership, they would not.
In other words, you can't kill your son, but you can tell him what to do. You can't lock him in a home, unless he's retarded, then of course, that's ok.
shrugged0106
Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 742
ronpaulitician
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,942
I think it's a great introduction to the basic libertarian concept of liberty.
It would be great if this video could be translated into Chinese or something and introduce those who have no formal concept of liberty to is essence......... It just seems like this video could appeal and be understood by every person on the planet (if they are willing to accept new ideas).
Similar threads
