3 ms·

So just to clarify here, does my boss or employer own me? Because he both is generally entitled to the work I do, and as such can control my behavior? But more

So just to clarify here, does my boss or employer own me? Because he both is generally entitled to the work I do, and as such can control my behavior? But more generally, I don't agree that exerting some amount of influence over behavior that affects me is ownership, as long as it is limited to the behavior that affects me. And as that user mentioned, there are costs society bears beyond the potential lost productivity (healthcare/rehabilitation costs as an example) so you can completely ignore this line of reasoning and their point still stands.

abecedarius 5y ago
Employment is at-will on both sides. In the case of the state, you could also renounce your citizenship and try to get one with a more suitable country: so far as there's a wide range of choices and it's realistic to do that, you're not owned. One of these cases is dramatically more realistic than the other. Cost/benefit thinking has value. But realize you're taking one form of coercion (a state forcing others to pay for my medical costs whether or not I would choose to insure myself) to justify another (forbidding you to do something a bit risky to yourself). You might conclude the ownership is worth it, but it doesn't negate WalterBright's point. There's a cost in individual freedom.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  I don't disagree with anything you've said! I take issue specifically with the idea that coercion implies ownership, which, well, it doesn't
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Ownership is the power to coerce someone to do your bidding. It's not a piece of paper.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      > Ownership is the power to coerce someone to do your bidding I could maybe agree with this. But I find the gap between "helmet laws" and "you're forced to do the government's bidding" rather wide. Like as far as I can tell this reduces to "any reduction in rights is ownership", so the government limiting your right to murder people means that the government owns you already.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        > so the government limiting your right to murder people means that the government owns you already. You have no right to hurt other people. Having the government prevent you from murdering people is not owning you and is not infringing on your rights. Actually, the government should not be preventing you from murdering others - it is there to mete out justice if you do.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Meting out "justice" sounds like imposing government ownership.
        abecedarius 5y ago
        Only if you can't see any difference between law and power.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        Given that the argument being made here is that some laws formed by legitimate democratic institutions impose ownership (and are therefore unjust) no, you can't draw a distinction between laws and power here.
        abecedarius 5y ago
        The Athenian assembly voted to massacre all the men on Melos, and sell the women and children into slavery. If you believe democracy is the source of all legitimacy, you need to debug your beliefs. Edit: it's unclear whether that atrocity came to a vote, though it certainly happened. To pick a clear case of unjust and unlawful democratic legislation in the same war, there was the time they voted to execute six of eight generals, rather than subject each to a trial.
WalterBright 5y ago
> does my boss or employer own me? Nope. Because you and your boss work based on a voluntary freely consented agreement, not a forcible one. Slave contracts are illegal. You can quit anytime. Taxation is not a free consent thing. I vote against lots of taxes, but they pass anyway and I'm forced to pay them. A vote is not consent and is not a contract. > I don't agree that exerting some amount of influence over behavior that affects me is ownership Forcibly controlling other people's behavior is ownership. I wore seatbelts years before the law forced me to. I resent such laws in a free society, despite my seatbelt saving my life at one point. I will continue to wear a bike helmet even though I'm pleased the helmet law was repealed. I encourage you to wear one, too, but if you don't want to, it's your choice and your cranium.
- Lascaille 5y ago
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    I know. But I am asserting that is wrong. The US government was not set up to own people. (Yes, I know that it allowed individuals to own other individuals, but that got fixed.)
    - Lascaille 5y ago
      There's not a single government on the planet that doesn't operate in that way. It's kind of intrinsic to being able to functionally govern.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        Some do it far more than others. The US was the first to have a Bill of Rights. It's a big deal. Although the BoR is constantly under attack. I'm amazed at the people who want to throw it away. I know people who would happily replace it with the 10 Commandments, for example.

abecedarius 5y ago

Employment is at-will on both sides. In the case of the state, you could also renounce your citizenship and try to get one with a more suitable country: so far as there's a wide range of choices and it's realistic to do that, you're not owned. One of these cases is dramatically more realistic than the other. Cost/benefit thinking has value. But realize you're taking one form of coercion (a state forcing others to pay for my medical costs whether or not I would choose to insure myself) to justify another (forbidding you to do something a bit risky to yourself). You might conclude the ownership is worth it, but it doesn't negate WalterBright's point. There's a cost in individual freedom.

joshuamorton 5y ago
I don't disagree with anything you've said! I take issue specifically with the idea that coercion implies ownership, which, well, it doesn't
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Ownership is the power to coerce someone to do your bidding. It's not a piece of paper.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > Ownership is the power to coerce someone to do your bidding I could maybe agree with this. But I find the gap between "helmet laws" and "you're forced to do the government's bidding" rather wide. Like as far as I can tell this reduces to "any reduction in rights is ownership", so the government limiting your right to murder people means that the government owns you already.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > so the government limiting your right to murder people means that the government owns you already. You have no right to hurt other people. Having the government prevent you from murdering people is not owning you and is not infringing on your rights. Actually, the government should not be preventing you from murdering others - it is there to mete out justice if you do.
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        Meting out "justice" sounds like imposing government ownership.
        abecedarius 5y ago
        Only if you can't see any difference between law and power.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        Given that the argument being made here is that some laws formed by legitimate democratic institutions impose ownership (and are therefore unjust) no, you can't draw a distinction between laws and power here.
        abecedarius 5y ago
        The Athenian assembly voted to massacre all the men on Melos, and sell the women and children into slavery. If you believe democracy is the source of all legitimacy, you need to debug your beliefs. Edit: it's unclear whether that atrocity came to a vote, though it certainly happened. To pick a clear case of unjust and unlawful democratic legislation in the same war, there was the time they voted to execute six of eight generals, rather than subject each to a trial.

WalterBright 5y ago

> does my boss or employer own me? Nope. Because you and your boss work based on a voluntary freely consented agreement, not a forcible one. Slave contracts are illegal. You can quit anytime. Taxation is not a free consent thing. I vote against lots of taxes, but they pass anyway and I'm forced to pay them. A vote is not consent and is not a contract. > I don't agree that exerting some amount of influence over behavior that affects me is ownership Forcibly controlling other people's behavior is ownership. I wore seatbelts years before the law forced me to. I resent such laws in a free society, despite my seatbelt saving my life at one point. I will continue to wear a bike helmet even though I'm pleased the helmet law was repealed. I encourage you to wear one, too, but if you don't want to, it's your choice and your cranium.

Lascaille 5y ago
- WalterBright 5y ago
  I know. But I am asserting that is wrong. The US government was not set up to own people. (Yes, I know that it allowed individuals to own other individuals, but that got fixed.)
  - Lascaille 5y ago
    There's not a single government on the planet that doesn't operate in that way. It's kind of intrinsic to being able to functionally govern.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Some do it far more than others. The US was the first to have a Bill of Rights. It's a big deal. Although the BoR is constantly under attack. I'm amazed at the people who want to throw it away. I know people who would happily replace it with the 10 Commandments, for example.