Personal responsibility??

Originally posted by Melanerpes
That's not a "fact" - that's a "value statement" that you believe. Most people believe otherwise. If you don't like it, you need to find a way to persuade them to change their beliefs.

Even something like "murder is wrong" is not a "fact" -- although in this case, it happens to be something almost everyone believes....with exceptions, of course (war, capital punishment, self-defense, insanity, etc).

The old 'how can we know anything' and 'the truth is what ever most people happen to feel at a particular moment in history while gathered within a certain geographical area or political system that is surronded by an abitrary line called a border' angles.

I state that I am the owner of my life because the alternative is...what?

The only alternative is that another person has a higher claim, (if not another person then a rock or a tree or a cow?) and if that other person has a higher claim on me that would mean I have a higher claim on them then they do themselves. Just exploring the alternatives here, you seem to disagee with the concept of self ownership so you must believe in something else, something like what I've just put forward?

Originally posted by Wajoma
The old 'how can we know anything' and 'the truth is what ever most people happen to feel at a particular moment in history while gathered within a certain geographical area or political system that is surronded by an abitrary line called a border' angles.

I state that I am the owner of my life because the alternative is...what?

The only alternative is ...[text shortened]... ownership so you must believe in something else, something like what I've just put forward?

The "alternative" is the basic law of "social physics" that he who has more power than you has a higher claim. The person with bigger muscles, or a bigger gun has a claim over you. That person can choose to leave you alone - but he can also choose to rob from you or attack you. Your only defense is to have a weapon large enough to cancel out that person's claim. Even if we have a happy hunter-gatherer type society where almost everyone sings kumbayah, there's likely to be a few people who go rogue and seek to victimize the rest.

This dynamic ultimately leads everyone to agreeing that there needs to be some sort of government that can ensure that everyone is protected from everyone else. Even you seem to agree with this, at least up to a point.

But once that government has been established, whether it be a single monarch or a democracy -- that government now has a "monopoly on violence" and as such, it holds a higher claim -- very similar to the rogue ruffian.

Clearly, you would prefer a society in which no one goes rogue. Let's eliminate the government. And lets eliminate any rogue individuals. If only we can get everyone to agree voluntarily to leave everyone else alone. But there's always going to be some person or group who's stronger than the rest. And that person or group is going to have a higher claim and you will be at their mercy.