Anonymous #1 1d

Being able to take something isn't the same as owning it…

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

Then explain what ownership is

4

Anonymous #1 1d

“Ownership” as a social construct is a claim other people recognize and agree not to violate. Deeds, titles, and bank balances only mean something because a whole system agrees they do. Your body is different. Your claim to ownership doesn't come from anyone's agreement. You're the one living in it. A state can override that claim, but it can't be the source of it. That's the difference between owning something and controlling it.

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

That’s not a very good definition. You’re saying that there’s one type of ownership that can be defined and another that’s just vague and nebulous but that you can somehow make claims about what is and isn’t part of that category.

2

Anonymous #1 16h

One definition, not two: ownership is a rightful claim to use and control something. The difference is where the claim comes from. Your house's claim is granted by a system and can be revoked by it. Your claim to your body isn't granted by anyone. It comes from the fact that you're the one inhabiting it. Conscription doesn't disprove that claim, it violates it. If the state were the source, the draft wouldn't be controversial.

0

Anonymous OP 16h

That disproves your original post. Based on your definition, your body is only yours until that ownership is violated, just like owning a car or a home.

1

Anonymous #1 16h

Imagine yourself completely alone on an island. No government, no laws, not any other people. Your house, car, and money stop being yours, because there's no one left to agree they are. Your body is still yours. And being violated doesn't end ownership. A kidnapped person doesn't become the kidnapper's property. That's why it's a crime. The system can rightfully take your house. No one can rightfully take you.

0

Anonymous OP 15h

You’re presupposing your conclusion in your premises when you add language like “rightfully”

1