Against Formal Self-Ownership (Somewhat long, I'm afraid)

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Each capitalist wants the supply of labor to be high so the price is low, and so that it reaches demand. However, it costs money to create decent working conditions, and to hire and train a new worke

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Whoever treats there workers the worst and does what is worst for society as a whole in the labor market makes the most profit

[/ QUOTE ]

You admit that it costs money train replacement workers, so the worst abuser will only profit more if training new workers is cheaper than paying old ones more/improving working conditions. This will only be true for as long as there is a ready supply of cheap labor. As others have pointed out England at the time had an almost unlimited supply of cheap labor from former farmers to laborours from Ireland. The Irish had been kept poor for years by the British government's actions.

[ QUOTE ]
The population in Britain started to take a huge nose dive after the start of capitalism in England.

[/ QUOTE ]
Working conditions were not the main cause of this- it was Living conditions in samll towns that were suddenly overrun with workers flooding in from the countryside. Human waste was lying in the streets and it was disease that was driving down the population. And this is where you should be pointing to governments triumph... but not the national parliment, it was small local townships that passed ordinences banning people from crapping upstream of water sources (and enfourced it in some cases with rotating volunteers who would patrol the banks at night and were given permission to shot anyone who did).

[RagnarPirate]

because the people who accept that system are sheep.

[RagnarPirate]

I agree with nothing except the proposal that we endorse the socio-political-economic regime that best promotes self-determination. That happens to be the one that promotes the concept that we own the products of our mind and body: laissez-faire capitalism.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
People who argue against the legalization of drugs or visiting a prostitute often use arguments that are not based on any kind of harm to others i.e. it is offensive, or you are hurting yourself, or it is against god's word etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the argument most often used (out loud) is that said action harms society. Somehow gay marrige harms the current institution of marrige, Pot is a stepping stone that leads to harder drugs which leads to crime, drugs breakup families and impact those who didn't use them, prostitution ruins marriges.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, ever heard of a state that is by, of and for the people? Oh, that's right, you grew up in the USA and not Europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you allow infants to vote, this is impossible as a voting age will prevent a % of the population from participating. Secondly laws that were passed by people that are no longer living are being enfored upon people that are currently, thirdly of for and by the people only means that 50.1% of voters have to agree with the law. Of, for and by the people doesn't, hasn't and never will exist.

[madnak]

Underlying those arguments are assumptions about how marriage and family "should be."

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you have to take into account the difference between harm done to the person prevented from doing something and the people being harmed by this, whether the state can actually enforce the laws, do people really want this to happen or not happen, how harmful it is, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So whoever is better at presenting their case wins- who ever has an "unfair" advantage in that they were born with a more pleasing voice, better looks, more height, blah blah blah. Your system still rewards inequalities, it simply rewards a different set of them.

[lehighguy]

Let's allow for all of the above in OP.

How does transfering ownership of all individuals to the state allow for more "substantative freedom"? Certainly, this has not been the case in the past. Rather, societies based on state ownership of individuals have had abysmal track records, both in ancient times and modern times (Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Mao's China.)

By contrast, allowing for constitutional limits over governments control of people and property has, both in ancient times and today, lead to people generally having greater degrees of substanitive freedom.

Don't the concepts of self ownership and substantative self ownership seem to be tied togethor.