I don't think the government wants to actually own you (which would imply they have to take care of you too). What they want is to tap off all your productive work for their own use. Once you can't/don't produce- they want you gone. The real model is the nazi use of slave labor or the American use of slaves. Today they are smarter and leave us a little to keep us motivated. But their real desire is the same as the nazis and southern slave owners

How does that fit in with Dagny Taggert's statement to Jim concerning 10-289 - "There's my resignation, Jim. I will not work as a slave, or as a slave driver"
http://www.conservapedia.com/Dagny_Ta...
Was she being immoral for not wanting to be a slave driver?

A Spinosaur, but they never met.
Also the Great And Powerful O on top of his bloated Candy Mountain.
Emperors are always the rulers on top of even kings Such was Imperial Germany before The Great War (To--giggle--End All Wars).
The Kaiser also had a phone to go with his pen, even back then.

What could be toothier or taller than an Allosaur?

Yes, and I argue that it is immoral to allow yourself to be owned. You may not have the means to actively resist, as in self defense or escape, as in our present circumstances, but the fight is constant and forever by whatever means available.

a. Yes
b. No
c. Maybe
d. Opinions vary
e. I plead the Fifth
f. All of the above

Owning your life 'in principle' doesn't stop the government from taking your life, either by locking you up for years or killing you if you say, NO. If you can't say NO, you don't own yourself in any meaningful or definitional way.

Ahh, You get it. Great.

Perhaps this will ALSO help anyone with such a desire to raise one's own IQ: https://facebook.com/media/set/?set=a...

Therefore, as a person raises their own IQ they tend to teach THEMSELVES things. In this next video it is explained "how" someone can raise their own IQ: https://facebook.com/piphd/videos/vb....

While it IS true that IQ CAN'T be determined by written tests, in fact, the very concept of "education" tends to be fraudulent as is explained in this video:
* https://facebook.com/piphd/videos/vb....

This reminds me of the "Free Man On The Land" movement - a bunch of people who claim that statute law is contractual and can be opted out of:
https://libertarianalliance.wordpress...

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?...

http://www.openureyes.org.nz/blog/?q=...

However, I don't endorse "Free Man On The Land" tactics. I've seen a lot of people end up in horrible deep trouble from it.

Which is why I left IQ out of it. From what I've recently read, there's doubt as to the value of IQ tests other than the pattern recognition and learning to which you refer.
What I was referring to was the tendency of students, as they rise higher in the ranks of the educated, to lean ever further to the left, fueled by "smarter, better than you" delusions. I personally witnessed this recently while speaking at length to peers of my son, who just earned a science PhD at age 25.

Huh. Never thought of it that way.

Jan

I think I mostly agree with salta, though woodlema has a good historical point. I can go with either the inclusionary statement of, "I own myself." or with the exclusionary statement of, "Nobody and nothing owns me." Even - and this is a bit of a stretch - Even, I can deal with people who say, "I am owned by a deity whose nature does not influence any logical or rational decision I make."

Any of these statements evidences a type of person I could get along with, though the lastmentioned is pretty far from my personal stance.

I guess what I am saying is that how someone phrases lack of ownership is less important than that they behave as if they are not owned.

Jan

Book-smart does NOT signify a high IQ. A high IQ is demonstrated by the ability to discern and therefore learn from highly complex patterns. The phrase "superiority delusions" is a misnomer because it ASSUMES facts not in evidence. People with high IQ's NATURALLY rule over others, this is not a "desire" dude. It is a cause-and-effect.

But is there a relationship between being very book-smart and having superiority delusions, resulting in desire to rule over others? I would assert there is.

Yes via John Dewey's My Pedagogic Creed and Woodrow Wilson's Committee on Public Information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committ...

Nobody can own your thoughts, which is why the first greatest task of those bent on destroying individualism in America was to infiltrate public government education.

point taken yes their work output. Like an exclusive contract.

Also the slaves were not to be treated badly...

Did the Dino really just imply someone could be "looking down their nose with that toothy grin"? hhahahahahahahaha!

I was teasing of course. If one owns themselves, and society respects individual property rights, then there is no issue here.

It seems to me these people arguing that it is not possible to own oneself are sophists attempting to reap a living from nonsensical, inflammatory or bizarre assertions.

It is amazing to me that it keeps coming up.

High IQ is a "Self-Revelatory" process. YOU need to determine whether or not YOUR IQ is higher than the people whom you consider to be slaves. If you do not consider anyone to be a slave then this means that you have a very low IQ.

What!!! Who's doing the testing? And why?

I like this idea of a difference between "moral ownership/rights and political ones. It might help to better define "to own"