Do we truly belong to ourselves, or are we--in a way--government property?

Question

If we are truly self-possessed beings and not state property, then we should reserve for *ourselves* the legal right to choose who we do or do not belong to.

Instead of ceding to *us* the power to choose who has that right and providing legal protection should that right be taken by force, the state takes upon itself the authority to make the decision *for* us. To protect us from being coerced into becoming personal property, the government has taken away the right to *choose* to become another person's property.

( Most people would not make such a choice, but some prefer to be controlled and are happiest when under another person's thumb. )

Should the state maintain legal power to deny an individual of sound mind a state-sanctioned legal right to--upon finding another person sufficiently desirable--give up their power their own free will?

If this should not be allowed, then it begs the question: who do we *really* belong to?

Answer 1

You have the right idea but it is better to think of it like this:

Humans naturally assimilate to the norm, and follow a collective set of morals that most people share in a large society. Society has a natural dislike of certain things that may be considered "taboo".

Government is controlled by society as a whole. If government does not succeed in pleasing society, society will react and disassociate government. The rules and regulations we follow each day are set by society, not the government.

On an individual level, we belong to ourselves, but only because we naturally abide by the norms set up by society through our culture and our laws.

These rifts have natural equilibriums which are broken from time to time create a change in our own world.

I suggest taking some Economic, Theory, and Sociological classes at a university to better answer questions such as those you are asking.

Answer 2

It is, in part, because of the constitutional protection against ownership of a person that the government must recognize that individuals do not "belong" to any other person or to the government.

Many Supreme Court rulings support an emphasis on individuals' rights, concerning both equality and liberty.

A person may have some individual power reduced (1) voluntarily (e.g., granting power of attorney to another person) or (2) involuntarily (e.g., having a guardian appointed).

The very desire to dissolve one's own free will may call into question the status of "sound mind".

Answer 3

I don't think the government should tell any individual of sound mind how they should live their life, providing they're not hurting anyone. Unfortunately though, the state can do this under the cover of wanting to "protect" people from abuse... really, it just wants to maintain certain standards and morals in society. The idea of a woman who's happy to give up her control to a man simply isn't politcally correct.

There are many choices I have freely given up, either because I disagree that I should have the choice in the first place or because it's not a choice I need. But that doesn't mean I'm not glad to have been given the option. People often mistake submissives as not being strong enough to guide their own lives... in fact, the decision to break away from political correctness and make a choice that really is right for us shows a great deal of self-respect and confidence.

Answer 4

Maybe you are not in the US, because the US government's founding documents are very clear that the People grant powers to the government, not the other way around. Furthermore, the People reserve any powers not explicitly granted.

This was radical at the time, and it is still radical today in the world I believe.

So tell us where you are from and where the government of your people derives its powers from?