@jj-adams saidNo I did not. I said:
Now you are just lying.
Look at your original post, you said, and I QUOTE:
"The concept of personal property didn't exist until governments came along".
Don't bother answering I'm done with you.
no1: There's property based on possession (referred to as "personal property" ) and property used to exploit others to make a profit (referred to as "private property" ). The latter did not exist in the Natural State.
Maybe you missed the third grade class that explained what the word "latter" means.
@no1marauder saidHe is going to 'leave it at that', with a parting shot about political philosophy. Philosophy? My question, which as predicted, he will not answer , was that you say OG considered his knife to be (his own) personal property.. May we assume you are saying that it is his? You are, so can you tell us how I have a right to the money of OG to pay my college tuition? Can you NEVER admit you are wrong about something?
You really are incredibly stupid.
I'll leave it at that; the difference in political philosophy between the concept of "personal property" and "private property" is reasonably easy to grasp.
Which is it. Are you wrong with Og's right to personal property, or are you wrong that I have a right to take his personal property?
Philosophy be damned!!! (Sorry, I got emotional)
@averagejoe1 saidYour attempt in virtually every single thread to change the subject back to your misunderstanding of the student loan issue is tiresome.
He is going to 'leave it at that', with a parting shot about political philosophy. Philosophy? My question, which as predicted, he will not answer , was that you say OG considered his knife to be (his own) personal property.. May we assume you are saying that it is his? You are, so can you tell us how I have a right to the money of OG to pay my college tuition? Can y ...[text shortened]... I have a right to take his personal property?
Philosophy be damned!!! (Sorry, I got emotional)
The government saying it will forgive some portion of a debt owed to it has nothing to do with this discussion. Start your hundredth thread blathering about the same thing if you want to display your ignorance regarding it one more time.
315d
@no1marauder saidOK, let us say the student loan is a bad example.. Getting back to one of YOUR nuggets, you believe that some people have a right to the stuff of another person. You cannot deny that. So, given that, you have said above that a person's personal property is his own.
Your attempt in virtually every single thread to change the subject back to your misunderstanding of the student loan issue is tiresome.
The government saying it will forgive some portion of a debt owed to it has nothing to do with this discussion. Start your hundredth thread blathering about the same thing if you want to display your ignorance regarding it one more time.
Which is it? How can my question be more clear,,,,and yes, I am trying to trap your philosophy in a corner, is that not what debate is all about . Now can you answer this question for us all?
315d
@averagejoe1 saidI don't think you understand what a "right" is.
OK, let us say the student loan is a bad example.. Getting back to one of YOUR nuggets, you believe that some people have a right to the stuff of another person. You cannot deny that. So, given that, you have said above that a person's personal property is his own.
Which is it? How can my question be more clear,,,,and yes, I am trying to trap your philosophy in a corner, is that not what debate is all about . Now can you answer this question for us all?
We've had the "taxation is theft" argument that is really the basis of your question many times here. To briefly summarize my position in that one, it is the People who select the government in a democratic State (the only just way to do so) and that government decides what the economic system will be, what programs are socially and economically advisable and how to raise revenue to fund those programs. You have no "right" to withhold from the government such taxes from your income which is reliant on the economic system created by the judgment of the People.
That's the general principles; one could work around the edges and morally object to tax rates that so impoverish an individual that they cannot afford the basic necessities of life but since that is not a feature of any modern economy it would be a purely hypothetical discussion.
@averagejoe1 saidLocke was more succinct (he was a better writer than I'll ever be):
OK, let us say the student loan is a bad example.. Getting back to one of YOUR nuggets, you believe that some people have a right to the stuff of another person. You cannot deny that. So, given that, you have said above that a person's personal property is his own.
Which is it? How can my question be more clear,,,,and yes, I am trying to trap your philosophy in a corner, is that not what debate is all about . Now can you answer this question for us all?
"And to this I say, that every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it;"
The Two Treatises of Civil Government, Book II, Section 119
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/hollis-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed
315d
@no1marauder
Good luck getting him to read that, EITHER of those things you posted.
It will just fly over his notably dumb head.
@no1marauder saidLook at it this way. 15% of the USA population is destitute. Let us support them. OK
Locke was more succinct (he was a better writer than I'll ever be):
"And to this I say, that every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it;"
The Two Treatises o ...[text shortened]... ection 119
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/hollis-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed
These people have a right under our law to this care. The rest of us are independent and self-reliant and cannot logically expect that any other citizen has a duty of care to us.
For you to take Locke's statement as the truth, the gospel, the answer......is to say that MORE than the 15% referenced above should, for some whim or another,.. more than those 15%,... should be able to benefit from the work, and with the assets of, their fellow citizens.
At this point I might ask, Just how many more? But no, there is no logic that ANY MORE people should be dependent on the rest of society.
Can you elaborate please in any way that you can to convince anyone that 'every man that hath any possessions....give his consent (to give the fruits of his labors)...to (share it with someone else)? I am speaking of the people who are not destitute, they are like you and me and Sonhouse.
Please, take as long as you would like.
315d
@AverageJoe1 under the Biden administration wages have gone up, inflation is coming down, employment is up and the bull rules Wall Street. That means more people have more money and can purchase more property. Sounds great to me.
315d
@averagejoe1 saidI really don't know what you are talking about.
Look at it this way. 15% of the USA population is destitute. Let us support them. OK
These people have a right under our law to this care. The rest of us are independent and self-reliant and cannot logically expect that any other citizen has a duty of care to us.
For you to take Locke's statement as the truth, the gospel, the answer......is to say that MORE ...[text shortened]... e not destitute, they are like you and me and Sonhouse.
Please, take as long as you would like.
Every government spending of any sort provides some benefits to one group or another. In a democratic society, we make decisions (ideally) based on the overall good to the society as a whole.
I've already discussed many times the economic benefits of certain things you despise i.e. partial student loan forgiveness, increased immigration, etc. etc. That you see such things only in the myopic manner you do is on you - IF these things only result would be to bestow some undeserved advantage to a relative few, I'd oppose them too but they don't - they have concrete benefits to the nation as a whole they you either disregard or are ignorant of.
Tacit consent is given to obey the laws and have the power to have a voice in making them. That is it. Should the majority decide that taxes be used in a way that an individual who has given his tacit consent to this government objects to he has a remedy at the ballot box.
@phranny saidThat's not quite accurate;
@AverageJoe1 under the Biden administration wages have gone up, inflation is coming down, employment is up and the bull rules Wall Street. That means more people have more money and can purchase more property. Sounds great to me.
"Average weekly earnings haven’t kept pace with prices. After adjusting for inflation, “real” weekly earnings declined 3.4%."
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/01/bidens-numbers-january-2024-update/
This is a problem across many advanced economies recovering from the COVID recession; demand increased more rapidly than production could keep up resulting in higher prices and then Russia's invasion of the Ukraine hit food and energy prices hard. https://www.statista.com/topics/8378/inflation-worldwide/#topicOverview
The latest data does show real wages increasing rapidly in the US:
"Also delivering a surprise were wage gains, which surged 0.6% for the month and 4.5% year-over-year."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/economy/january-jobs-report-final/index.html
Those last numbers are nominal and need to be adjusted for inflation but that came in at 3.4% for the year ending December 2023, so real wages are now increasing. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/#google_vignette
@no1marauder saidYeah I get all that. So, you are all in favor of people who don't have as much to show for their endeavors as does Mr. Jones to be able to pull from him. Kamals said it best, 'just as long as, at the end of the day, we all end up in the same place'. Do you want to end up in the same place, Marauder? Be in the same soup line as people who don't work as hard as you do? Do you want your endeabors to be diluted by that government that votes to give away the product benefit and services of others?
I really don't know what you are talking about.
Every government spending of any sort provides some benefits to one group or another. In a democratic society, we make decisions (ideally) based on the overall good to the society as a whole.
I've already discussed many times the economic benefits of certain things you despise i.e. partial student loan forgiveness, inc ...[text shortened]... ual who has given his tacit consent to this government objects to he has a remedy at the ballot box.
I don't think so. Yes, there are govt programs, some pay for a woman's abortions and pay off their loans. That government also gives prepaid credit cards to illegal aliens, let our kids out to make way way for them, and when they beat up our unarmed police officers, are let go witih no bail, as they give us the finger.
I love your 'every spending of any sort provides a benefit to somebody'. Yeah, it does, whatever in the hell that means....except that does not apply to me. I still have a loan......will you get me benefitted too? If you pay it off, it will free me up to be all successfull and such, just like the people you say are going to do great things in our society without those debts, as they run up more loans. Will they run up morel loans, Maruader? When does this stop? WIll you program something to pay those loans off? You liberals are a pile of slush.
You today are saying that that is a good expenditure of our tax money. So now I will ask that question.......just how far do you and Phranny and Sonhouse want to go with these programs?.
315d
@AverageJoe1
So Locke was talking about everybody? Collectivism? At the end of the day, we put everything in one pot or one bank, and split it up depending on who needs what?
Can you honeslty answer this question? It is, after all, what you are saykiing.
You and Locke seem to b e leaving something out. 🤔
@no1marauder saidYou're trying to develop your red herring, property rights are hierarchical. What has 'exploit others to make a profit' got to do with it. A farm hand exploits the property owners need for labour, he profits from that, he exploits the fact he can walk away anytime and the land owner is faced with the upkeep of the property. You blokes need to make an adjustment in your head 'exploit' is not a cuss word. It cannot be used as a means of making a division into different types of property because the owner of a ship does exactly the same thing with the crew, the owner of a shovel does exactly the same thing when he gives it to a labourer to dig out a stump.
No I did not. I said:
no1: There's property based on possession (referred to as "personal property" ) and property used to exploit others to make a profit (referred to as "private property" ). The latter did not exist in the Natural State.
Maybe you missed the third grade class that explained what the word "latter" means.
The same with the word 'profit' it's a good thing, and has no bearing on the argument, what if landowners make no profit or lose money as a result of ownership, the amount of profit or absence of profit, or profit over xx% or under yy% has no relevance.
Then your abuse of the word 'monopoly'. The word can be applied to any property and so it cannot be used as a means of trying to wedge a difference between two non-existent class differences of property.
@wajoma saidThe whole point is that property is "hierarchical" while Man is naturally not.
You're trying to develop your red herring, property rights are hierarchical. What has 'exploit others to make a profit' got to do with it. A farm hand exploits the property owners need for labour, he profits from that, he exploits the fact he can walk away anytime and the land owner is faced with the upkeep of the property. You blokes need to make an adjustment in your head ' ...[text shortened]... d as a means of trying to wedge a difference between two non-existent class differences of property.
Someone deprived of the resources of Nature that he requires for his survival is not in the same position as another arbitrarily given those resources because of his position as a relative or favored hired killer of a king or chief or dictator. Your Dream World insistence otherwise is a bizarre fantasy.