Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The right to own property justly acquired, comes from the very nature of Man himself. If you believe Man was created by God, then the right came from God. If not, not. But it is somethinng Man had simply by virtue of being born. Government had nothing to do with it - govt came later.
If Man inherently has the right to own property justly acquired, on what basis does government prohibit Man from acquiring and owning it? I can't afford a standard city lot and it's unlawful to divide said lots into affordable subsets, so I am prohibited from purchasing what I can afford.
Some people have the mistaken belief that, since some people have the ability to take your property away from you unjustly, this means that you have no "right" to own it. They try to claim that since govt gets involved in restoring your property to you, this means that govt gave you the right to own it in the first place. These fundamental errors are very useful to those who do not want you to own property. They are often one and the same with those who want to take it unjustly.
Real property rights flow from the sovereign/government.
This is especially true in the United States.
See? There goes one now.
Stay away from people like this. And above all, don't elect them to government.
They believe that, simply by changing a law, they can "justly" take your property away from you.
on what basis does government prohibit Man from acquiring and owning it?
An excellent question. And one that gets at the basic problem I named later: That some people mistake the ability to take property away from you against your will, for their "right" to do so. It is a major reason why government must be strictly limited.
Government is a repository of force, and at the same time NOT a repository of either rights or moral sense. So it must be strictly controlled - something we have failed to do adequately in this country for the last 80 years or so.
Even in this thread we are seeing the usual confusion over the EXISTENCE of a right to property, with the ENFORCEMENT of a right to property.
In some cases the confusion is innocent - people have never stopped to examine the subtle but crucial difference between the two.
In other cases it is not at all innocent. It is deliberatey promulgated by those who want to take the property of others, and seek to bamboozle it out of them by spreading this confusion.
One way to tell the innocent mistake from the guilty plot, is to examine whether the person reacts with hostility, namecalling, and threats of more force, when his plans are challenged. Post #16 is a classic example of this. If someone wants to keep his property, he is excoriated FOR THAT REASON ALONE.
My assertion was designed to contradict the notion that property rights are within the "nature" of man.
It failed, as I pointed out.
Better luck next time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
