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.
I still think you're incorrectly thinking of property as a physical thing rather than as a collection of rights in something. Let me throw this at you. Consider 3 things: a table, a patent for a cancer drug, and a place in line to buy tickets to a popular concert.
Of those three things, what is property? First, I'd think about what makes property property - what characteristics does property, in general, have? I'd say that property, generally, is something you can sell/barter, something you can use (or choose not to let anyone use), something you can give away, and something you can dispose of. If I (or if a group of people in case of split ownership of interests) can do those things to something, then is it not property?
Use: I can sit at my table, I can make (or refuse to let anyone make) the cancer drug, and I can stand in line in order to get tickets Sell/Barter: I can sell my table, I can sell my patent, and I can even sell my place in line Give: I can give my table, my patent, and my place in line to somebody else Dispose: I can break my table to pieces and throw it in the trash, I can rip up my patent and refuse to enforce it, and I can give up my spot in line by walking away
Would that not make all 3 therefore property? I think most people would say that the table and the patent are property, but that my place in line is not property. What makes the place in line different? I'd argue its government backing. If someone trespasses on my table, the government will order them to give it back or pay for it (and might even throw them in jail). If someone trespasses on my patent and makes or sells my cancer drug, the government will order them to stop doing it and to compensate me for the unauthorized used of my patented invention. If someone trespasses on my place in line by cutting, the government won't do a damn thing about it (at least I don't think they will).
I'd content that an organization in place to protect rights IS a government.
Contend..
Second amendment works fine - government gums up the works.
Ignorance is a poor substitute for understanding. My "permission" to live here is protected by layers of rights. But there certainly are circumstances where the government can force me to sell to them. The government's right to claim private property for the greater good is part of our Constitution.
Government also can prevent you from selling your peoperty to someone else. I once rented a guest house and tried to buy it when the property owners sold their property, but they were not allowed to sell it to me.
Where I think he got it wrong was assuming we need any form of government.
"Government IS the problem"...Pres. Reagan
We do need some government, but we have been blessed with too great an abundance of government, with the majority of it feeding off of us, like parasites.
Do we have a right to our property? Ask the EPA. They'll tell you in no uncertain terms.
Government also can prevent you from selling your peoperty to someone else. I once rented a guest house and tried to buy it when the property owners sold their property, but they were not allowed to sell it to me.
Sigh.....please tell the facts correctly. You were not "prevented" from buying property. You were prevented from buying a portion of a lot that hadn't been divided. If that lot had been properly divided, you might have been able to buy it. Or maybe not, if zoning didn't allow it. But they were perfectly able to sell you the whole piece. Nothing "prevented" that.
To be more precise, some people did and then it was forced on everyone, including those who disagreed with them. I'm not a fan of democracy.
Quote:
I've never read, "Lord of the Flies", but I have been told that if a group of people were put on a deserted island, the first thing they will do is establish a hierarchy. Something about it being inherit in human nature to do so.
I do think some sort of hierarchy would form, but it's not human nature to decide that one of them has the right to forcibly control the rest, which is what makes it government. I think they could defer to one person's expertise and follow their lead, but they don't need to give that person the right to rule over them like a king.
Quote:
Point is they have had what you are proposing in self-government...they gave it back. They do not want a society that isn't PC, because they believe that PC is the protection of their rights. Good luck telling them otherwise.
We do not have the right to own land out right free and clear of the government, because the people chose to have the land taxed so as to give power to their government. The people have the power to vote and they voted for the tax man. It's hard to believe that any sane rational person would want what the people of America have established by vote, but as social evolution prevailed by way of human nature it is now exactly what they wished for; this is them self-governing.
I don't believe it's truly self-government if you choose a "representative" to boss you around and take your money (republic), or if others get together and vote to enforce something on everyone (democracy). Each person should be free of other people forcing them to do things they never consented to...at least that's how I see it.
I do agree with the rest of what you said. It's a shame that politicians can scare people into giving them power the way they always do.
Guess that saves you some money, if you think we truly down own our property, then don't buy property.
Yeah, basic freedoms are so overrated.
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.