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.
It has been suggested here that America is not socialist because the means of production are "privately owned". By definition private property is completely under the control of its owner and would not be subject to any government policy (taxation, regulation,etc). That our government does indeed tax and regulate business it is evident that it is not private property. Now I am not saying that business has not willingly given up their rights of ownership, but that these enterprises are indeed property of the government whether one wants to admit it or not.
This is huge stretch, irspow. So huge as to be fallacious. The government does not own my home; I do. I can choose to sell it anytime I want. The government cannot. If I do sell it, I receive the proceeds, not the government. Regulation and taxation do not amount to ownership.
In reality, we have a mixed economy, as do all industrialized nations. Our economy is neither completely socialistic nor completely capitalistic. Technically, a socialistic aspect is embedded into the Constitution: the right of travel. Such a right neccessitates public property. Therefore, this aspect of socialism is as American as apple pie.
You can argue all you want and are free to believe however you like. "Ownership" is an EXCLUSIVE absolute right meaning that no other person or entity has a claim to or control over said object or property. If you pay taxes on, or follow regulations to maintain your "right" of said "ownership" you do not indeed own it.
You can argue all you want and are free to believe however you like. "Ownership" is an EXCLUSIVE absolute right meaning that no other person or entity has a claim to or control over said object or property. If you pay taxes on, or follow regulations to maintain your "right" of said "ownership" you do not indeed own it.
Doesn't make sense, irspow. I believe what makes sense. No one has a claim or control over my property except me. Paying taxes on my home does not cede control to the government any more than paying my electric bill cedes control of my TV to the power company.
You can argue all you want and are free to believe however you like. "Ownership" is an EXCLUSIVE absolute right meaning that no other person or entity has a claim to or control over said object or property. If you pay taxes on, or follow regulations to maintain your "right" of said "ownership" you do not indeed own it.
Yes, you do. Responsibility is often part-and-parcel of ownership.
You have legal "ownership" of your dog. You are not allowed, by law, to beat your dog. But you still "own" your dog.
You pay property taxes on the ownership of your home. Which is part of your responsibility as a home owner. But your ownership of that home is also legally protected by property right laws--which work to protect that ownership.
The problem is that your definition of "ownership" is absolute and limited. But definitions, by definition, are often open-ended and subject to context and interpretation.
This is huge stretch, irspow. So huge as to be fallacious. The government does not own my home; I do. I can choose to sell it anytime I want. The government cannot. If I do sell it, I receive the proceeds, not the government. Regulation and taxation do not amount to ownership.
In reality, we have a mixed economy, as do all industrialized nations. Our economy is neither completely socialistic nor completely capitalistic. Technically, a socialistic aspect is embedded into the Constitution: the right of travel. Such a right neccessitates public property. Therefore, this aspect of socialism is as American as apple pie.
After you 'own' the house outright for 30 years, let's see what happens when you stop paying the property tax on that home. The government WILL confiscate that home from you, so quick it will make your head spin.
After you 'own' the house outright for 30 years, let's see what happens when you stop paying the property tax on that home. The government WILL confiscate that home from you, so quick it will make your head spin.
Point?
My home can be confiscated by any creditor I owe money to. So what?
If it was private property it could not be confiscated for any reason because you would have exclusive rights to it under the law.
"Your" property can be confiscated precisely because it, the property, is not yours. What you do "own" is the right to possess it IF you follow the rules of those who DO own it.
If it was private property it could not be confiscated for any reason because you would have exclusive rights to it under the law.
"Your" property can be confiscated precisely because it, the property, is not yours. What you do "own" is the right to possess it IF you follow the rules of those who DO own it.
As I said, you have a very limited understanding of the legal definitions of "private property" and "ownership." You seem to think that your definition of "ownership" as an absolute "ownership" is the working definition in our democracy. It is not. Furthermore, I'm glad it is not. If absolute ownership of property without responsibility (in terms, for example, of environmental issues, or of cruelty to animals) were allowed, we would have some pretty serious issues on hand. How can property ownership ever be absolute? And how would that even be defined? It's my property, I can do whatever I want with it. Really? You can pour toxic chemicals on your property that then run off into the sewer system, which pumps it into the ocean, which results in bacterial die-off, which results in compromised marine eco-systems, which then threatens--long term--human life? It's my property, I can do whatever I want with it. Really? Like run a dog-fighting ring, thereby breaking anti-cruelty laws? No. Absolute ownership is democratically possible if you live, by yourself, on Mars, perhaps. But otherwise not.
We can extend this idea so that, according to the definition given, we own virtually nothing.
Since I can't drop a piano on someone's head from a balcony, I don't own the piano.
Since MLB players cannot crack someone's skull with their bats, they don't own the bats.
Since I cannot park in front of a fire hydrant, I don't own my car.
Since I can't split long lines of traffic with my bike, I don't own my Harley.
Since I can't send a threatening letter to the president, I own neither the pen, paper, envelope nor the stamp.
Since I can't smoke in a restaurant, I don't own my cigarettes.
Since I can't build a two-hundred-foot high monolith in my front yard, I don't own the lumber.
The idea put forth as to the definition of "ownership" is silly, as you can see.
Exactly.
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.
