ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Thinking was never his long suit.
Senator Sanders, in his own words
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, I just disagree with your definition and also your argument was a nonsequitur because no such definition was required. Your property is only so because the gov't made it so. It did not become your property because of the consent of anyone else who has previously occupied it or regularly crossed it.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You might be right about how most property is held in the present, as it clearly has been muddied as to who has the rightful ownership of it, since history tells us that most property (land) transfers weren't done peacefully.
I was speaking more generically though, and trying to establish a basis of what you think property is or isn't so we could examine things from a macro perspective.
Do you think the original occupants of a given tract of land are the rightful owners of that land ?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I assumed he recently ran into a rather ripe pair of dryer left behind undies and the fumes temporarily damaged his cognitive function.
I hope his wife doesn't find his whole collection, it could be devastating to their relationship.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Well, did the gov't come along and grant them exclusive deed?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Original occupation can and did precede government. That is true since a government is formed by people. People needed to exist prior to there being a government. So "original occupation" could have occurred prior to government or at least the form of government we see today.
A persons existence, prior to government and after the formation of government is tied to their physicality and harvesting natural resources in order to exist right?
So, the answer isn't what did government do or not do, it is based in the idea that because we are physical beings we have to exist SOMEWHERE, the nature of our being insists that is so.
So do you think the original occupants of a given place could be termed the "owners" in the sense that their first and persistent occupation gives them right to make that claim?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
They can only have a legal exclusive deed if granted by gov't. Privatization is only possible through gov't. Your entire argument hinges upon redefining the term property such that you can frame it as a natural right when in fact it is a legal term.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Thanks for pointing that out as part of your rationale. Sometimes it's hard to get you to give your point of view.
So, what you're saying is "property" ownership or at least some kinds of property ownership is a government construct and until government came along, the things people created from natural resources WEREN'T their property until government came along ?
I want to make sure I understand your point of view, reason for the question above.
If that is so, why does a wolf defend it's "property", its den, its kill, its territory ?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You're still trying to redefine terms that have dictionary entries. It is banal and repetitive. You've had years to come up with new material. Get a job. The gov't is not taxing you for "owning" that old dusty Tandy that you're typing these boring ass diatribes on. We're talking about land. You didn't create it and ownership thereof is made possible only through gov't.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Well, that was good of you to further define things. It's helpful to the discussion. It's a dusty Dell btw that I'm typing my boring ass diatribes on mostly.
So don't the things man creates and use to exist come from natural resources that came from "the land" ? Isn't mans existence tied to land ?
Since that is so, wouldn't taxing land people occupy just be another form of taxing people to exist?
Also, I take it my wolf example (above) wasn't something you could sink your teeth into, since you didn't address the point it made ?
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Detail a bill you will support. What will you actually support? You keep avoiding answering that question because you know that's where the country is heading on healthcare. Tell me what you will support. If you don't, you've made it clear you don't actually support universal healthcare.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That's great, but beyond that?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Next up: Fix the ACA
The ACA is a bridge to universal healthcare, of course. You are just farting up a wind if you think a bill like Bernie's can succeed when we can barely keep the ACA alive.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
How many Martin Shkreli copy cats do you want?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Deciphering...
"write a bill or else you will be admitting to this bullshit I just said and any further obfuscation will be considered forfeit."
Terps
Well-Known Member
Now he is preaching straight up Communism.... http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/384554-sanders-to-announce-proposal-to-guarantee-jobs-to-all-americans
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Sanders's office has yet to release the details of the plan's funding, but previous large-scale projects proposed by the Vermont progressive have involved ending tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations.
Yes, he does have a tendency to release half-finished legislation.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what part of this jobs bill hands over means of production to the state? will they be executing capital owners?
or do you just not know what words mean?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Unfettered capitalism is not working out very well, in case you haven't noticed.
Communism, unlike whatever Fix News might tell you, is government ownership the means of production. No one is suggesting that.