Locke believed citizens were people who owned property

The linchpin of all other rights and freedoms is the right to property, Gomer.

The right to own property, as a defense against Tyranny. The right to citizenship and the right to vote, as a defense against Tyranny. They are compatible.
 
The linchpin of all other rights and freedoms is the right to property, Gomer.

The right to own property, as a defense against Tyranny. The right to citizenship and the right to vote, as a defense against Tyranny. They are compatible.
Universal suffrage is as sure a path to the tyranny of the mob as there is.

The balance against this is that the tenant class were to have their say at the state level (states were free to make any election law they wanted), then represented in the Senate via Senators appointed by the state legislatures.

The enacting of the 17th Amendment basically federalized mob rule.
 
Not far fetched at all.

Nobody belongs in the game without a buy-in.

Therin lies the problem with your version of what society and our nations goals should be. You think it is a game. Thank you for making that point.
It's what's called an "analogy", Chumlee.

Thanks for proving that you're as dumb as a bag of hammers.

THat is classic, someone agreeing only property owners should be considered citizens calling others "dumb as a bag of hammers" :lol:
 
The linchpin of all other rights and freedoms is the right to property, Gomer.

The right to own property, as a defense against Tyranny. The right to citizenship and the right to vote, as a defense against Tyranny. They are compatible.
Universal suffrage is as sure a path to the tyranny of the mob as there is.

The balance against this is that the tenant class were to have their say at the state level (states were free to make any election law they wanted), then represented in the Senate via Senators appointed by the state legislatures.

The enacting of the 17th Amendment basically federalized mob rule.

I believe that the straighter path to Justice is through Stronger establishment of Our Rights, Individual Rights, that includes Privacy, Property, and Voice. The Constitution protect's the Individual, whether in the majority or minority, based on higher principle, ethics, and a sense of impartial justice. The sad thing is how easily that is forgotten. The question should not be who get's to manipulate, but to what end.

We are a Republic, founded in Federalism, not Nationalism. We have so lost our way.
 
When the Us was founded, most of the rest of the world was ruled by kings. In a kingdom, only the landowners had status. It is not surprising that some of the founders held this idea of citizenship.
Remember, women then didn't vote, and could only be beaten with a switch a large around as the thumb. Then there was that "peculiar institution" we call slavery.
I don't think it is an idea for today.

But those were the good old days, where white christian males had all the rights and were able to force everybody to live by their standards, according to the hacks

The left-wing hacks you mean.
The truth is that women, blacks, and non-Christians could all vote. Sorry to disappoint your fantasies.
 
The right to own property, as a defense against Tyranny. The right to citizenship and the right to vote, as a defense against Tyranny. They are compatible.
Universal suffrage is as sure a path to the tyranny of the mob as there is.

The balance against this is that the tenant class were to have their say at the state level (states were free to make any election law they wanted), then represented in the Senate via Senators appointed by the state legislatures.

The enacting of the 17th Amendment basically federalized mob rule.

I believe that the straighter path to Justice is through Stronger establishment of Our Rights, Individual Rights, that includes Privacy, Property, and Voice. The Constitution protect's the Individual, whether in the majority or minority, based on higher principle, ethics, and a sense of impartial justice. The sad thing is how easily that is forgotten. The question should not be who get's to manipulate, but to what end.

We are a Republic, founded in Federalism, not Nationalism. We have so lost our way.
That direct path was in the jury box, which has been usurped by the judicial oligarchy.

That we have so lost our way is correct.
 
The right to own property is so much more than real estate. From the clothes on your back, to your wallet, to the tools of your trade, to food, clothing, possessions, no Government should have the right to them without due process. The rule of law applies to all.
 
The right to own property is so much more than real estate. From the clothes on your back, to your wallet, to the tools of your trade, to food, clothing, possessions, no Government should have the right to them without due process. The rule of law applies to all.
No doubt.

However, if you give the tenant the power to vote themself the property of the land owner they'll do so every time.

Due process and the rule of law was to be seen to in the jury box.
 
Universal suffrage is as sure a path to the tyranny of the mob as there is.

The balance against this is that the tenant class were to have their say at the state level (states were free to make any election law they wanted), then represented in the Senate via Senators appointed by the state legislatures.

The enacting of the 17th Amendment basically federalized mob rule.

I believe that the straighter path to Justice is through Stronger establishment of Our Rights, Individual Rights, that includes Privacy, Property, and Voice. The Constitution protect's the Individual, whether in the majority or minority, based on higher principle, ethics, and a sense of impartial justice. The sad thing is how easily that is forgotten. The question should not be who get's to manipulate, but to what end.

We are a Republic, founded in Federalism, not Nationalism. We have so lost our way.
That direct path was in the jury box, which has been usurped by the judicial oligarchy.

That we have so lost our way is correct.

I know, in part. I'm just saying that the path is not by denying the Individual, but supporting Impartial Justice. Truth and fairness do matter, every violation brings consequence, both intended and unintended. Whether through Executive, Legislative, or Judicial. When we ignore the remedy, time after time, the foundation degrades. There are enough exceptions to every rule. Maybe We All need more mirrors to contemplate in. ;):):)
 
The right to own property is so much more than real estate. From the clothes on your back, to your wallet, to the tools of your trade, to food, clothing, possessions, no Government should have the right to them without due process. The rule of law applies to all.
No doubt.

However, if you give the tenant the power to vote themself the property of the land owner they'll do so every time.

Due process and the rule of law was to be seen to in the jury box.

This concept is corrupted. Enumerated Powers, and Reason, dictates otherwise. Your right to your property is Constitutionally protected. One would first have to disable the function of these safeguards in order to achieve such a goal. In an Honorable society, such actions would be stopped, and the perpetrators exposed for the vile beings that they are, and charged with attempted theft. Upon conviction, the penalty should be based on the value of the attempted theft, the proportion could be worked out between the culprit and his lawyer, based on the split or fee the lawyer charged. No diabolical scheme should go unpunished. ... Somewhere over the Rainbow...:eusa_whistle: :eusa_whistle: :eusa_whistle:
 
I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.

I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens but is it really that far fetched of an idea? When I have a dispute with another citizen over something I own I use my government to protect what I think is rightfully mine. It would not seem very plausible to go into a Canadian court and ask them to settle the dispute.

That's a great idea.

If this were 1674.

Why don't we just say "white males who own property are only citizens" and be done with it.

Support for the status quo ante is called Conservatism
 
Not far fetched at all.

Nobody belongs in the game without a buy-in.

Exactly what is that buy in? Just asking because I pay taxes to the federal government but dont own any property (land).
Nobody paid federal taxes on their productivity back then, and the land ownership requirement was for federal elections. The states made their own election laws insofar as participation was concerned.

At this point, we've been dragged by progressives/socialists so far from the republic set forth, that the men who set it fort would be appalled.


They'd also be appalled to see women outside the kitchen and blacks out of the field, but it doesn't matter what they thought. The point of self-determination is that we rule ourselves and form a more perfect nation. We are not ruled by kings or carcasses.
 
In America, you could become part of the gentry through your own efforts, rather than merely being a member of the lucky sperm club...That was the idea.

As long as you were white and male. That's part of being in the lucky sperm club.
Actually, if you were a woman and your name was on the land patent you could vote....That just didn't happen very often.

Likewise, the 3/5 compromise was made to get the Constitution ratified. It was designed to further perfect the Articles of Confederation, not be to be be-all-end-all.


And we've made it more perfect, yet you want the words of a bunch of dead guys to be the be-all, end-all
 
Leeches. Can't live with 'em. Can't fulfill all your sick, twisted medieval fantasies without 'em. I do give coo points to folks who have accessories for the "let's play dress up" times though.

*wanders off to look for my fur lined handcuffs...where the hell did I leave them last?....."

I was borrowing them..
 
Why mince words ya slimey fuck? How about "Jew Hater"? My people , the Irish, are hard workers...not the thieves in the night that you represent. On a personal note how's this for a comparrison of ethics and values. My grandfather on my mom's side started a "penny bank" in the 30's to help working and non working people buy appliances and other modest purchases charging very low interest and forgiving those that failed to pay under those very difficult circumstances. He was very wealthy and there were few government programs to help the unemployed and destitute at that time. Your kind would only make loans if there was a high likelyhood that you could repossess something and make the borrowers life even harder. I don't have to put you down ..do I Rabbi?.. You know who and what you are. Go fuck yourself...now run along ....its a long day and I doubt you have met your quota of people to cheat today.

How many Irish sit on the Supreme Court? How many Irish have won the Nobel Prize? How many Irish head banks?
Your people are a bunch of low class drunks and trouble makers.

you two deserve each other.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNC0kIzM1Fo]YouTube - John Paul Young - Love Is In The Air (1978)[/ame]
 

Forum List

Back
Top