- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #121
Rab, the idea of limiting suffrage in America is loonyville, period, to the right, the center, and the left.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Locke believed citizens were people who owned property
- Thread starter ihopehefails
- Start date
What makes anyone think that owning a piece of land is going to prevent people from voting to bust the budget?
Because if you have something you are now "rich" in the government's eyes. And they always want to tax the rich.
Rab, the idea of limiting suffrage in America is loonyville, period, to the right, the center, and the left.
No, Jake. What's looneyville is the system we have now where politicians promise free this and free that to everyone in sight without regard to whether we have the money for it or not. That system is not sustainable because it is too easy to "kick the can down the road for the next guy." Limiting vote to people with something to lose reduces the incentive to politicians to bribe voters with other people's money.
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #124
Rab, you are talking to three folks in a phone booth out at the dump. No one else is paying attention to you. That is how loony you are.
Rab, you are talking to three folks in a phone booth out at the dump. No one else is paying attention to you. That is how loony you are.
So that's where you are, Jake. That explains a lot. Pass the Thunderbird for me.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Didn't the landowners themselves eventually GIVE the vote to the rest of the people? I mean, if they originally held the power, then they must have been the ones who made the decision to expand voting rights.
This is meant in response to those claiming some sort of original intent, or whatever...
This is meant in response to those claiming some sort of original intent, or whatever...
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
What makes anyone think that owning a piece of land is going to prevent people from voting to bust the budget?
Because if you have something you are now "rich" in the government's eyes. And they always want to tax the rich.
You get a big tax deduction when you have a mortgage, right?
Didn't the landowners themselves eventually GIVE the vote to the rest of the people? I mean, if they originally held the power, then they must have been the ones who made the decision to expand voting rights.
This is meant in response to those claiming some sort of original intent, or whatever...
They were nagged by their wives.
THere is also the influence of millions of potential voters which would naturally appeal to politicians.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Didn't the landowners themselves eventually GIVE the vote to the rest of the people? I mean, if they originally held the power, then they must have been the ones who made the decision to expand voting rights.
This is meant in response to those claiming some sort of original intent, or whatever...
They were nagged by their wives.
THere is also the influence of millions of potential voters which would naturally appeal to politicians.
American home ownership has been over 60% since the 1960's. What's the problem again? Exactly? That property owners don't have totalitarian authority in the US?
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.
Who is this Locke and why should I care what he believed?
Didn't the landowners themselves eventually GIVE the vote to the rest of the people? I mean, if they originally held the power, then they must have been the ones who made the decision to expand voting rights.
This is meant in response to those claiming some sort of original intent, or whatever...
They were nagged by their wives.
THere is also the influence of millions of potential voters which would naturally appeal to politicians.
American home ownership has been over 60% since the 1960's. What's the problem again? Exactly? That property owners don't have totalitarian authority in the US?
What does that have to do with anything, again? WHat percentage of registered voters are property owners?
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #132
Rabbi, what is your point? That you are unhappy? OK, you are unhappy, but that will change nothing.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Why are people with children allowed to vote? People with children get huge tax breaks that have to be subsidized by the people without children. Why do we let the vast numbers of people with children use their vote to get themselves those massive tax breaks, and massive amounts of money for public education as well?
Well, the left now believes a citizen to be someone who lives on the backs of others... all the while complaining about where the money's coming from.
Many on the left think everyone is a US citizen.
That's why they want to grant them the rights of one....right?
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.
How many rentors died in Afghanistan last week, asshole?
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
As opposed to what we have now?
Believing that a landowner should be a citizen and a renter a non-citizen is idiocy compared to almost anything.
No one is saying renters should be non-citizens. That is idiocy. Whether people without a stake in the country's well being, either by land ownership or "freehold" should be entitled to vote is the issue. I think not, as people can simply vote themselves bigger and bigger entitlements until the state goes bankrupt. About what we have now.
Nobody is saying that? ...from the OP:
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?
No one except the OP? Not to mention the thread title.
I agree with you, Locke's belief is idiocy.
Last edited:
Locke on Property. Please check out the link.
Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.
Sec. 28. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.
Sec. 29. By making an explicit consent of every commoner, necessary to any one's appropriating to himself any part of what is given in common, children or servants could not cut the meat, which their father or master had provided for them in common, without assigning to every one his peculiar part. Though the water running in the fountain be every one's, yet who can doubt, but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His labour hath taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath thereby appropriated it to himself.
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 5
Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.
Sec. 28. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.
Sec. 29. By making an explicit consent of every commoner, necessary to any one's appropriating to himself any part of what is given in common, children or servants could not cut the meat, which their father or master had provided for them in common, without assigning to every one his peculiar part. Though the water running in the fountain be every one's, yet who can doubt, but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His labour hath taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath thereby appropriated it to himself.
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 5
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 91
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 250
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 237
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 166
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 137
- Views
- 716
- Replies
- 81
- Views
- 330
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8059
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-