Locke believed citizens were people who owned property

[JBeukema]

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?

In Chapter 2, "Of the state of nature", Locke describes the "state of nature" in which men exist before forming governments:

....a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.

Except for depending on the other man to not kill or steeal from him

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another;

Really?
So this man

was born in an equal state compared to this child

?

he was born with and possesses no more than the child prior to his induction into the social contract?



Clearly, the man knows nothing of most species' social structures. From queen ants to silverbacks, the natural state is far from equal


might makes right

which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent,

The man is delusional

no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions....

Should? Wherefrom comes this should

He jumps froma gross misrepresentation of the word to prescriptive moral assertions.


Locke is a joke.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I espouse no oligarchy...

You espouse only letting a certain group have a say in how the nation is governed- specifically the landed gentry

That is an oligarchy by definition.

Ah, see, but Dude has you on that one, because he also doesn't espouse knowing what he's talking about.

See? Consistency.

 

[uscitizen]

So Now I know why I should not pay any attention to this Locke guy.
Thanks

 

[Toro]

Not even.

Are we fascists because eight year olds can't vote?

We do not allow eight year olds to vote because we recognize that they do not have full rights under the law because they do not have the mental capacity to make all decisions in their best interests.

The idea that people don't have a stake in the system if they don't own property is absolutely ridiculous. Though laws to protect private property are important, it is not physical property that is the primary driver of wealth creation in this country. It is human capital. It is what is peoples' mind. The idea that a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who rents somehow has less invested in the system than some dumbass grade-eight educated hillbilly is bizarre. The richest people in America today are not people who derived their wealth from land like they were 200 years ago. They are people who have created new products.

That's simply ridiculous.

You really think the Silicon Valley entrepreneur is going to remain a tenant when he knows his say-so in the system is at stake?

If you are an entrepreneur of a start-up in Silicon Valley, then yes, you are often renting because you are using your savings to fund your business. It is expensive to live in the Bay Area.

Many highly paid people in Manhattan rent. It is common for a professional in New York making, say $400k to rent. Why does she have less of a stake in society than the guy making $12k and living in a trailer home in the backwoods?

Land is a bogus reason. It was what defined the aristocracy and was a self-serving argument. But land in and of itself is irrelevant. Owning a tract of swampland is unproductive and does nothing to contribute to the welfare of society. What is productive to society as a landowner is making the land productive. That requires labor and capital (which is merely labor in physical form) to derive an income. But that is no different than anyone who creates value to derive an income off the land. What difference does it make if someone is a farmer or someone is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who is working 20 hour days to make The Next Big Thing? What difference does it make if someone has chosen not to mortgage himself to the hilt and instead has put his money into a bank account?

 

[Toro]

What about felons? Illegal immigrants? Non-residents? There are countless classes of people not entitled to vote in this country. Yours is a non-argument.
As for your assertion that rch people do not get that way from property, I'd suggest a look at the Forbes 400 and see how many of them made money from property. Also check how many of them do not own property.
But the solution to that concern is what VA had: either a landowner or having a "freehold" (net worth) over a stated amount.

Hey, I got an idea! Why don't we give more votes to those who have more money! If your net worth is $1, you get 1 vote. If your net worth is $1 million, you get 1 million votes! Why should someone who is worth far less have as much say as George Soros? George Soros is a far better human being than almost any other American because he has more money! Now that's what citizenship is all about!

Oh, and the Forbes 400 list, here it is.

The 400 Richest Americans 2009 - Forbes.com

I saw maybe one or two who made their money from real estate. Virtually everyone on that list is either an entrepreneur, a financier or inherited it.

 

[Richard-H]

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.

It's not really far fetched notion, but it's really only good for extremely primitive soceities.

For all but the last hundred years or so, the Roman legions consisted only of land owning male Roman citizens - and every land owning male citizen was required to serve 15-25 years in the legion. (there were also auxiliary legions which were for everybody else).

So what about a soceity where only land owning males where citizens, but only land owning males paid taxes and all land owning males, exclusively, were required to serve in the military for 15-25 years?

Hail Ceasar! (ah, the good old days!)

Remember - even under this system, the Romans had to have large 'entitlement programs'.

Me thinks that the land owning male citizens would quickly vote to extend citizenship and it's responsibilities to everyone.

 

[Toro]

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.

Here is GDP per capita for the past 1000 years.

The biggest growth has come in the 20th century, which corresponds to the expansion of the vote, not only in America but around the world.

Milton Friedman knew this. With the exception of a small oil rich kingdoms, the richest countries in the world are all democracies.

 

[Toro]

Yes, because most Jews are brain-dead when it comes to issues of civil liberties and freedom. That's why they tend to vote for Democrats.
Smart Jews understand things like survival and prospering and so tend to be Republican and conservative.
I'll leave anyone to guess what the nasty troll Jillian is.

i love irony.

Indeed. Arguing for civil liberties while disenfranchising people is the epitome of irony.

 

[Toro]

I espouse no oligarchy...

You espouse only letting a certain group have a say in how the nation is governed- specifically the landed gentry

That is an oligarchy by definition.

Or an aristocracy.

 

[Intense]

Locke believed in Salvation. Locke lived the two great commandments. Locke believed in Conscience. Locke was rooted in Separation of Church and State, advocating Conscience first. Locke was a major advocate of Non-Violent Protest and Non-Violent Civil Disobedience. Locke believed that the thoughts in your own head were your property, not the property of the State. Locke believed that Each Individual mattered, and had rights within the Society, whether in the majority or the minority, that should be protected serving a Principle higher than Man's or Government's. Locke felt that Government should be constructed to Recognize, serve, and defend these Principles. Unalienable Right, recognized by some societies, and not others. Unalienable Right, Despised by some on this very thread. Does it stand in the way of your world plan JB? For which of these do you persecute John Locke? What specifically do you condemn? One last question, Who is guarding Hell while You are here?

 

[Intense]

Oligarchy, Think either George Orwell "1984" or Alexander Hamilton.

 

[Intense]

Here is a Thought.

American Federalism
Chapter Overview

A federal system checks the growth of tyranny, allows unity without uniformity, encourages experimentation, and keeps government closer to the people.
Alternatives to federal systems are unitary systems in which all constitutional power is vested in the central government and loose compacts among sovereign states.

In the twenty-first century, nations are experimenting with forms of federalism because of the demand for greater autonomy by ethnic groups and others such as the countries of Western Europe have formed a European Union.

In the United States, the national government has the constitutional authority, stemming primarily from the national supremacy article, from its powers to tax and spend and to regulate commerce among the states, and from its war powers, to do what Congress thinks is necessary and proper to promote the general welfare and to provide for the common defense. These constitutional pillars have permitted tremendous expansion of the functions of the federal government.

Congressional authority extends to all commerce that affects more than one state. Commerce includes the production, buying, selling, renting, and transporting of goods, services, and properties. The "Commerce Clause" is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. It gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." These few words confer on the federal government a constitutional justification for regulating a very wide range of human activity since few, if any, aspects of today’s economy affect commerce only in one state.

States must give full faith and credit to each other’s public acts, records, and judicial proceedings; extend to each other’s citizens the privileges and immunities it gives its own; and return fugitives from justice.

The "Full Faith and Credit Clause" is Article VI, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. This article maintains that state courts must enforce the judgments of courts in other states and accept their public records and acts as valid. This clause became controversial in 1998 when courts in Hawaii permitted same-sex marriages. With presidential support, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which relieved other states from any obligation to honor Hawaiian gay marriages.

The federal courts umpire the division of power between the national and state governments. Today debates about federalism are less often about its constitutional structure than over whether action should come from the national or state and local levels. Recent Supreme Court decisions favor a decentralist position and may presage a major shift in the court’s interpretation of the constitutional nature of our federal system.

The major instruments of federal intervention in state programs have been various kinds of financial grants-in-aid, of which the most prominent are categorical-formula grants, project grants, and block grants. The national government also imposes federal mandates and controls the activities of state and local governments by direct orders, cross-cutting requirements, cross-over sanctions in the use of federal funds, total preemption, and partial preemption.

Over the past 200 years there has been a drift of power to the national government, but recently Congress has been pressured to reduce the size and scope of national programs and to shift some existing programs back to the states. While responsibility for welfare has been turned over to the states, the authority of the national government has increased in many areas.

American Federalism

 

[ihopehefails]

I wasn't really suggesting that only people who own property should be citizens but suggesting that the purpose of government is for the citizen over the things that belong to him or her naturally such as their property, life, liberty, and so forth.

My question was that what other government other than your own is charge with protecting those things and who are they protecting them from? They are protecting those things from your neighbors since it is your neigbors that scheme to take those things away from you hence government is not about maintaining the rights of the collective since those really don't exist but about the rights of the individual within the collective.

 

[Intense]

I wasn't really suggesting that only people who own property should be citizens but suggesting that the purpose of government is for the citizen over the things that belong to him or her naturally such as their property, life, liberty, and so forth.

My question was that what other government other than your own is charge with protecting those things and who are they protecting them from? They are protecting those things from your neighbors since it is your neigbors that scheme to take those things away from you hence government is not about maintaining the rights of the collective since those really don't exist but about the rights of the individual within the collective.

The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I don't think it healthy to equate your neighbors with predators. There are allot of good people out there that you are not connecting with. How about spending more time on cause and effect? Try keeping a poker face, don't project negative. Negative does not need encouragement.

 

[Old Rocks]

So the guy out there paying 2000 a month rent is not a citizen, and I am, because I own land I bought and paid off 30 years ago?

That was the idea. You have a problem with it?

Yep, same problem I have with most of your nonsense. We are in the 21st Century, not the 18th. I realize that this may come as a surprise to you, but it is truly the case.

 

[JBeukema]

I espouse no oligarchy...

You espouse only letting a certain group have a say in how the nation is governed- specifically the landed gentry

That is an oligarchy by definition.

Or an aristocracy.

An aristocracy is a particular form of an oligarchy.

 

[JBeukema]

Who is guarding Hell while You are here?

My dog. Each head takes a shift. Where do you think the my evil leftist army go the idea for three 8-hour shifts in the first place? One shift for each head of my beloved hound.

Any more stupid questions? Go read the other thread for my views on Locke. I posted the link already.

 

[Intense]

Who is guarding Hell while You are here?

My dog. Each head takes a shift. Where do you think the my evil leftist army go the idea for three 8-hour shifts in the first place? One shift for each head of my beloved hound.

Any more stupid questions? Go read the other thread for my views on Locke. I posted the link already.

The only thing I get from you is that you didn't flush again. Will you ever learn. Why is it that you hate Federalism so much freak? What did Locke have that you don't, that makes you so envious? A Soul?

 

[JBeukema]

Locke was an idiot who argued that a starving child is repsonsible for his or her own suffering because (s)he has 'equal' ability and means to a rich man. He forms the cornerstone of Bourgeois Liberalism, which is an attempt to justify exploitation and suffering. His is a philosophy or amorality which seeks to justify inequality simply by ignoring it.

The thread was already linked where Locke was destroyed.

 

[JBeukema]

Locke places his neck fully in Hume's Guillotine and pulls the cord hmself

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88295-what-constitutes-a-right-97.html#post1581461