Positions of Power

[boedicca]

Right, what Locke referred to as the Law of Nature and Jefferson called "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

"[E]quality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity...

...Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself... by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another"

Again, by reason, not force of will or mandate, without the consent of the governed. Without respect of Private Property, there is no defense against Tyranny. There are limits to what we have a right to impose on each other.

I believe that private property is a necessity positive right. Why did you think otherwise?

Property rights are negative rights. The right consists of others keeping their paws off of one's property - not in the government taking away somebody else's property to give to one.

 

[Intense]

Right, what Locke referred to as the Law of Nature and Jefferson called "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

"[E]quality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity...

...Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself... by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another"

Again, by reason, not force of will or mandate, without the consent of the governed. Without respect of Private Property, there is no defense against Tyranny. There are limits to what we have a right to impose on each other.

I believe that private property is a necessity positive right. Why did you think otherwise?

Be the perspective from Locke, Madison, Thoreau, the issue remains the same in relation to Tax Burden, or Eminent Domain, and what Rights the whole has to impose on the Individual. The Mob may decide by force or number, what ever it wills, no matter how far back it has abandoned reason or Justice. There is a line that every majority, every Authority is alway's in danger of crossing.

 

[Agit8r]

Again, by reason, not force of will or mandate, without the consent of the governed. Without respect of Private Property, there is no defense against Tyranny. There are limits to what we have a right to impose on each other.

I believe that private property is a necessity positive right. Why did you think otherwise?

Be the perspective from Locke, Madison, Thoreau, the issue remains the same in relation to Tax Burden, or Eminent Domain, and what Rights the whole has to impose on the Individual. The Mob may decide by force or number, what ever it wills, no matter how far back it has abandoned reason or Justice. There is a line that every majority, every Authority is alway's in danger of crossing.

Truly private property will tend to be limited (as all positive laws should) by mortality, and enlightened inheritance laws. Then there is corporate property....

As far as the threat of mob, our history has shown far more instances of political intrigues by the powerful members of society influencing the state. Private property is under far more threat from being confiscated to build a baseball stadium for a president's son, than it is to be taken over by a mob

 

[uscitizen]

As it is a universal truth that positions of power will always attract those most inclined to abuse that power, doesn't it make the most sense to SEVERELY limit the power that any one individual may wield?

Doesn't it make sense to limit the prerogative that any individual in power may wield over others? Isn't this the basis of American government?

The position the govt seems to be the doggie position with we citizens on the recieving end.

 

[Intense]

I believe that private property is a necessity positive right. Why did you think otherwise?

Be the perspective from Locke, Madison, Thoreau, the issue remains the same in relation to Tax Burden, or Eminent Domain, and what Rights the whole has to impose on the Individual. The Mob may decide by force or number, what ever it wills, no matter how far back it has abandoned reason or Justice. There is a line that every majority, every Authority is alway's in danger of crossing.

Truly private property will tend to be limited (as all positive laws should) by mortality, and enlightened inheritance laws. Then there is corporate property....

As far as the threat of mob, our history has shown far more instances of political intrigues by the powerful members of society influencing the state. Private property is under far more threat from being confiscated to build a baseball stadium for a president's son, than it is to be taken over by a mob

The Inheritance Law's are not exactly enlightened. They are about ready to do a 180, come January. Not even consistent. Your Corporate holdings are reflected in your Quarterly Reports, right??? What is your retirement invested in?

 

[sangha]

I dont think the founders would have liked no comander in chief.

freedom is not the easy route , for some its not it them.


I love freedom and so did the founders which is why they gave us the government and constitution they did give us.

They never promised that it would change the heart of human kind.

I see a lot of ingnorance concerning the Founding Fathers view on the role of the President when it comes to military affairs. While it is true that they gave POTUS the powers of CIC. However, they also refused the CIC a standing army. In order for the CIC to order the army to do anything, Congress would first have to authorize the expenditure of money to form an army.

IOW, under the Constitution as it was originally written, the CIC couldn't do shit with an army until Congress provided him with one. The Founding Fathers did not want POTUS to have the power to initiate military actions without the approval of Congress. The current ability of a POTUS to initiate military actions without the approval of Congress is in direct conflict with the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers

But you'll never see a Strict Constructionist argue for the abolition of the US' standing army.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What's a necessity property right?

 

[boedicca]

It means that the Government gets to decide what is a necessary level of property for its redistributionists policies.

All "Positive" Rights involve Big Government Redistribution.

 

[Intense]

I believe that private property is a necessity positive right. Why did you think otherwise?

Be the perspective from Locke, Madison, Thoreau, the issue remains the same in relation to Tax Burden, or Eminent Domain, and what Rights the whole has to impose on the Individual. The Mob may decide by force or number, what ever it wills, no matter how far back it has abandoned reason or Justice. There is a line that every majority, every Authority is alway's in danger of crossing.

Truly private property will tend to be limited (as all positive laws should) by mortality, and enlightened inheritance laws. Then there is corporate property....

As far as the threat of mob, our history has shown far more instances of political intrigues by the powerful members of society influencing the state. Private property is under far more threat from being confiscated to build a baseball stadium for a president's son, than it is to be taken over by a mob

Yet Entitlement effects who, at whom's expense?

 

[sangha]

Be the perspective from Locke, Madison, Thoreau, the issue remains the same in relation to Tax Burden, or Eminent Domain, and what Rights the whole has to impose on the Individual. The Mob may decide by force or number, what ever it wills, no matter how far back it has abandoned reason or Justice. There is a line that every majority, every Authority is alway's in danger of crossing.

Truly private property will tend to be limited (as all positive laws should) by mortality, and enlightened inheritance laws. Then there is corporate property....

As far as the threat of mob, our history has shown far more instances of political intrigues by the powerful members of society influencing the state. Private property is under far more threat from being confiscated to build a baseball stadium for a president's son, than it is to be taken over by a mob

Yet Entitlement effects who, at whom's expense?

It depends on the entitlement

Do you always speak in generalities? Are you at all capable of being specific about what you're poutraged about?

wrt entitlements - are you talking about benefits for veterans, many of which are entitlements? Subsidies for profitable corporations?

 

[Agit8r]

"Your Corporate holdings are reflected in your Quarterly Reports, right??? What is your retirement invested in?"

of course. The means of production are increasingly held collectively by the workers, but my comments were more about property being held in perpetuity

"besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded ag[ain]st in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

-- James Madison; Detached Memoranda (1819)

http://www.broowaha.com/articles/8006/what-should-limited-government-look-like

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It means that the Government gets to decide what is a necessary level of property for its redistributionists policies.

All "Positive" Rights involve Big Government Redistribution.

Thanks, definitely against that.

 

[sangha]

It means that the Government gets to decide what is a necessary level of property for its redistributionists policies.

All "Positive" Rights involve Big Government Redistribution.

Thanks, definitely against that.

That's because wingnuts hate the Constitution

 

[Cecilie1200]

"demanding other people pay extra to the government without doing so themselves"

if you mean the wealthy, that is in line with classical capitalist economics. it would be great if we all could pay less taxes. It would be great if we did not aspire to be a worldwide empire, but since we do, that is the price we pay

Very interesting how you just pasted the meaning you wanted it to have onto that post and then ran off half-cocked, pretending your premise had been established.

Perhaps you should try ASKING people what they mean, rather than just assuming they meant what you wanted them to say.

 

[sangha]

"demanding other people pay extra to the government without doing so themselves"

if you mean the wealthy, that is in line with classical capitalist economics. it would be great if we all could pay less taxes. It would be great if we did not aspire to be a worldwide empire, but since we do, that is the price we pay

Very interesting how you just pasted the meaning you wanted it to have onto that post and then ran off half-cocked, pretending your premise had been established.

Perhaps you should try ASKING people what they mean, rather than just assuming they meant what you wanted them to say.

Very interesting how you ignored the first 5 words of his post (ie "if you mean the wealthy") The functionally literate understand that means Agit was unsure of the posters meaning.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"demanding other people pay extra to the government without doing so themselves"

if you mean the wealthy, that is in line with classical capitalist economics. it would be great if we all could pay less taxes. It would be great if we did not aspire to be a worldwide empire, but since we do, that is the price we pay

Very interesting how you just pasted the meaning you wanted it to have onto that post and then ran off half-cocked, pretending your premise had been established.

Perhaps you should try ASKING people what they mean, rather than just assuming they meant what you wanted them to say.

Very interesting how you ignored the first 5 words of his post (ie "if you mean the wealthy") The functionally literate understand that means Agit was unsure of the posters meaning.

I didn't ignore it, numbfuck. Those five words were what I was referring to. Just because you pretend your statement is a question doesn't mean it is. The TRULY literate understand that Agit didn't CARE what the poster meant, because he wanted an excuse to rail against "the wealthy", whoever the fuck THAT is this week.

 

[MikeK]

As it is a universal truth that positions of power will always attract those most inclined to abuse that power, doesn't it make the most sense to SEVERELY limit the power that any one individual may wield?

[...]

Very true. This is a political reality most Americans are adept at ignoring.

 

[sangha]

Very interesting how you just pasted the meaning you wanted it to have onto that post and then ran off half-cocked, pretending your premise had been established.

Perhaps you should try ASKING people what they mean, rather than just assuming they meant what you wanted them to say.

Very interesting how you ignored the first 5 words of his post (ie "if you mean the wealthy") The functionally literate understand that means Agit was unsure of the posters meaning.

I didn't ignore it, numbfuck. Those five words were what I was referring to. Just because you pretend your statement is a question doesn't mean it is. The TRULY literate understand that Agit didn't CARE what the poster meant, because he wanted an excuse to rail against "the wealthy", whoever the fuck THAT is this week.

I apologize for saying you ignored it when the truth is, you didn't understand what the words mean

 

[loosecannon]

Very interesting how you just pasted the meaning you wanted it to have onto that post and then ran off half-cocked, pretending your premise had been established.

Perhaps you should try ASKING people what they mean, rather than just assuming they meant what you wanted them to say.

Very interesting how you ignored the first 5 words of his post (ie "if you mean the wealthy") The functionally literate understand that means Agit was unsure of the posters meaning.

I didn't ignore it, numbfuck. Those five words were what I was referring to. Just because you pretend your statement is a question doesn't mean it is. The TRULY literate understand that Agit didn't CARE what the poster meant, because he wanted an excuse to rail against "the wealthy", whoever the fuck THAT is this week.

You do realize that you yourself just did exactly what you accused agit of right?

Very interesting how you just pasted the meaning you wanted it to have onto that post and then ran off half-cocked, pretending your premise had been established.

Perhaps you should try ASKING people what they mean, rather than just assuming they meant what you wanted them to say

You should take your own advice and stop projecting what you do onto others.

 

[Intense]

"Your Corporate holdings are reflected in your Quarterly Reports, right??? What is your retirement invested in?"

of course. The means of production are increasingly held collectively by the workers, but my comments were more about property being held in perpetuity

"besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded ag[ain]st in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

-- James Madison; Detached Memoranda (1819)

Agreed.