Life, Liberty, and Property?

[uscitizen]

You can't have the right to own by itself without the right to pursue because how do you obtain something if you can't pursue it in the first place?

Does a man not own himself? How can a man pursue himself?

god and the government own you.

Can you even legally or morally decide the time of your own death?

 

[DiamondDave]

The ruling class in socialism is NOT the people, my misguided little commie.... to enforce the wealth redistribution and the forcing of extra effort by the actual producers (which they do not see the complete fruits of their own labor, thanks to this forced system) socialism and communism requires the ruling elite which we have seen in every socialist and communist system.... these systems are based on force, and not freedom.. INHERENTLY

Twin Oaks Intentional Community Homepage
Ganas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Acorn Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
East Wind Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are others. Socialism = Egalitarian Democracy. Socialist Representational Democracy = Social Democracy.

You can have all the little individual hippie or commie communes you want.... in a large society and nation you cannot have a communist or socialist system without a ruling elite.... PERIOD...

Sorry if you cannot handle the truth

 

[ihopehefails]

You can't have the right to own by itself without the right to pursue because how do you obtain something if you can't pursue it in the first place?

Does a man not own himself? How can a man pursue himself?

Yes but that means he owns the right to his pursuits or actions because if someone else owned his free actions then that would be slavery like a slaveholder owning the right to what a slave will pursue that day like what task he will be doing.

 

[ihopehefails]

So freedom is largely chasing your own tail while proclamiing freedom to do so?

Yep because you have the right to chase your own tail if you want to.

 

[ihopehefails]

You can't have the right to own by itself without the right to pursue because how do you obtain something if you can't pursue it in the first place?

Does a man not own himself? How can a man pursue himself?

god and the government own you.

Can you even legally or morally decide the time of your own death?

Perhaps God owns the body while you own what that body will do such as getting a job. God owns the right to decide if your hearth beats 1 trillion times or 100 times. You have no control over that because that is destiny/Karma/God's will but you do have control over how many ice creams you are going to eat.

You can't really decide when you die because there are laws against suicide. These laws have penalities but rarely get enforced because that would be pointless so technichally the law is violating your "pursuit".

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You can't have the right to own by itself without the right to pursue because how do you obtain something if you can't pursue it in the first place?

Does a man not own himself? How can a man pursue himself?

god and the government own you.

Can you even legally or morally decide the time of your own death?

if they people are allegedly the government and the government owns me, would that make me my neighbor's subject and him mine?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The ruling class in socialism is NOT the people, my misguided little commie.... to enforce the wealth redistribution and the forcing of extra effort by the actual producers (which they do not see the complete fruits of their own labor, thanks to this forced system) socialism and communism requires the ruling elite which we have seen in every socialist and communist system.... these systems are based on force, and not freedom.. INHERENTLY

Twin Oaks Intentional Community Homepage
Ganas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Acorn Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
East Wind Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are others. Socialism = Egalitarian Democracy. Socialist Representational Democracy = Social Democracy.

You can have all the little individual hippie or commie communes you want.... in a large society and nation you cannot have a communist or socialist system without a ruling elite.... PERIOD...

Sorry if you cannot handle the truth

actually, you can. You simply combine the same system with a federated system marked by term limits and very limited powers and authorities (like was supposed to be the case with the US). There isd no need or reason for a single 'nation' to incorporate 304 million people (or for the modern form of the State to exist at all)

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You can't have the right to own by itself without the right to pursue because how do you obtain something if you can't pursue it in the first place?

Does a man not own himself? How can a man pursue himself?

Yes

How does a man pursue himself?

if someone else owned his free actions then that would be slavery like a slaveholder owning the right to what a slave will pursue that day like what task he will be doing.

Like the capitalist commanding the proletarian to perform a desired action to benefit the capitalist, allowing, in return, the proletarian a portion of the value of his labour so he may sustain his own existence so long as this proves useful t the capitalist?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The original Jefferson saying of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not make a lot of sense because in other Jefferson writings he suggest that government exist to secure those things but how is it possible for government to secure the third item which is "happiness". Did this mean that government should secure your right to pursue monster energy drinks, anti-depressents, and other things that would help you to achieve happiness? What about other pieces of property such as land, homes, cars, food, and any other material possession you might be able to acquire? Why would the government only exist to secure those items but not other pieces of property?

I don't want to be hostile to you, here, but you seem to have some problem with understanding English, even when it's your own post at issue. First you say, "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", and then you turn around and say the third item is "Happiness". Do you not understand the difference between happiness and the pursuit thereof? It is one of the purposes of a good government to secure your right to attempt to secure your own happiness - whether you succeed or not is up to you - but not to secure the happiness for you, and Jefferson never suggested otherwise.

I believe that Jefferson borrowed his slogan from Locke which went something like this Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property but altered it because of the slavery issue and if this is correct (which I am not sure I am entirely correct) then it would make more sense to believe that Jefferson and many of the founders believed that government existed to secure three things. The first thing is your life as in protecting you from violence either from your fellow citizens or invaders. The second thing is for Liberty as in to ensure it from being taken from you in some form. The third is to protect your right to property because what other thing secures your ability to retain control over your own property from either a foreign invader, domestic thief, or another person wishing to excercise control over your property than the government itself?

I suspect the Founding Fathers beliefs on the purpose of good government were rather more complex than that, but it is a fact that they, in general, believed that a good government should protect its citizens' right to self-determination as much as possible, which is embodied by the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Not sure where you got the whole Locke thing from, but if Jefferson modified it, it probably had less to do with the slavery issue than with an idea that people were entitled to more freedom in and control over their lives than merely acquiring property.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Why would god own anything? Because he who has the power has the right?

 

[DiamondDave]

Twin Oaks Intentional Community Homepage
Ganas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Acorn Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
East Wind Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are others. Socialism = Egalitarian Democracy. Socialist Representational Democracy = Social Democracy.

You can have all the little individual hippie or commie communes you want.... in a large society and nation you cannot have a communist or socialist system without a ruling elite.... PERIOD...

Sorry if you cannot handle the truth

actually, you can. You simply combine the same system with a federated system marked by term limits and very limited powers and authorities (like was supposed to be the case with the US). There isd no need or reason for a single 'nation' to incorporate 304 million people (or for the modern form of the State to exist at all)

Actually, you cannot... as the system revolves around power and the forcing of one person to give up what he/she has produced for the redistribution to a non-producer or non-contributor... you need a consistent ruling elite to ensure that forceful action is indeed taken, and once that power is given it is not easily or readily taken away

People, by nature also wish to benefit from what they do... to force the socialist or communist system stifles creativity and production and advancement.. that is unless they are given incentive (negative incentive) as was witnessed under the USSR system... which is why such a system had the need for gulags, secret police, etc

You are indeed quite the naive little person infatuated with the failed dreams of communism.. I actually pity you

 

[☭proletarian☭]

the system revolves around power and the forcing of one person to give up what he/she has produced for the redistribution to a non-producer or non-contributor...

You mean taxation?

Taxation does not necessitate a ruling class.

Ruling class: one class which rules over another.

The masses can decide for themselves to surrender a portion of their earnings through taxation for public expenses. It's not that complicated, really.

Those who do not wish to participate are free to leave the community (though physical relocation would not necessarily be required), surrendering their right to use of collective resources (such as public hospitals, public lands, etc.) by withdrawing their participation and support. It's be like not paying social security tax and not receiving social security when you get older because you opted out.

you need a consistent ruling elite to ensure that forceful action is indeed taken, and once that power is given it is not easily or readily taken away

There is no such need. Never heard of democracy, have you?

People, by nature also wish to benefit from what they do... to force the socialist or communist system stifles creativity and production and advancement.. that is unless they are given incentive (negative incentive) as was witnessed under the USSR system... which is why such a system had the need for gulags, secret police, etc

What are you talking about? No such system ever had such things. If you can't tell social democracy/socialism.communism from totalitarian dictatorships, you should read more.

You are indeed quite the naive little person infatuated with the failed dreams of communism.. I actually pity you

Yep... all socialist policies have failed... public roads, public hospitals, public lands, public utilities, social security, disability insurance... all of which can be traced back to the writings and workis of the First and Second International.

 

[DiamondDave]

The ruling class also forces your participation... forces your production.. forces your place in the 'socialist' society.... and you honestly believe that the most productive will be simply allowed to 'opt out'???

The masses can decide for themselves if they wish to send in a portion of their earnings?? Are you ******* serious???

And ahh.. "democracy" which also must be held in check for the tyranny of the masses must be policed... else 50.001% can inherently take the products, earnings, and freedoms of the other 49.999%

Oh... and BTW.. public works programs like roads and utilities are not 'socialist policies'... however, nice try to spin that in your direction to falsely support the failed concepts of socialism and communism... and you can take your failed concepts of social security and shove them up your ass

You are truly a naive person out of touch with reality and the reality behind human nature and societal works

Oh... and forced incentives have and do exist in any country attempting communist or socialist systems... for outside of a couple hundred person hippie commune, your concepts simply FAIL and must be enforced by the ruling class/elite... which when people do not produce to support the non-producers, you start to see the gulags, and 'laws' that take away from their freedoms to support the ways of 'socialism'

I suggest you cut off the pony tail, take off the sandals... drop out of classes and social groups led by neo-communists who cannot make it in the real world... and try to actually deal in the entirety of human society to get a grasp about what it takes to have individual and community/national success....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The ruling class also forces your participation... forces your production.. forces your place in the 'socialist' society....

there is no ruling class in the socialist system. There is no aristocracy, not even under the name of 'career politicians'

The masses can decide for themselves if they wish to send in a portion of their earnings?? Are you ******* serious???

When they actually decide the laws, they can

And ahh.. "democracy" which also must be held in check for the tyranny of the masses must be policed... else 50.001% can inherently take the products, earnings, and freedoms of the other 49.999%

Hence the rights of the individual which form the foundation of socialist thought (contrary to popular believe, socialism is founded on individualist principles, which give rise to the collectivist aspects as a means of better ensuring the wellbeing of the individuals which comprise the collective)

Oh... and BTW.. public works programs like roads and utilities are not 'socialist policies'...

Really? Take from everyone a portion of their wealth and use the funds for works designed to benefit the collective... It goes right back to the First International, Marx and Engels, and socio-communist ideals. Under the liberal system, free of socialist influence, such things would only exist if private investors found it profitable.

however, nice try to spin

I suggest you cut off the pony tail, take off the sandals...

Actually, I'm wearing boots

All you've said in return is that most5 people are not informed./educated/ honest enough for large-scale socialism to work (not that socialism even advocates large states, which are a product of rulers desiring more control over more people)

 

[DiamondDave]

The ruling class also forces your participation... forces your production.. forces your place in the 'socialist' society....

there is no ruling class in the socialist system. There is no aristocracy, not even under the name of 'career politicians'

The masses can decide for themselves if they wish to send in a portion of their earnings?? Are you ******* serious???

When they actually decide the laws, they can



Hence the rights of the individual which form the foundation of socialist thought (contrary to popular believe, socialism is founded on individualist principles, which give rise to the collectivist aspects as a means of better ensuring the wellbeing of the individuals which comprise the collective)

Oh... and BTW.. public works programs like roads and utilities are not 'socialist policies'...

Really? Take from everyone a portion of their wealth and use the funds for works designed to benefit the collective... It goes right back to the First International, Marx and Engels, and socio-communist ideals. Under the liberal system, free of socialist influence, such things would only exist if private investors found it profitable.

however, nice try to spin

I suggest you cut off the pony tail, take off the sandals...

Actually, I'm wearing boots

All you've said in return is that most5 people are not informed./educated/ honest enough for large-scale socialism to work (not that socialism even advocates large states, which are a product of rulers desiring more control over more people)

1) Yes there is.. else control to force participation and redistribution cannot happen.... producers do not just willingly continue to support non-producers... you are so naive to think that a commune mentality will work in a large scale
2) The masses will not willingly contribute.... and as for your 'laws' part of the statement, try and understand the tyranny of the masses
3) Collectivism is inherently against the concepts of freedom.. actual freedom is incompatible with true socialism
4) Roads and road systems predate socialist writings of the thankfully dead originators of socialist theories
5) Your silly argument that only 'educated' people can understand or make socialism 'work' is the true background thinking of the communist/socialist supporters... that their false sense of intellectual superiority makes them believe that Marx's theories can actually work... reeks of the so called expert professors and PhDs that suck off the institutional tit since their supposed superiority eludes them when trying to actually make it in the real world where production and demand exist

 

[☭proletarian☭]

1) Yes there is.. else control to force participation and redistribution cannot happen....

Like any other form of democracy (truly as such), there is no ruling class to rule over any other class. There is only the People, who rule themselves.

producers do not just willingly continue to support non-producers...

The salvation army doesn't exist? Noone adopts little african kids when they see the ads on tv? Noone helps a friend, their child, or anyone else? Ever?

you are so naive to think that a commune mentality will work in a large scale

define: large scale

2) The masses will not willingly contribute....

They have many times in the past. Public libraries and many other things stand as evidence of the fact.

3) Collectivism is inherently against the concepts of freedom..

Good thing socialism os founded on Individualist ideals, then. Individualism taken to the extreme leads to anarchy, since each person would be in it only for themselves. The collectivist policies of social democracy/socialism are modeld after individualist concerns.

4) Roads and road systems predate socialist writings of the thankfully dead originators of socialist theories

They predate the term, not the concept. People traded to increase their ownership of things they valued before the word 'capitalism' existed, too- hell, before any word in use today existed.

5) Your silly argument that only 'educated' people can understand or make socialism 'work'

actually, that's what you said when you said that only a minority of people can make it work and large-scale attemots would fail because most people are too corrupt, dishonest, greedy, and ignorant

is the true background thinking of the communist/socialist supporters... that their false sense of intellectual superiority makes them believe that Marx's theories can actually work...

theories don't 'work or don't work' and noone in this thread has advocated Marxism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was trying to point out when the founders believed that govt existed to secure our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness they might have meant life, liberty, and pursuit of property but could not use the word property because of the slavery issue.

This makes more sense to me because what other force defines who owns what and who can use what is out there than the government itself. When you own a piece of land the government draws boundries that everyone recognizes so government has an instrumental role in securing your rights to your property.

No, because there's more to the pursuit of happiness than merely owning property. The Framers of the Constitution delineated several ways in which we are legally protected in our pursuit of happiness in the Bill of Rights which have nothing to do with property (as well as, of course, several which do deal with property): the right to exercise religious beliefs, for example, or to speak out against perceived wrongs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So freedom is largely chasing your own tail while proclamiing freedom to do so?

If that's what floats your boat, sure. Seems like a waste of freedom to ME, but hey, who am I to define which happiness you choose to pursue?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't have the right to own by itself without the right to pursue because how do you obtain something if you can't pursue it in the first place?

Does a man not own himself? How can a man pursue himself?

god and the government own you.

Can you even legally or morally decide the time of your own death?

Sometimes, yes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would god own anything? Because he who has the power has the right?

He who makes something is perforce the owner of that thing. Pedantic, but nonetheless true.