What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Locke believed citizens were people who owned property

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
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.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
The Left is so far away from understanding this basic point that I predict Leftwingsewerworker and his ilk will be along in a minute comparing this to slavery.
 

Soggy in NOLA

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
40,569
Reaction score
5,353
Points
1,830
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.
 

Bill O'Olberman

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
818
Reaction score
125
Points
28
Location
Virginia
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).
 
Last edited:

jswiftproposal

Registered Baby-Cannibal
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
74
Reaction score
20
Points
6
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!! Baseless assumptions and libels of people!!!!!!! Can i call someone a socialist naz?i!?!?!?! Pleeeeeeaaaaaaazzzzzzeeeee!!!!!!!!!!! I know that they are two separate parties that hated each-other and are completely unrelated, but can i plleeeeeeaaaaasssseeeee call obama and other democrats socialist nazis?!?!?!?!?!!!
 

slackjawed

Self deported
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
5,307
Reaction score
650
Points
153
Location
15th congressional district of Arizona
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.
 

xsited1

Agent P
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
17,746
Reaction score
5,777
Points
198
Location
Little Rock, AR
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.

I wish I could say I owned property, but I really don't. You see, I get a property tax bill every year which is quite sizable and if I refuse to pay it, the government will take away my property. So, in fact, it's the government that owns my property.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
71,562
Reaction score
38,241
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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.
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
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.

And English law gave the vote only to landholders or those with property worth more than 20 shillings a year. The struggle for universal suffrage in Britain was long and bloody. I wonder now if Locke came back would he argue that there should be no vote for those who did not have land holdings? It's always useful to locate someone like Locke in their time and place to understand them better.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,959
Reaction score
17,035
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
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).

he's just pathetic.

i love constitutionalists who know nothing about the point of the constitution.
 

del

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
52,099
Reaction score
10,834
Points
2,030
Location
on a one way cul-de-sac
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.

And English law gave the vote only to landholders or those with property worth more than 20 shillings a year. The struggle for universal suffrage in Britain was long and bloody. I wonder now if Locke came back would he argue that there should be no vote for those who did not have land holdings? It's always useful to locate someone like Locke in their time and place to understand them better.

you mean it was different in the 18th century?

damn, i had no idea. :redface:
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
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.

And English law gave the vote only to landholders or those with property worth more than 20 shillings a year. The struggle for universal suffrage in Britain was long and bloody. I wonder now if Locke came back would he argue that there should be no vote for those who did not have land holdings? It's always useful to locate someone like Locke in their time and place to understand them better.



damn, i had no idea. :redface:

You've just written a new sig line!
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
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.

And English law gave the vote only to landholders or those with property worth more than 20 shillings a year. The struggle for universal suffrage in Britain was long and bloody. I wonder now if Locke came back would he argue that there should be no vote for those who did not have land holdings? It's always useful to locate someone like Locke in their time and place to understand them better.

you mean it was different in the 18th century?

damn, i had no idea. :redface:

:lol:
 

del

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
52,099
Reaction score
10,834
Points
2,030
Location
on a one way cul-de-sac
And English law gave the vote only to landholders or those with property worth more than 20 shillings a year. The struggle for universal suffrage in Britain was long and bloody. I wonder now if Locke came back would he argue that there should be no vote for those who did not have land holdings? It's always useful to locate someone like Locke in their time and place to understand them better.



damn, i had no idea. :redface:

You've just written a new sig line!

i'm touched.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top