Locke believed citizens were people who owned property

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Oct 3, 2009
3,384
228
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 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.
 
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.
 
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?!?!?!?!?!!!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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!
 
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:
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top