Private Property Is Synonymous With Prosperity

[PoliticalChic]

….and at the center of the discussion is an understanding of capitalism vs communism.



1.The second easiest argument to prove is how ignorant Democrat voters are….after all, they don’t recognize that a vote for that party is a vote against private property, and against prosperity.
The first easiest argument to prove is how ignorant Democrat voters are, is simply to provide examples of their posts.


2. Every one of the Leftist political philosophies is some iteration of "...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'" Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144)

a.All of these are based on that premise: Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Fascism, and Nazism.
Here it is in the words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor, and FDR supporter:

“[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future."
Folsom and Folsom, "FDR Goes To War."

Either you subscribe to that belief, or you vote against the Democrat candidates.





3. Reliable Democrat voters vote for it…..by are clueless about what they are supporting. A vote for the Democrat Party is a vote against private property.

a. Here is one such Democrat voter:
“Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He’s Against “Private” Property, Not “Personal” Property … he wants to keep his iPad 2, naturally, and not share it with the shiftless vagrants fighting over access to one of the three Porta-Potties recently delivered to the now-evacuated camp site in lower Manhattan.”
Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He's Against "Private" Property, Not "Personal" Property | Human Events




4. “The two most famous empires in history were the Roman and the British….At the institutional heart of both was a well developed system of law….Both systems provided a higher level protection of private property than did surrounding nations….
As a result, both prospered.” Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.56




But the debate goes back to Plato and Aristotle….


Next.

 

[Moonglow]

3. Reliable Democrat voters vote for it…..by are clueless about what they are supporting. A vote for the Democrat Party is a vote against private property.

Yet private property abounds during democratic control of politics.

Proof again that polislick is a lying partisan Asian anti-American 5th columnist...

 

[Moonglow]

But the debate goes back to Plato and Aristotle….

The Ancient Greeks could own private property and there was public property that the rich payed for...No one but citizens could own land....

 

[JLW]

So what is your thesis? It makes no sense. No democrat I know is against private property. So what are you babbling about?

Zoning laws?
Environmental laws?
Nuisance laws?
Property taxes?
Land use regulations?

If your going to rant and rave, we have to know what you are ranting and raving about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what is your thesis? It makes no sense. No democrat I know is against private property. So what are you babbling about?

Zoning laws?
Environmental laws?
Nuisance laws?
Property taxes?
Land use regulations?

If your going to rant and rave, we have to know what you are ranting and raving about.

3. Reliable Democrat voters vote for it…..by are clueless about what they are supporting. A vote for the Democrat Party is a vote against private property.

a. Here is one such Democrat voter:
“Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He’s Again'st “Private” Property, Not “Personal” Property … he wants to keep his iPad 2, naturally, and not share it with the shiftless vagrants fighting over access to one of the three Porta-Potties recently delivered to the now-evacuated camp site in lower Manhattan.”
Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He's Against "Private" Property, Not "Personal" Property | Human Events



Stay tuned to this thread....

I promise you'll learn a great deal.

You will hate it, nor will you admit it....but you'll find, yet again, an irrefutable thesis by moi.

 

[JLW]

Every group has extremists. I don't care what some rogue has to say.

I do hope you know that nearly all property is subject to some type of law, rule or regulation.

 

[Moonglow]

Every group has extremist. I don't care what some rogue has to say.

You are in an extremist thread put up by an extremist..

 

[shockedcanadian]

It's true. Canadian authorities work extremely hard to put regulations and deny people private ownership. They have a heavily protected financial industry, as they know if U.S banks entered Canada, their covert government monopoly is over and people will get loans to purchase homes, whereas now they cannot. They control WHAT you can have, they are trying this right now with my wife and I, as our home will eventually be lost.

There have even been efforts to try and deny people if they won a lottery, based on ones criminal history. There were debates years ago about the government being able to deny someone their winnings, if they were racist! This is the absurdity they want to go to. The thoroughly subjective decision on the value of your worth. It didn't fly, but it will one day most certainly.

The enemy of socialism is individual freedom and personal property and all the luxuries that go with it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. Plato and his student, Aristotle, came down on differ sides of the communal vs private property debate. And the reason for the difference is that Plato, as is true of every Leftist, had a flawed understanding of human nature.



In The Republic, Plato portrays rulers as having the character of a Mother Teresa, desiring nothing of a material nature:

“…none of them should have any property of his own beyond what is absolutely necessary; neither should they have a private house or store closed against any one who has a mind to enter;…”



Not only must those who believe in communism, socialism, whatever, picture their rulers as being like angels….

….remember when Liberal told us that about Hussein Obama…

"Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of GOD."
"In a way Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of GOD. He's going to bring all different sides together."
- Newsweek editor Evan Thomas


….but the least astute, the reliable Democrat voter, put their faith in a candidate who sold out America’s uranium for her 30 pieces of silver….

…well, $145 million.

 

[Moonglow]

Constant rhetorical redundant repetition like a propaganda mill...

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. For Plato, rulers could be found who not only had no sense of greed, but he gave birth to the views of Marx, who stated that his special rules of ownership would change all of human nature….


“The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский человек), as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.[1]
New Soviet man - Wikipedia

Here's Hillary Clinton parroting the same idiocy, that the Left can change human nature:
In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html




7. Indeed, at the heart of American liberal democratic thought as expressed in The Federalist Papers is the idea that human nature is neither perfect nor perfectible and, hence, checks and balances are needed for both the governors and the governed.

As James Madison puts it in Federalist 51 "It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither internal nor external controls on government would be necessary."

 

[Tax Man]

Many people can be prosperous and not have property. I am one of those. I do not own a fancy car I do own a nice truck an F 450. I hope that does not make me a vicious property owner.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Many people can be prosperous and not have property. I am one of those. I do not own a fancy car I do own a nice truck an F 450. I hope that does not make me a vicious property owner.

"Many people can be prosperous and not have property.I am one of those. .... I do own a nice truck an F 450."



Soooo, if the truck is not 'property,' how do you refer to it....as your wife????


prop·er·ty
ˈpräpərdē/
noun

1. 1.
   a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.

Just between the two of us....how many times a day do people refer to you as a moron????
Seriously.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While communism, collectivism, statism, whatever.....has always been associated with failure and worse: mass murder......as long ago as Aristotle, the economic system consistent with human nature has been capitalism and individualism.


8. In his ‘Politics,’ “Aristotle delivered a cogent attack on the communism of the ruling class called for by Plato. He denounced Plato's goal of the perfect unity of the state through communism …

First, private property is more highly productive and will therefore lead to progress. Goods owned in common by a large number of people will receive little attention, since people will mainly consult their own self-interest and will neglect all duty they can fob off on to others. In contrast, people will devote the greatest interest and care to their own property.

Second, one of Plato's arguments for communal property is that it is conducive to social peace, since no one will be envious of, or try to grab the property of, another. Aristotle retorted that communal property would lead to continuing and intense conflict, since each will complain that he has worked harder and obtained less than others who have done little and taken more from the common store.

Third, private property is clearly implanted in man's nature: His love of self, of money, and of property, are tied together in a natural love of exclusive ownership.

Fourth, Aristotle, a great observer of past and present, pointed out that private property had existed always and everywhere. To impose communal property on society would be to disregard the record of human experience, and to leap into the new and untried. Abolishing private property would probably create more problems than it would solve.

Finally, Aristotle wove together his economic and moral theories by providing the brilliant insight that only private property furnishes people with the opportunity to act morally, e.g. to practice the virtues of benevolence and philanthropy. The compulsion of communal property would destroy that opportunity.”
Aristotle on Private Property and Money | Murray N. Rothbard



Yet dunces everywhere raise their paws to vote for the failed policies of the Democrat Party.


Until now.

 

[otto105]

….and at the center of the discussion is an understanding of capitalism vs communism.



1.The second easiest argument to prove is how ignorant Democrat voters are….after all, they don’t recognize that a vote for that party is a vote against private property, and against prosperity.
The first easiest argument to prove is how ignorant Democrat voters are, is simply to provide examples of their posts.


2. Every one of the Leftist political philosophies is some iteration of "...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'" Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144)

a.All of these are based on that premise: Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Fascism, and Nazism.
Here it is in the words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor, and FDR supporter:

“[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future."
Folsom and Folsom, "FDR Goes To War."

Either you subscribe to that belief, or you vote against the Democrat candidates.





3. Reliable Democrat voters vote for it…..by are clueless about what they are supporting. A vote for the Democrat Party is a vote against private property.

a. Here is one such Democrat voter:
“Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He’s Against “Private” Property, Not “Personal” Property … he wants to keep his iPad 2, naturally, and not share it with the shiftless vagrants fighting over access to one of the three Porta-Potties recently delivered to the now-evacuated camp site in lower Manhattan.”
Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He's Against "Private" Property, Not "Personal" Property | Human Events




4. “The two most famous empires in history were the Roman and the British….At the institutional heart of both was a well developed system of law….Both systems provided a higher level protection of private property than did surrounding nations….
As a result, both prospered.” Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.56




But the debate goes back to Plato and Aristotle….


Next.

Yeah sure, if you were part of the Noble Elite.

 

[PoliticalChic]

….and at the center of the discussion is an understanding of capitalism vs communism.



1.The second easiest argument to prove is how ignorant Democrat voters are….after all, they don’t recognize that a vote for that party is a vote against private property, and against prosperity.
The first easiest argument to prove is how ignorant Democrat voters are, is simply to provide examples of their posts.


2. Every one of the Leftist political philosophies is some iteration of "...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'" Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144)

a.All of these are based on that premise: Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Fascism, and Nazism.
Here it is in the words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor, and FDR supporter:

“[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future."
Folsom and Folsom, "FDR Goes To War."

Either you subscribe to that belief, or you vote against the Democrat candidates.





3. Reliable Democrat voters vote for it…..by are clueless about what they are supporting. A vote for the Democrat Party is a vote against private property.

a. Here is one such Democrat voter:
“Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He’s Against “Private” Property, Not “Personal” Property … he wants to keep his iPad 2, naturally, and not share it with the shiftless vagrants fighting over access to one of the three Porta-Potties recently delivered to the now-evacuated camp site in lower Manhattan.”
Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He's Against "Private" Property, Not "Personal" Property | Human Events




4. “The two most famous empires in history were the Roman and the British….At the institutional heart of both was a well developed system of law….Both systems provided a higher level protection of private property than did surrounding nations….
As a result, both prospered.” Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.56




But the debate goes back to Plato and Aristotle….


Next.

Yeah sure, if you were part of the Noble Elite.

Did you imagine (I almost said 'think') that there was any meaning able to be attached to your attempted post?????




Using my superb insight, I'm gonna guess that you were incensed upon reading.....or, probably, having had your keeper, read this part of the OP to you....

The second easiest argument to prove is how ignorant Democrat voters are….after all, they don’t recognize that a vote for that party is a vote against private property, and against prosperity.
The first easiest argument to prove is how ignorant Democrat voters are, is simply to provide examples of their posts.
....and you tried your hardest to respond.



So sorry, but this isn't government school, so there are no participation trophies.
Your posts actually have to make sense in the lingua franca.
Hence, your attempt doesn't qualify.


Now.....scurry on off to your blanket fort, you imbecile.

 

[otto105]

….and at the center of the discussion is an understanding of capitalism vs communism.



1.The second easiest argument to prove is how ignorant Democrat voters are….after all, they don’t recognize that a vote for that party is a vote against private property, and against prosperity.
The first easiest argument to prove is how ignorant Democrat voters are, is simply to provide examples of their posts.


2. Every one of the Leftist political philosophies is some iteration of "...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'" Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144)

a.All of these are based on that premise: Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Fascism, and Nazism.
Here it is in the words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor, and FDR supporter:

“[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future."
Folsom and Folsom, "FDR Goes To War."

Either you subscribe to that belief, or you vote against the Democrat candidates.





3. Reliable Democrat voters vote for it…..by are clueless about what they are supporting. A vote for the Democrat Party is a vote against private property.

a. Here is one such Democrat voter:
“Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He’s Against “Private” Property, Not “Personal” Property … he wants to keep his iPad 2, naturally, and not share it with the shiftless vagrants fighting over access to one of the three Porta-Potties recently delivered to the now-evacuated camp site in lower Manhattan.”
Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He's Against "Private" Property, Not "Personal" Property | Human Events




4. “The two most famous empires in history were the Roman and the British….At the institutional heart of both was a well developed system of law….Both systems provided a higher level protection of private property than did surrounding nations….
As a result, both prospered.” Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.56




But the debate goes back to Plato and Aristotle….


Next.

Yeah sure, if you were part of the Noble Elite.

Did you imagine (I almost said 'think') that there was any meaning able to be attached to your attempted post?????




Using my superb insight, I'm gonna guess that you were incensed upon reading.....or, probably, having had your keeper, read this part of the OP to you....

The second easiest argument to prove is how ignorant Democrat voters are….after all, they don’t recognize that a vote for that party is a vote against private property, and against prosperity.
The first easiest argument to prove is how ignorant Democrat voters are, is simply to provide examples of their posts.
....and you tried your hardest to respond.



So sorry, but this isn't government school, so there are no participation trophies.
Your posts actually have to make sense in the lingua franca.
Hence, your attempt doesn't qualify.


Now.....scurry on off to your blanket fort, you imbecile.

Sorry ain't got anything to do with it. You just putting to much emphasis on the land in landlord in both Roman and British history.

BTW when it gets to be Adam Smith verses Karl Marx in American elections on private property let me know. Because right now its just you pissing in the wind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How can I let you know....I only post in English, and that appears to be a....lacuna.....for you.


Perhaps this will help.

Under Democrats/Liberals, private property is either a misnomer, or an anachronism.

Through the use of 'regulations' and statutes, the Left has done to private property rights exactly what their cousin, the National Socialists did.....emasculated the concept.


"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman


1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

3. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

4. . What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

 

[otto105]

How can I let you know....I only post in English, and that appears to be a....lacuna.....for you.


Perhaps this will help.

Under Democrats/Liberals, private property is either a misnomer, or an anachronism.

Through the use of 'regulations' and statutes, the Left has done to private property rights exactly what their cousin, the National Socialists did.....emasculated the concept.


"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman


1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

3. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

4. . What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

I'm just going to go and call Godwin's Law here and note that your defense of property rights in the Roman and British Empires includes Hitler.

Also noted is you inability to identify fascism correctly on the political scale and just to get stuck on names.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How can I let you know....I only post in English, and that appears to be a....lacuna.....for you.


Perhaps this will help.

Under Democrats/Liberals, private property is either a misnomer, or an anachronism.

Through the use of 'regulations' and statutes, the Left has done to private property rights exactly what their cousin, the National Socialists did.....emasculated the concept.


"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman


1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

3. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

4. . What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

I'm just going to go and call Godwin's Law here and note that your defense of property rights in the Roman and British Empires includes Hitler.

Also noted is you inability to identify fascism correctly on the political scale and just to get stuck on names.

Begging for another lesson????

No prob.

Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....


Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:


Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism



Communism and Nazism are both forms of socialism...the former international socialism, the latter, national socialism.

The other three fit between.




How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.


You really should take notes on the above....