steveox
Well-Known Member
Well Look, They serve the people. Gave them Jobs,Housing,Free Education and Free Health. Socialism does have its benefits.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
What's wrong with stealing?
- Thread starter Dr.Who
- Start date
Werbung:
I'm sorry but that is not correct.
The nature of private property is implicit in the social contract. Every individual gives up his will in favor of the state -- which then becomes the perfect union of all the individuals that constitute it.
One does not have a natural right over the resources of the world -- whether one imbues it with the powers of his own labor or take it as it is. Private property, by its nature, is dependent on the law to define it.
Even the concept of a positive title ultimately rests on the regalian doctrine -- the state owns the land. The very nature of a positive title is explicit -- it is in 'rem' -- an adverse claim stated against the world.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
The founders claimed government was created to secure our rights, not to grant them legitimacy.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed...
Are you claiming the founders had it bass ackwards?
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
And to think those ungrateful slaves even joined and fought on the side of the Unions soldiers.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
The so called social contract is not any sort of contract at all.
Our country is founded on the idea that property rights did indeed exist before government was established.
steveox
Well-Known Member
Yeah if the south would had won the war The Confederate States of America wouldnt have liberalsm and would be a better place today. And if Hitler would had won the war the world would been a better place today.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
The confederate govmunt was a pretty poor example of good governance. It is possible that they lost the war due to the actions of their own people working against the gov.
And where in that says you have an inalienable right to private property?
No.
Natural resources and the land that supports it existed since the beginning of time. Whether one has a right to these natural resources, against the claim of the entire world, is the subject of the law people prescribe to govern themselves. Therefore it is NOT an inalienable right.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Whether one has a right to the resources was being discussed prior to the existence of any government. It cannot be subject to the law that did not exist yet.
And in the US anyway, once the law did exist it specifically stated that the right was inalienable.
No.
Private property is not an inalienable right -- whether you look at the us constitution, locke's 2nd treatise or the declaration of human rights itself.
What you had prior to the political association, is the liberty to possess what is in your power to possess.
There is a fundamental difference between your liberty and your rights.
Where in your constitution did it say you have a right to private property????
You have the right to the pursuit of happiness NOT a right to private property. If private property were a right, then it would be a state of injustice that people become bankrupt.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
The founders claimed governments were instituted among men to secure our rights. You have claimed that rights are a product of government and won through struggle. It is that issue I was addressing.
As for our right to property, in the original drafts it read "Life, liberty and property", the founders did recognize an individuals right to property but changed it to "Pursuit of happiness" because of slavery. Additionally, you seem to confuse the word "Property" with "Land" or real estate and further seem to think that a "Right" is something that must be provided to an individual when that is not the case.
No.
I claimed that PROPERTY RIGHT is the product of law.
Where in your constitution does it say that?
You probably meant the declaration of independence?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Or the 14th amendment?
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Either way, private property is not an inalienable right. An inalienable right is one that is perfected within the human person. Your property couldn't possibly be perfected within the human person -- unless of course it is the power of your own labor.
And yes, land ownership is one of the most fundamental property right. That is why it is called real property.
How silly of me. One need only look at the definition of 'inalienable' to see that property rights are not inalienable.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable
in·al·ien·a·ble
[in-eyl-yuh-nuh-buhl, -ey-lee-uh-] Show IPA
–adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
and in the context of political philosophy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
In the German Enlightenment, Hegel gave a highly developed treatment of this inalienability argument. Like Hutcheson, Hegel based the theory of inalienable rights on the de facto inalienability of those aspects of personhood that distinguish persons from things. A thing, like a piece of property, can in fact be transferred from one person to another. But the same would not apply to those aspects that make one a person, wrote Hegel:
“The right to what is in essence inalienable is imprescriptible, since the act whereby I take possession of my personality, of my substantive essence, and make myself a responsible being, capable of possessing rights and with a moral and religious life, takes away from these characteristics of mine just that externality which alone made them capable of passing into the possession of someone else. When I have thus annulled their externality, I cannot lose them through lapse of time or from any other reason drawn from my prior consent or willingness to alienate them."
Property rights cannot be construed as inalienable.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable
in·al·ien·a·ble
[in-eyl-yuh-nuh-buhl, -ey-lee-uh-] Show IPA
–adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
and in the context of political philosophy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
In the German Enlightenment, Hegel gave a highly developed treatment of this inalienability argument. Like Hutcheson, Hegel based the theory of inalienable rights on the de facto inalienability of those aspects of personhood that distinguish persons from things. A thing, like a piece of property, can in fact be transferred from one person to another. But the same would not apply to those aspects that make one a person, wrote Hegel:
“The right to what is in essence inalienable is imprescriptible, since the act whereby I take possession of my personality, of my substantive essence, and make myself a responsible being, capable of possessing rights and with a moral and religious life, takes away from these characteristics of mine just that externality which alone made them capable of passing into the possession of someone else. When I have thus annulled their externality, I cannot lose them through lapse of time or from any other reason drawn from my prior consent or willingness to alienate them."
Property rights cannot be construed as inalienable.
Werbung:
