|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 28, 2015 18:31:00 GMT
The term, "voluntary socialism," is just as oxymoronic as square circle is. If it is voluntary, it is inherently not socialist in nature--even if the resources are pooled for the common benefit. Your view that one may own the house, but not the land on which it sits, is entirely consistent with your overall view that mere "statutory" rights should be disregarded, in favor of the writings of John Locke or a very broad view of the Declaration of Independence (without apparent reference to the US Constitution). And, yes, in a time of trillion-dollar annual deficits (thanks to President Obama, and his belief in the efficacy of Big Government), 40 billion dollars--although quite a lot, in absolute terms, to most of us--is merely a drop in the proverbial bucket.
You have apparently not read Karl Marx when it comes to socialism. Yes, there can be voluntary socialism that meets all of the criteria that Marx established. Many confuse communism with socialism and while related they're not the same.
I do not advocate the abandonment of laws of property but do believe they need to be based upon the "natural right of property" as opposed to the "right of title" extablished under the divine right of kings.
Deficit spending is a problem created by both Republicans and Democrats but there is a simple fact related to deficit spending. Deficits occur whenever there isn't enough general tax revenue to fund the authorized general expenditures (Social Security and Medicare have never generated deficits - YET).
Republicans are opposed to collecting enough in taxation to fund the authorized expenditures. Democrats want to increase taxation on those most able to afford additional taxation to fund the authorized expenditure.
Based upon the above the Republicans will never achieve a balanced budget based upon their policies but the Democrats would achieve a balanced budget based upon their policies.
As you know I've made a proposal that actually eliminates taxation for general expenditures for those that can't afford to pay them while at the same time cutting the top tax rate from 39.6% to 29% (based upon 2013) and would balance the budget by paying for all authorized expenditures.
I like my proposal best.
I also like my proposals to reduce military spending to rational levels and to reduce poverty so that it will reduce the necessity to mitigate the effects of poverty with welfare spending. I like to attack the problems that generate the necessity for government spending.
Although I very much desire a balanced budget, I do not desire one achieved through the scheme of increased taxation--on any group of Americans, regardless of income level. Which leaves only decreased expenditures, if we are to balance the budget. (We may debate the "where" in this regard.) I find it simply preposterous that you believe (apparently) that the right to a title of property is a function of the earlier theory of "the divine right of kings." And what is your definition of the fundamental difference between socialism and communism? Do you simply believe that communism amounts to a more highly developed state than socialism does? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 29, 2015 13:07:47 GMT
I agree that attaching electrodes to the testicles amounts to torture. No argument there. So, because some "compromises" with the Southern states were necessary in order to arrive at the US Constitution, you believe that the Constitution should simply be ignored whenever it does not comport with your worldview? Not amended, mind you, but simply ignored?
When it comes to the protections of our inalienable rights of the person I believe that the US Constitution should be enforced to the maximum extent possible based upon our developing understanding of those rights. In short as we gain knowledge about the rights of the person then those rights should be protected based upon the US Constitution. This is a very "progressive" interpretation of the US Constitution as it is established by the acqusition of knowledge over time that the "originators" did not have nor would we expect them to have such knowledge. That is why the 9th Amendment is so important and why the author, James Madison, and it's advocate, Thomas Jefferson, insisted upon it. They understood (or at least hoped) that Americans would gain a greater understanding of the "Rights of the Person" and would apply the 9th Amendment to protect them.
I will always support amending the US Constitution to enumerate the protections of the Civil and Inalienable Rights of the Person if they're are being violated and would never support any Constitutional amendment designed to violate those rights. For example the 18th Amendment was an amendment designed to deny the Right of Liberty of a person to consume alcoholic beverages and I would have opposed it (just like I'd oppose a Marriage Amendment limiting marriage based upon Judeo-Christian religious beliefs). On the flip side I would have fully supported the 19th Amendment (women's sufferage) because their civil right to vote was being violated. Today I'd support an Amendment to extend the civil right to vote to non-citizen permanent residents on the pathway to citizenship because they're just as much "American" as you and I. The word "American" extends to all people that call the United States their home because both "citizens" and "non-citizens" are the "people" of the United States under the US Constitution as written today. Voting is a "right" as established by the US Constitution, not a privilege, and "rights" extend to all people while citizens are afforded certain immunities and "privileges" (14th Amendment).
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 29, 2015 13:44:36 GMT
Although I very much desire a balanced budget, I do not desire one achieved through the scheme of increased taxation--on any group of Americans, regardless of income level. Which leaves only decreased expenditures, if we are to balance the budget. (We may debate the "where" in this regard.) I find it simply preposterous that you believe (apparently) that the right to a title of property is a function of the earlier theory of "the divine right of kings." And what is your definition of the fundamental difference between socialism and communism? Do you simply believe that communism amounts to a more highly developed state than socialism does?
I would have you recall that my tax proposal did not extablish any "groups" and instead was based upon "dollars" where all income, regardless of source and regardless of recepient, was taxed under the identicaly provisions. There was an "exemption" that applied to all entities receiving income and then a single tax rate imposed above the exemption and the rate provided the revenue necessary for the expenditures authorized by Congress. The foundation of my tax proposal was the elimination of all "groups" and treating taxation the same for everyone.
Where I see two problems with your position is: 1) you want to keep different groups, and; 2) you refuse to accept that Congress, and not a political party, establishes what the authorized expenditures are.
The political ideology of the Divine Right of Kings is that "God" gave all of the land, natural resources, and even the people to the "King" for his (or her) use and disposal as the "King" saw fit. In turn the "King" granted "Statutory Titles of Nobility" to certain individuals and with that granting of "title" also came "statutory title" to the land, natural resources, and even the people living on the land. Our entire economy is based upon this same "statutory granting of title" to land and natural resources although we finally eliminated the "title of property" being applied to people with the 13th Amendment. Just like under the "Divine Right of Kings" the statutory title of property ownership can be revoked by statute (i.e. private property can be taken from the person under "due process of the law" as established by the 14th Amendment). The only difference between the "Divine Right of Kings" and the United States today is that we have a defacto "Divine Right of Government" that controls all property under the identical provisions that the Kings previously held. The person doesn't have a "right of property" but instead the government grants the "privilege of property" established by statutory law.
While communism and socialism have similarities there is are fundamental differences between the two.
Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, and communism generally refers to both an economic system and a political system. The means of production are publicly owned in both systems, but the ways that money and resources are distributed are different. In socialism, each person is allotted resources according to his or her input, or amount of work, and in communism, each person is allotted resources according to his or her needs.
www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-socialism-and-communism.htm
In short under socialism a person acquires resources (property) based upon their labor contribution while under communism their contribution is ignored and their contribution is ignored. Socialism is closely related to the "right of propert" established by the labor of the person whereas communism violates the right of property because it ignores the person's contribution based upon their labor.
As also noted socialism refers to an economic system while communism is predominately a political system that corrupts socialism as it has different goals. In truth many refer to communism as the ultimate corruption of capitalism because the political leaders reap all of the excess "profits" from the economy left over when the workers have some of their minimal "needs" provided for.
Of course we could also state that the "capitalist" that doesn't provide for the basic needs of the worker with compensation is in many ways worse than the communist politican that does provide for those needs.
On a final note under socialism a person could become very wealthy based upon their contribution but under communism that isn't possible (except for the politicans that are above the law).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 2, 2015 18:42:53 GMT
I agree that attaching electrodes to the testicles amounts to torture. No argument there. So, because some "compromises" with the Southern states were necessary in order to arrive at the US Constitution, you believe that the Constitution should simply be ignored whenever it does not comport with your worldview? Not amended, mind you, but simply ignored?
When it comes to the protections of our inalienable rights of the person I believe that the US Constitution should be enforced to the maximum extent possible based upon our developing understanding of those rights. In short as we gain knowledge about the rights of the person then those rights should be protected based upon the US Constitution. This is a very "progressive" interpretation of the US Constitution as it is established by the acqusition of knowledge over time that the "originators" did not have nor would we expect them to have such knowledge. That is why the 9th Amendment is so important and why the author, James Madison, and it's advocate, Thomas Jefferson, insisted upon it. They understood (or at least hoped) that Americans would gain a greater understanding of the "Rights of the Person" and would apply the 9th Amendment to protect them.
I will always support amending the US Constitution to enumerate the protections of the Civil and Inalienable Rights of the Person if they're are being violated and would never support any Constitutional amendment designed to violate those rights. For example the 18th Amendment was an amendment designed to deny the Right of Liberty of a person to consume alcoholic beverages and I would have opposed it (just like I'd oppose a Marriage Amendment limiting marriage based upon Judeo-Christian religious beliefs). On the flip side I would have fully supported the 19th Amendment (women's sufferage) because their civil right to vote was being violated. Today I'd support an Amendment to extend the civil right to vote to non-citizen permanent residents on the pathway to citizenship because they're just as much "American" as you and I. The word "American" extends to all people that call the United States their home because both "citizens" and "non-citizens" are the "people" of the United States under the US Constitution as written today. Voting is a "right" as established by the US Constitution, not a privilege, and "rights" extend to all people while citizens are afforded certain immunities and "privileges" (14th Amendment).
I will not bother to counter your point as regarding non-citizens being allowed to vote, as that is simply a non-starter. (It is just about as likely that the Eighteenth Amendment--which you have cited--will be brought back as it is that Congress will vote to authorize voting by non-citizens, or that the Supreme Court will issue such a ruling.) Your view that the US Constitution should be interpreted based upon "our developing understanding of...rights" is just another way of your saying that you believe in "evolving standards of decency," based, perhaps, upon the "emanations" from a "penumbra" (to paraphrase the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut). |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 2, 2015 18:54:45 GMT
Although I very much desire a balanced budget, I do not desire one achieved through the scheme of increased taxation--on any group of Americans, regardless of income level. Which leaves only decreased expenditures, if we are to balance the budget. (We may debate the "where" in this regard.) I find it simply preposterous that you believe (apparently) that the right to a title of property is a function of the earlier theory of "the divine right of kings." And what is your definition of the fundamental difference between socialism and communism? Do you simply believe that communism amounts to a more highly developed state than socialism does?
I would have you recall that my tax proposal did not extablish any "groups" and instead was based upon "dollars" where all income, regardless of source and regardless of recepient, was taxed under the identicaly provisions. There was an "exemption" that applied to all entities receiving income and then a single tax rate imposed above the exemption and the rate provided the revenue necessary for the expenditures authorized by Congress. The foundation of my tax proposal was the elimination of all "groups" and treating taxation the same for everyone.
Where I see two problems with your position is: 1) you want to keep different groups, and; 2) you refuse to accept that Congress, and not a political party, establishes what the authorized expenditures are.
The political ideology of the Divine Right of Kings is that "God" gave all of the land, natural resources, and even the people to the "King" for his (or her) use and disposal as the "King" saw fit. In turn the "King" granted "Statutory Titles of Nobility" to certain individuals and with that granting of "title" also came "statutory title" to the land, natural resources, and even the people living on the land. Our entire economy is based upon this same "statutory granting of title" to land and natural resources although we finally eliminated the "title of property" being applied to people with the 13th Amendment. Just like under the "Divine Right of Kings" the statutory title of property ownership can be revoked by statute (i.e. private property can be taken from the person under "due process of the law" as established by the 14th Amendment). The only difference between the "Divine Right of Kings" and the United States today is that we have a defacto "Divine Right of Government" that controls all property under the identical provisions that the Kings previously held. The person doesn't have a "right of property" but instead the government grants the "privilege of property" established by statutory law.
While communism and socialism have similarities there is are fundamental differences between the two.
Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, and communism generally refers to both an economic system and a political system. The means of production are publicly owned in both systems, but the ways that money and resources are distributed are different. In socialism, each person is allotted resources according to his or her input, or amount of work, and in communism, each person is allotted resources according to his or her needs.
www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-socialism-and-communism.htm
In short under socialism a person acquires resources (property) based upon their labor contribution while under communism their contribution is ignored and their contribution is ignored. Socialism is closely related to the "right of propert" established by the labor of the person whereas communism violates the right of property because it ignores the person's contribution based upon their labor.
As also noted socialism refers to an economic system while communism is predominately a political system that corrupts socialism as it has different goals. In truth many refer to communism as the ultimate corruption of capitalism because the political leaders reap all of the excess "profits" from the economy left over when the workers have some of their minimal "needs" provided for.
Of course we could also state that the "capitalist" that doesn't provide for the basic needs of the worker with compensation is in many ways worse than the communist politican that does provide for those needs.
On a final note under socialism a person could become very wealthy based upon their contribution but under communism that isn't possible (except for the politicans that are above the law).
Would it be fair, then, to assume that you somewhat dislike communism (although you dislike capitalism even more), and that you are rather congenial to the concept of socialism--even if you would actually prefer to refine it a bit? To assert that "Congress, and not a political party, establishes what the authorized expenditures [of government] are," is to blithely ignore the fact that those "authorized expenditures" may change, now that both chambers of Congress are controlled by the GOP. And it is even more likely to change if we get a president, in just two more years, whose spending priorities are not those of Big Government. The mere fact that there is some similarity between the title to property in America in 2015 and the title to property under a totally different theory of government does not automatically establish that the former is a holdover from the theory of the Divine Right of Kings. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 3, 2015 15:03:36 GMT
Would it be fair, then, to assume that you somewhat dislike communism (although you dislike capitalism even more), and that you are rather congenial to the concept of socialism--even if you would actually prefer to refine it a bit? To assert that "Congress, and not a political party, establishes what the authorized expenditures [of government] are," is to blithely ignore the fact that those "authorized expenditures" may change, now that both chambers of Congress are controlled by the GOP. And it is even more likely to change if we get a president, in just two more years, whose spending priorities are not those of Big Government. The mere fact that there is some similarity between the title to property in America in 2015 and the title to property under a totally different theory of government does not automatically establish that the former is a holdover from the theory of the Divine Right of Kings.
Where did you ever get the idea that I disliked capitalism? I dislike statutory "laws of property" that violate the "right of property" of the person but I don't dislike capitalism based upon the "natural right of property" as established and defined by John Locke.
I absolutely distain communism because it's really "capitalism run amok" where a very small elite wealthy class controls all of the means of production, including the people, for their personal benefit and they enforce their control of the means of production with tyranny.
The GOP does not control Congress. It has a majority in both houses of Congress but does not control the Senate. To control Congress the party must have a majority in the House and at least 60 seats in the Senate. Not even the Democrats had that in 2009-2010 where Democrats only held 58 (sometimes fewer) seats in the Senate. What we have found is that whenever a party does manage to obtain control, such as in 2009-2010 when the two independents joined with the Democrats, it often results in very negative consequences for the nation as a whole because political parties tend to not care about Americans but instead only care about their political agenda. Remember that only 30% of Americans support the Democrats and only 25% of Americans support the Republicans and the individual political agendas of these two political parties never represents the majority of the American People.
The "Statutory Ownership of Property" established under the Divine Right of Kings is uninterupted throughout history. At no time was it abandoned and the ownership of property based upon the "Right of Property" ever introduced to replace it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 3, 2015 15:12:55 GMT
I will not bother to counter your point as regarding non-citizens being allowed to vote, as that is simply a non-starter. (It is just about as likely that the Eighteenth Amendment--which you have cited--will be brought back as it is that Congress will vote to authorize voting by non-citizens, or that the Supreme Court will issue such a ruling.) Your view that the US Constitution should be interpreted based upon "our developing understanding of...rights" is just another way of your saying that you believe in "evolving standards of decency," based, perhaps, upon the "emanations" from a "penumbra" (to paraphrase the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut).
The US Constitution does not prohibit non-citizens from voting and, in fact, before the racism of the post-Reconstruction era, roughly 40 US States and Territories allowed non-citizens to vote.
My position on the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with "evolving standards of decency" but it does have everything to do with an ever expanding understanding of the "inalienable rights of the person" that is based upon logical deduction which is how science works.
Now if you want to state that violations of the inalienable rights of the person are indecent and even immoral I would tend to agree with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 4, 2015 19:47:42 GMT
Would it be fair, then, to assume that you somewhat dislike communism (although you dislike capitalism even more), and that you are rather congenial to the concept of socialism--even if you would actually prefer to refine it a bit? To assert that "Congress, and not a political party, establishes what the authorized expenditures [of government] are," is to blithely ignore the fact that those "authorized expenditures" may change, now that both chambers of Congress are controlled by the GOP. And it is even more likely to change if we get a president, in just two more years, whose spending priorities are not those of Big Government. The mere fact that there is some similarity between the title to property in America in 2015 and the title to property under a totally different theory of government does not automatically establish that the former is a holdover from the theory of the Divine Right of Kings.
Where did you ever get the idea that I disliked capitalism? I dislike statutory "laws of property" that violate the "right of property" of the person but I don't dislike capitalism based upon the "natural right of property" as established and defined by John Locke.
I absolutely distain communism because it's really "capitalism run amok" where a very small elite wealthy class controls all of the means of production, including the people, for their personal benefit and they enforce their control of the means of production with tyranny.
The GOP does not control Congress. It has a majority in both houses of Congress but does not control the Senate. To control Congress the party must have a majority in the House and at least 60 seats in the Senate. Not even the Democrats had that in 2009-2010 where Democrats only held 58 (sometimes fewer) seats in the Senate. What we have found is that whenever a party does manage to obtain control, such as in 2009-2010 when the two independents joined with the Democrats, it often results in very negative consequences for the nation as a whole because political parties tend to not care about Americans but instead only care about their political agenda. Remember that only 30% of Americans support the Democrats and only 25% of Americans support the Republicans and the individual political agendas of these two political parties never represents the majority of the American People.
The "Statutory Ownership of Property" established under the Divine Right of Kings is uninterupted throughout history. At no time was it abandoned and the ownership of property based upon the "Right of Property" ever introduced to replace it.
Your assertion equating "[t]he 'Statutory Ownership of Property'" with "the Divine Right of Kings" is entirely unsubstantiated. Other than the fact that title to property was granted in a previous era, and title to property is still granted today (provided that one actually purchases it), what do you have, exactly? I think it is just a matter of semantics, when I refer to the GOP's "controll[ing]" both chambers of Congress, and your noting that it really requires 60 seats to establish absolute control. That is true, for achieving a filibuster-proof majority. And 67 seats would be needed for a supermajority (which could come in handy for overriding a presidential veto). But I would prefer not to quibble over words here. You know what I meant by these words. Well, the only sort of "capitalism" (if one may accurately call it that) that you seem to like is that which was "established and identified by John Locke"-- not by the Framers. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 4, 2015 19:53:09 GMT
I will not bother to counter your point as regarding non-citizens being allowed to vote, as that is simply a non-starter. (It is just about as likely that the Eighteenth Amendment--which you have cited--will be brought back as it is that Congress will vote to authorize voting by non-citizens, or that the Supreme Court will issue such a ruling.) Your view that the US Constitution should be interpreted based upon "our developing understanding of...rights" is just another way of your saying that you believe in "evolving standards of decency," based, perhaps, upon the "emanations" from a "penumbra" (to paraphrase the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut).
The US Constitution does not prohibit non-citizens from voting and, in fact, before the racism of the post-Reconstruction era, roughly 40 US States and Territories allowed non-citizens to vote.
My position on the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with "evolving standards of decency" but it does have everything to do with an ever expanding understanding of the "inalienable rights of the person" that is based upon logical deduction which is how science works.
Now if you want to state that violations of the inalienable rights of the person are indecent and even immoral I would tend to agree with you.
What, precisely, does our "understanding of the 'inalienable rights of the person'" have to do with "science"--with which you have (somehow) managed to equate it? You seem to attribute just about all of our social ills to "racism"; the non-voting status of non-citizens being no exception. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 5, 2015 14:05:43 GMT
Your assertion equating "[t]he 'Statutory Ownership of Property'" with "the Divine Right of Kings" is entirely unsubstantiated. Other than the fact that title to property was granted in a previous era, and title to property is still granted today (provided that one actually purchases it), what do you have, exactly? I think it is just a matter of semantics, when I refer to the GOP's "controll[ing]" both chambers of Congress, and your noting that it really requires 60 seats to establish absolute control. That is true, for achieving a filibuster-proof majority. And 67 seats would be needed for a supermajority (which could come in handy for overriding a presidential veto). But I would prefer not to quibble over words here. You know what I meant by these words. Well, the only sort of "capitalism" (if one may accurately call it that) that you seem to like is that which was "established and identified by John Locke"-- not by the Framers.
Under the "Divine Right of Kings" the title to land (and property) is granted by the "fiat of the monarch" which is what we have today where government, in lieu of the king, grants statutory title by fiat to land (and property). Under the "natural right of property" the right to the use of the land is established by the continuous labor of the person (i.e. sweat equity). Under the "natural right of property" a farmer establishes the "property right" to the use of the land by farming it. If the farmer stops farming the land then the land resorts back to the "common" because there is no labor being expended upon it. Under the "natural right of property" there would never be private ownership of "undeveloped land" because there is no "labor" associated with undeveloped land.
The key individuals in establishing the expressed ideology of the United States (e.g. Madison, Jefferson, and Paine) were all advocates of Locke's definitions and criteria for the "natural rights of the person" and in all cases historically Locke remains the authority overwhelmingly cited when anyone discusses the "natural (inalienable) rights" of the person. Every expert on the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" cites John Locke as the foremost authority on the subject. You will not find any expert on the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" that doesn't cite Locke as the foremost expert on the subject.
There are many economists historically though that make arguments for capitalism that do violate the "right of property" of the person because they're advocates for the "title to property based upon the divine right of kings" and foremost among them are perhaps Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. I do find fault with their economic arguments because the arguments violate the "natural (inalienable) right of property" because the very criteria of a "right" prohibits any violation of another person's natural (inalienable) rights. Capitalism can exist based upon the "Right of Property" of the person and when it is not based upon that "Right of the Person" then I object to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 5, 2015 14:28:32 GMT
What, precisely, does our "understanding of the 'inalienable rights of the person'" have to do with "science"--with which you have (somehow) managed to equate it? You seem to attribute just about all of our social ills to "racism"; the non-voting status of non-citizens being no exception.
The determinations of "facts" by science and the determinations of the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" are both based upon objective methodology and compelling argument that excludes personal opinion. Both are subject to emperical evidence, peer review, and tests. The commonality is that both address "facts" and not "opinions" which is why I use the analogy.
The criteria for determining what is and what is not a "natural (inalienable) right" is simple, direct, and to the point and it is not subject to interpretation. Either whatever is being addressed meets the criteria and is a "natural (inalienable) right" or it does not. There is no middle ground and it is not an issue of opinion.
No, I don't attribute just about all of our social ills to racism but instead I attribute them to the violations of the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" that often manifests itself as racism. For example the problems with capitalism based upon "title to property" established under the economic ideology of the "divine right of kings" that violates the "natural right of property" does adversely affect those non-WASP's far more so it results in default racism. One reason is really very obvious.
While "WASP's" were acquiring "free title" to most of America, predominately in the East, the African-Americans were still being held in bondage and denied the ability to acquire the "title" to most of America. There are literally thousands of "WASP" households today that still live on the "free land" granted to them by "title" when America was founded and I'd bet $10,000 that we couldn't find 100 black households that have owned their land since the founding of the United States in 1776. "Racism" is inherent when it comes to the 'title to land' because blacks were denied equality when the "land was free" because most of them were still slaves.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 6, 2015 18:50:46 GMT
Your assertion equating "[t]he 'Statutory Ownership of Property'" with "the Divine Right of Kings" is entirely unsubstantiated. Other than the fact that title to property was granted in a previous era, and title to property is still granted today (provided that one actually purchases it), what do you have, exactly? I think it is just a matter of semantics, when I refer to the GOP's "controll[ing]" both chambers of Congress, and your noting that it really requires 60 seats to establish absolute control. That is true, for achieving a filibuster-proof majority. And 67 seats would be needed for a supermajority (which could come in handy for overriding a presidential veto). But I would prefer not to quibble over words here. You know what I meant by these words. Well, the only sort of "capitalism" (if one may accurately call it that) that you seem to like is that which was "established and identified by John Locke"-- not by the Framers.
Under the "Divine Right of Kings" the title to land (and property) is granted by the "fiat of the monarch" which is what we have today where government, in lieu of the king, grants statutory title by fiat to land (and property). Under the "natural right of property" the right to the use of the land is established by the continuous labor of the person (i.e. sweat equity). Under the "natural right of property" a farmer establishes the "property right" to the use of the land by farming it. If the farmer stops farming the land then the land resorts back to the "common" because there is no labor being expended upon it. Under the "natural right of property" there would never be private ownership of "undeveloped land" because there is no "labor" associated with undeveloped land.
The key individuals in establishing the expressed ideology of the United States (e.g. Madison, Jefferson, and Paine) were all advocates of Locke's definitions and criteria for the "natural rights of the person" and in all cases historically Locke remains the authority overwhelmingly cited when anyone discusses the "natural (inalienable) rights" of the person. Every expert on the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" cites John Locke as the foremost authority on the subject. You will not find any expert on the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" that doesn't cite Locke as the foremost expert on the subject.
There are many economists historically though that make arguments for capitalism that do violate the "right of property" of the person because they're advocates for the "title to property based upon the divine right of kings" and foremost among them are perhaps Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. I do find fault with their economic arguments because the arguments violate the "natural (inalienable) right of property" because the very criteria of a "right" prohibits any violation of another person's natural (inalienable) rights. Capitalism can exist based upon the "Right of Property" of the person and when it is not based upon that "Right of the Person" then I object to it.
Apparently, then, you object to capitalism as it currently exists--both in America, and anywhere else. Title to property is not granted, in the US, according to the "fiat of the monarch." Rather, it is granted in exactly the same way that a car title is granted: i.e. as a result of its purchase.
If the Framers were all in substantial agreement with John Locke, that only "sweat equity" might establish a right to the land in question, why was that point never included in the US Constitution? |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 6, 2015 18:55:42 GMT
What, precisely, does our "understanding of the 'inalienable rights of the person'" have to do with "science"--with which you have (somehow) managed to equate it? You seem to attribute just about all of our social ills to "racism"; the non-voting status of non-citizens being no exception.
The determinations of "facts" by science and the determinations of the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" are both based upon objective methodology and compelling argument that excludes personal opinion. Both are subject to emperical evidence, peer review, and tests. The commonality is that both address "facts" and not "opinions" which is why I use the analogy.
The criteria for determining what is and what is not a "natural (inalienable) right" is simple, direct, and to the point and it is not subject to interpretation. Either whatever is being addressed meets the criteria and is a "natural (inalienable) right" or it does not. There is no middle ground and it is not an issue of opinion.
No, I don't attribute just about all of our social ills to racism but instead I attribute them to the violations of the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" that often manifests itself as racism. For example the problems with capitalism based upon "title to property" established under the economic ideology of the "divine right of kings" that violates the "natural right of property" does adversely affect those non-WASP's far more so it results in default racism. One reason is really very obvious.
While "WASP's" were acquiring "free title" to most of America, predominately in the East, the African-Americans were still being held in bondage and denied the ability to acquire the "title" to most of America. There are literally thousands of "WASP" households today that still live on the "free land" granted to them by "title" when America was founded and I'd bet $10,000 that we couldn't find 100 black households that have owned their land since the founding of the United States in 1776. "Racism" is inherent when it comes to the 'title to land' because blacks were denied equality when the "land was free" because most of them were still slaves.
Yes, most black Americans were "denied equality" and held as mere slaves "in 1776." But we have progressed a very long way since then. It is now 2015--remember? Whenever you interpretation of "the natural (inalienable) rights of the person" differs with the US Constitution, you seem to go with the former. I will cast my lot with the latter, in all cases. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 7, 2015 15:26:37 GMT
Yes, most black Americans were "denied equality" and held as mere slaves "in 1776." But we have progressed a very long way since then. It is now 2015--remember? Whenever you interpretation of "the natural (inalienable) rights of the person" differs with the US Constitution, you seem to go with the former. I will cast my lot with the latter, in all cases.
We can actually quantify how far we've come since 1776 (or more accurately from the Civil War and 13th Amendment). Prior to the Civil War and the 13th Amendment the entire slave population had a total wealth of $0.00 because slaves were property prohibited from owning property. Since the Civil War and the 13th Amendment the average household wealth of African-Americans has increased from $0.00 to roughly $11,000. Of course when you start with "nothing" later having "anything" is infinately better but when compared to white households with an average household wealth of over $140,000 African-Americans are only about 1/10th of the way to achieving economic equality. At the rate of achieving economic equality of about 10% per 100 years it will take about 1,000 years before blacks will achieve economic equality in the United States. That's not based upon a liberal or conservative opinion but is a fact based upon simple math.
My interpretation of the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" do not conflict with the US Constitution, and in fact, they are protected under the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution. My interpretations conflict with US statutory law but not the US Constitution. What I will concede is that US Supreme Court decisions have not supported all of my interpretations of the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" because they have not be argued before the Supreme Court. The fact that an argument has not been presented before the Supreme Court does not disparage the validity or compelling nature of the argument. We can also note that the Supreme Court does overturn statutory law consistantly including statutory laws that may have existed since the United States was founded based upon the compelling arguments of the "right of the person" protected by the US Constitution.
Someday my arguments of the "natural (inalienable) right of property" will be presented before the US Supreme Court and many of the "statutory laws of property" are going to be ruled unconstitutional because the "natural (inalienable) right of property" is compelling and undeniable.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 7, 2015 16:18:17 GMT
Apparently, then, you object to capitalism as it currently exists--both in America, and anywhere else. Title to property is not granted, in the US, according to the "fiat of the monarch." Rather, it is granted in exactly the same way that a car title is granted: i.e. as a result of its purchase.
If the Framers were all in substantial agreement with John Locke, that only "sweat equity" might establish a right to the land in question, why was that point never included in the US Constitution?
Capitalism based upon the Austrian School and/or Keynesian School of economic ideology are indeed objectionable to me because both are based upon "statutory ownership" that often violates the "natural (inalienable) right of property" of the person. Capitalism can be based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" of the person meeting the criteria established by John Locke and capitalism in this form is the only acceptable economic system.
Ownership of every square foot of land and every natural resource is based upon a statutory grant of "title" where the original owner paid nothing for it (with the possible exception of a filing fee). We can also note that anything purchased where the "natural (inalienable) right of property" of the person that created it with their labor was violated represents "theft" of the labor of the person. If the employee doesn't receive enough in compensation to provide for their basic "support and comfort" that they have a right to based upon their labor in producing that which we purchase then, at least in part, their labor was stolen from them.
Do you advocate theft in our economic system under the law?
In the 1780's when the Constitution was created they had to same problem that we have today. The "conservatives" opposed the "progressive" (that would be progressive libertarians today) that included Jefferson and Madison and, to obtain ratification of the US Constitution, the progressives were forced to compromise on many of the "natural (inalienable) rights" of the person in the Constitution. The progressives (i.e. Madison specifically) were actually quite skillful in including the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights but that always required that the "unenumerated" rights of the person would be subject to future Supreme Court decisions and/or to later Amendments to the US Constitution.
For example the denial of Right to Vote for women was always a clear violation of their civil rights and that was not rectified until the 20th Century well over 100 years after the US Constitution was ratified. It was the "progressives" that fought for women's suffrage and they were opposed by the "conservatives" in the United States that argued for the status quo where women were denied the right to vote.
It has always been the "conservatives" that have impeded the advancement of the ideology of the "rights of the person" throughout the history of the United States. It was the "conservatives" that opposed the emancipation of the slaves in the United States. It was the "conservatives" that advocated for racial/ethnic/religious bias in the immigration laws. It was the "conservatives" that opposed equality for all Americans as exemplified by their opposition to same-sex marriage. It was the "conservatives" that opposed the Right of the Self of the woman when it came to abortion. It was the "conservatives" that advocated laws that created disenfranchisement of the people in our voting laws. It was the "conservatives" that have always opposed the "natural (inalienable) right of property" of the person in our statutory laws.
US history documents the "progressives" consistantly fighting for the "Rights of the Person" while the "conservatives" have consistantly opposed the expansion of those rights.
|
|
