Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree32Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 5th, 2017, 01:26 PM   #11
Banned
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
So there are no inalienable rights for everyone, only a privileged few, and plutocracy, and tyranny is the acceptable choice?
Tell me, did they or did they frame the "right" with the words "The right to Pursue happiness (property)?

They stated that the "right" was itself the "pursuit". Sorry.
Thanks from Sabcat
Quigley is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 01:30 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
Deflection never works on me. Answer the question.
I'm asking the questions here. You are either for plutocracy and tyranny, or you are not for plutocracy and tyranny.

Choose one. There are no gray areas, and answering a question with a question is a failed argument.

Asking loaded questions is an even bigger failed argument.

I presented the article, and all you have offered are brain dead AM talk radio talking points.

I await with baited breath to see if you can intellectually refute the very valid points offered in the article.

Yelling communist is not an intellectual refutation of anything.
skews13 is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 01:33 PM   #13
Banned
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
I'm asking the questions here. You are either for plutocracy and tyranny, or you are not for plutocracy and tyranny.

Choose one. There are no gray areas, and answering a question with a question is a failed argument.

Asking loaded questions is an even bigger failed argument.

I presented the article, and all you have offered are brain dead AM talk radio talking points.

I await with baited breath to see if you can intellectually refute the very valid points offered in the article.

Yelling communist is not an intellectual refutation of anything.
No you're not, I am. Was or was the article not about Locke's error? Now you're just running.

Was, or was the "Right" they were talking about the "Right" the pursuit of happiness (property).
Thanks from Hashtag
Quigley is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 01:33 PM   #14
Banned
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 814
The emperor skews has no clothing...
Thanks from guy39
Quigley is offline  
Old October 5th, 2017, 05:00 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
The fundamental flaw in libertarian thinking is its failure to take into account the interdependent nature of social life and, in particular, how property is acquired, and must be acquired, in a settled society.

We are all born propertyless.

This is as true for the person who eventually becomes a billionaire as it is for the impoverished. The only way to acquire property in a settled society, where all the natural resources have been divvied up and are already owned by someone, is to acquire it from those who already have it. Those who cannot acquire property from those who own it will die.

If we now say that property owners have the right to do whatever they like with their property – share it or not, hire people or not – this is as much as to say that they have the right to determine, at their sole discretion, who, among those who do not yet have property, shall live and who shall die, who shall prosper and who shall founder, who shall have the opportunity to fulfill their potentialities and whose potentialities shall be quashed. In effect, it is to say that property owners have a right to establish a tyranny over everyone else.

In other words, to grant that people have the property rights that libertarians claim is to grant that some (the propertied) have the right to deprive others of the very things libertarians themselves generally claim we all have a right to – life, liberty, and property.

But this amounts to a contradiction. By definition, no one can have a right to deprive others of those things they have a right to.

It follows that there must be a flaw in the libertarian understanding of the right to property – and indeed there is. Wherein lies this flaw? To answer this we need to take a closer look at what the ‘right to property’ really means.

The Libertarian Error ? Political Animal Magazine
This is a strawman argument.

No Libertarian claims that you have a "right to property".

What you have a right to are the fruits of your own labor. You are free to do with your labor as you see fit. If you choose to trade that labor for "property" then you have a right to that "property" as a fruit of your labor.

What this means is that labor that is rare will be worth more than labor that is plentiful. A person with a rare and desirable skill will be able to trade his labor for more than someone who does not have a rare and desirable skill. A surgeon will be paid more than a janitor. A writer like Stephen King will be paid more than a factory worker.

Is this "fair"? It's the fairest way to divy up the limited "property" available. Does this mean that people won't always get equal rewards in life? Yes it does, but any other system will be even MORE "unfair"
Thanks from imaginethat, guy39, RNG and 1 others
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Old October 6th, 2017, 03:12 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,883
This was addressed by the Pope in the encyclical Rerum novarum (from its first two words, Latin for "of revolutionary change"), or Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor, issued by Pope Leo XIII on 15 May 1891.

A young FDR read the encyclical, and turned it into the New Deal.

Basically it says there is a right to own property(and being the Pope, he saw this as a God given right), but ownership of capital also comes with duties. So while there is a right to own capital and employ people for profit, the capitalist owes those workers a decent life, good working conditions, decent wage,
decent benefits, like medical care and retirement.
goober is offline  
Old October 6th, 2017, 03:57 AM   #17
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 33,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
This was addressed by the Pope in the encyclical Rerum novarum (from its first two words, Latin for "of revolutionary change"), or Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor, issued by Pope Leo XIII on 15 May 1891.

A young FDR read the encyclical, and turned it into the New Deal.

Basically it says there is a right to own property(and being the Pope, he saw this as a God given right), but ownership of capital also comes with duties. So while there is a right to own capital and employ people for profit, the capitalist owes those workers a decent life, good working conditions, decent wage,
decent benefits, like medical care and retirement.
What is a living wage

who determines what is a living wage

Why is it when minimum wage is increased 1 of 2 things happen, people are laid off or their hours are cut.
Thanks from Sabcat
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old October 6th, 2017, 04:49 AM   #18
Banned
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
This was addressed by the Pope in the encyclical Rerum novarum (from its first two words, Latin for "of revolutionary change"), or Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor, issued by Pope Leo XIII on 15 May 1891.

A young FDR read the encyclical, and turned it into the New Deal.

Basically it says there is a right to own property(and being the Pope, he saw this as a God given right), but ownership of capital also comes with duties. So while there is a right to own capital and employ people for profit, the capitalist owes those workers a decent life, good working conditions, decent wage,
decent benefits, like medical care and retirement.
Because "The Pope" said so? I think not.
Thanks from caconservative and Sabcat
Quigley is offline  
Old October 6th, 2017, 08:09 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
So the founders original intent of life, liberty, and property is flawed, and only a few privileged are entitled to those in alienable rights?
Would that be the people who work, and pay for that property? Or, are you talking about another share the wealth scam?
caconservative is online now  
Old October 6th, 2017, 08:15 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
This was addressed by the Pope in the encyclical Rerum novarum (from its first two words, Latin for "of revolutionary change"), or Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor, issued by Pope Leo XIII on 15 May 1891.

A young FDR read the encyclical, and turned it into the New Deal.

Basically it says there is a right to own property(and being the Pope, he saw this as a God given right), but ownership of capital also comes with duties. So while there is a right to own capital and employ people for profit, the capitalist owes those workers a decent life, good working conditions, decent wage,
decent benefits, like medical care and retirement.
An employer owes you nothing more than what you bargain for. An employer is not your parents. The better your education and skill set, the better bargaining tool you have. No one owes you a dammed thing!
Thanks from Sabcat
caconservative is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
error, libertarian, locke, natural, property



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Happy birthday, Locke imaginethat Philosophy 2 August 30th, 2012 11:42 AM
Joe Wilson: The End Of An Error alias Political Talk 0 September 7th, 2006 09:30 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.