Quote:Original post by LessBread
It's leads Americans to forget that private ownership in excess robs human beings of their liberty, binding them as slaves to those that claim title to the land that gives succor.
Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious MaelstromQuote:Original post by LessBreadQuote:Original post by Dreddnafious MaelstromQuote:Original post by LessBreadQuote:Original post by Dreddnafious MaelstromQuote:Original post by LessBread
"In the state of nature, indeed, all men are born equal; but they cannot continue in this equality. Society makes them lose it, and they recover it only by the protection of the laws." -- Charles de Montesquieu (1748) [1], [2]
I mis-attributed the notion to Voltaire.
The basis for thinking about natural rights is Hobbes, not Locke. Locke came up with the idea that the consent of the governed was necessary to legitimize government.
If it were a multiple choice question, who developed the theory of government "Natural Rights", you'd have to pick hobbes.
same multiple choice who developed the concept of the social contract, that would be hobbes also.
But i stated that Jefferson was cloning Locke when he wrote this part of the constitution and i stand by it.
Lockes contribution was to extend the concept of Natural Rights into private ownership, as well as illustrate the interdependent nature of private ownership with natural rights and liberty.
Why Jefferson changed the pursuit of property to the pursuit of happiness is debatable, but which cannon he drew from really isn't.
Um, the statement isn't from the Constitution, it's from the Declaration of Independence. There's no argument that Jefferson cribbed from Locke, but he obviously cribbed from Montesquieu as well, yet few commentators discuss that, opting instead to focus on Locke - no doubt because they have a kind of property fetish.
yeah, my bad on the constitution part. Jefferson had "a kind of property fetish" himself, as did most proponents of Natural Law especially after Locke.
The essential foundation of liberty is private ownership. Starting first with one's ownership of themselves, and their efforts, and the fruit of their labors.
That's the fetish part. You can't be a proponent of liberty without being a proponent of private ownership, unless you chose to delude yourself.
No, the fetish part is the slavish worship of property that infests current American political thought. It's leads Americans to forget that private ownership in excess robs human beings of their liberty, binding them as slaves to those that claim title to the land that gives succor. It's noteworthy that while one of the earliest conceptions of liberty (at least in the English tradition), The Charter of Liberties of Henry I, dealt with particular matters of property, it laid the foundation for grounding the idea of liberty in the rule of law not in property. And to paraphrase Montesquieu, the protection of the laws restores the equality of natural rights that human beings are born to.
Private ownership is a mandatory component of liberty. You cant have one without the other.
Self ownership is the first.
Ownership of your own labor is the second.
Ownership of property is the third.
Law is functional up to the point that it protects one from ingress on one of these rights, beyond that its extortion.
Quote:Original post by SilvermystQuote:Original post by LessBread
It's leads Americans to forget that private ownership in excess robs human beings of their liberty, binding them as slaves to those that claim title to the land that gives succor.
I'd be interested in hearing your viewpoint on the issue of land ownership.
Quote:Original post by LessBread
Living requires water and food and those things come from the land, so monopoly land ownership infringes on the most fundamental rights of everyone else.
Quote:Original post by LessBread
The property fetish in action! Absent law, property is established by force and force produces tyranny not liberty.
Quote:Original post by LessBreadQuote:Original post by SilvermystQuote:Original post by LessBread
It's leads Americans to forget that private ownership in excess robs human beings of their liberty, binding them as slaves to those that claim title to the land that gives succor.
I'd be interested in hearing your viewpoint on the issue of land ownership.
Living requires water and food and those things come from the land, so monopoly land ownership infringes on the most fundamental rights of everyone else.
Quote:Original post by SilvermystQuote:Original post by LessBread
Living requires water and food and those things come from the land, so monopoly land ownership infringes on the most fundamental rights of everyone else.
What system of land ownership do you support?
Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious MaelstromQuote:Original post by LessBread
The property fetish in action! Absent law, property is established by force and force produces tyranny not liberty.
way to ignore what i wrote and branch off to a misguided tangent. you're response is rebutted by what you quoted. how about some effort?
Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Meaning you shouldn't be able to own land. Meaning you should subvert youself to the mythical beast known as society. You're really not nearly as dangerous as you once were man. You've drank so deeply of the koolaid that you've forgotten to wrap your self destructive ideology in a silver lining
Quote:Original post by LessBread
You wish that was a misguided tangent. Property existed long before liberty. Ergo, property is not sufficient for establishing liberty. Property is not the decisive factor in establishing liberty that you claim it to be. And the narrowness of focus on property to the exclusion of other factors, to the possibility that one of those other factors is the decisive factor, indicates a sort of fetishism of property.
Quote:
Um, no, more like you shouldn't be able to own all of the land. And while your fear of society may be greatly exaggerated, society is not a mythical beast. I never claimed that I was dangerous and I prefer coffee to kool-aid.
Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious MaelstromQuote:Original post by LessBread
You wish that was a misguided tangent. Property existed long before liberty. Ergo, property is not sufficient for establishing liberty. Property is not the decisive factor in establishing liberty that you claim it to be. And the narrowness of focus on property to the exclusion of other factors, to the possibility that one of those other factors is the decisive factor, indicates a sort of fetishism of property.
"property" couldnt exist before liberty. before the concept of ownership it wasnt property it was nature.
Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious MaelstromQuote:
Um, no, more like you shouldn't be able to own all of the land. And while your fear of society may be greatly exaggerated, society is not a mythical beast. I never claimed that I was dangerous and I prefer coffee to kool-aid.
well, if you're a georgist, which is basically what you pointed to above than thats not at all what you believe. If you have 100,000 humans you dont have 100,001 including society you have 100,000. It's a construct. As for the dangerous part, i meant that you've been less obvious in the past about the type of outcome one could expect if you ever had an opportunity to reshape the policies of this country. Or the expected result one would achieve by following that path.
