• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democracy Vs Socialism

Kelzie said:
Not on the acre there's not. Go ahead. Tell me it's not her land.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter because of the fact that she bought the property rights for the land and also, the house, that in itself is productive, someone/somepeople made a $200,000 gain on that. The builders of the house, the original owners of the land, real estate agents et al.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It doesn't matter because of the fact that she bought the property rights for the land and also, the house, that in itself is productive, someone/somepeople made a $200,000 gain on that. The builders of the house, the original owners of the land, real estate agents et al.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Land doesn't have to be what others consider productive for you to continue ownership of it.
 
Kelzie said:
Exactly. Land doesn't have to be what others consider productive for you to continue ownership of it.
Click to expand...

No because her land is going to be productive forever, because it will be sold again and again. What I'm saying is that the Native Americans were so unproductive that they were constantly on the brink of starvation and that before the U.S. settled North America this place was a sh!tty place to live. British Colonial settlers came here and turned absolutely nothing into the greatest country on earth.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No because her land is going to be productive forever, because it will be sold again and again. What I'm saying is that the Native Americans were so unproductive that they were constantly on the brink of starvation and that before the U.S. settled North America this place was a sh!tty place to live. British Colonial settlers came here and turned absolutely nothing into the greatest country on earth.
Click to expand...

So if my mom were starving to death her land could be taken from her?
 
Kelzie said:
So if my mom were starving to death her land could be taken from her?
Click to expand...

No, I was arguing that the Native Americans did not use the land to produce anything. They had no concept of property or the value of said property this is why they were constantly on the brink of starvation. The meer fact that there is a house on that piece of land which your mother owns (which was paid for along with the land) then that land is productive, because that means that someone had to work to get the money to pay for the house and the land and that means that there were goods or services being produced, that means that people were eating, and that's why we aren't on the constant brink of starvation.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No, I was arguing that the Native Americans did not use the land to produce anything. They had no concept of property or the value of said property this is why they were constantly on the brink of starvation. The meer fact that there is a house on that piece of land which your mother owns (which was paid for along with the land) then that land is productive, because that means that someone had to work to get the money to pay for the house and the land and that means that there were goods or services being produced, that means that people were eating, and that's why we aren't on the constant brink of starvation.
Click to expand...

So if you wouldn't mind, would you list your necessary criteria for someone to have property rights?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
One thing: You understand property rights.
Click to expand...

That's it? That's all you need?
 
So in order to have property rights, you must understand property rights?

Who gets to set the definition of property rights then?
Why does any group mandate that there have to be property rights in order to have claim to said land?
All other reasons aside (guns, religion, etc.), why initially do the European ideas pertaining to land get to win out over the Native American tribes?
Why do people sit back now, bleating out "property rights...property rights" as if this justifies why things turned out the way that they did?

THEN...I scrolled back a bit and read this....

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
What I'm saying is that the Native Americans were so unproductive that they were constantly on the brink of starvation and that before the U.S. settled North America this place was a sh!tty place to live. British Colonial settlers came here and turned absolutely nothing into the greatest country on earth.
Click to expand...

ahaHAHAHAhahaaHAHAHAHAHAA!! WHAT?

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
The meer fact that there is a house on that piece of land which your mother owns (which was paid for along with the land) then that land is productive, because that means that someone had to work to get the money to pay for the house and the land and that means that there were goods or services being produced, that means that people were eating, and that's why we aren't on the constant brink of starvation.
Click to expand...

This is an absolutely sophomoric assessment...full of ridiculous conjectures based upon nothing other than speculation and a grandiose attempt at logic.
 
BodiSatva said:
So in order to have property rights, you must understand property rights?

Who gets to set the definition of property rights then?
Why does any group mandate that there have to be property rights in order to have claim to said land?
All other reasons aside (guns, religion, etc.), why initially do the European ideas pertaining to land get to win out over the Native American tribes?
Why do people sit back now, bleating out "property rights...property rights" as if this justifies why things turned out the way that they did?

THEN...I scrolled back a bit and read this....



ahaHAHAHAhahaaHAHAHAHAHAA!! WHAT?



This is an absolutely sophomoric assessment...full of ridiculous conjectures based upon nothing other than speculation and a grandiose attempt at logic.
Click to expand...

See I was going to wait until he provided all his criteria. Now he's just going to change the requirements.
 
What a bad wingman I was...

He couldn't seem to provide any reasoning...he kept spouting "on the brink of starvation" and "turned absolutely nothing into the greatest country on earth" over and over...
oh well.

Sorry, It did seem as if you were allowing yourself to be lead easily.
To be sure, you would have unleashed an apt response.

To late to change the requirements though...this line of debate is finished.
 
BodiSatva said:
What a bad wingman I was...

He couldn't seem to provide any reasoning...he kept spouting "on the brink of starvation" and "turned absolutely nothing into the greatest country on earth" over and over...
oh well.

Sorry, It did seem as if you were allowing yourself to be lead easily.
To be sure, you would have unleashed an apt response.

To late to change the requirements though...this line of debate is finished.
Click to expand...

No worries. ;) We'll have plenty of chances with TOT. In fact, next time he comes on, he'll provide plenty of logic-free posts for us to stare at. :mrgreen:
 
BodiSatva said:
So in order to have property rights, you must understand property rights?
Click to expand...
How can you have property rights without having a concept of property?

Who gets to set the definition of property rights then?
Click to expand...

The Natural Law and the natural rights but with rights come responsibility; such as, using that land in a productive way to contribute to the society, this can be done throught the purchase of property which is something the Native Americans had no concept of.
Why does any group mandate that there have to be property rights in order to have claim to said land?
Click to expand...

Because land is not a gift from the gods it's a quantifiable resource that is necessary in order to sustain a functioning society. If land is not being used to produce then it is utterly worthless.
All other reasons aside (guns, religion, etc.), why initially do the European ideas pertaining to land get to win out over the Native American tribes?
Click to expand...

Because the Native American society was constantly on the brink of starvation and the reason for this is that they didn't understand the value of the land.
Why do people sit back now, bleating out "property rights...property rights" as if this justifies why things turned out the way that they did?
Click to expand...

The way that they did? What way was that? The native Americans are a proud industrious people who's collective wealth is proportionally the greatest of any minority group in the United States.
THEN...I scrolled back a bit and read this....



ahaHAHAHAhahaaHAHAHAHAHAA!! WHAT?



This is an absolutely sophomoric assessment...full of ridiculous conjectures based upon nothing other than speculation and a grandiose attempt at logic.
Click to expand...


LMAO, an attempt at logic? Then why don't you disprove it instead of resulting to ad-hominim attacks?

How can you argue that point? In order to pay for that house and land she had to work to make money, that means that she had to produce some sort of good or a service which means she was contributing to society and the greater good.

Someone argued that the United States wasn't formed on the princibles of life, liberty, and property. The point of land ownership is for having an incentive to work and be productive. North America was unproductive before the colonies that's why the Indians were constantly on the brink of starvation.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
How can you have property rights without having a concept of property?



The Natural Law and the natural rights but with rights come responsibility; such as, using that land in a productive way to contribute to the society, this can be done throught the purchase of property which is something the Native Americans had no concept of.


Because land is not a gift from the gods it's a quantifiable resource that is necessary in order to sustain a functioning society. If land is not being used to produce then it is utterly worthless.


Because the Native American society was constantly on the brink of starvation and the reason for this is that they didn't understand the value of the land.


The way that they did? What way was that? The native Americans are a proud industrious people who's collective wealth is proportionally the greatest of any minority group in the United States.

LMAO, an attempt at logic? Then why don't you disprove it instead of resulting to ad-hominim attacks?

Someone argued that the United States wasn't formed on the princibles of life, liberty, and property. The point of land ownership is for having an incentive to work and be productive. North America was unproductive before the colonies that's why the Indians were constantly on the brink of starvation.
Click to expand...

So hey, where's my list?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
List? Did I miss a post?
Click to expand...

Yes. You're supposed to give me a list of all the requirements necessary for someone to have property rights.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I told you just one: You have to understand the concept of property the Indains didn't; that's it, the end, fin.
Click to expand...

So wealthy parents will their land away to their young child and it is taken away from the kid by the state. He doesn't understand property.
 
Originally posted by Trajan -

quantifiable resource that is necessary in order to sustain a functioning society
Click to expand...

Land is just there. It is just part of the Earth. Land shifts with the cycles of the Earth. If a mudslide takes out your house and all the other 'property', then you have nothing. Natural Law is just another way of claiming something. Sorry that you have an ingrained western mindset that can't see past ownership and that you simply accept this way to be "the Way". The Way is Taoism, not Natural Law.

You still did not answer my question then...."Who gets to set the definition of property rights then?" (HINT: the answer is that nobody SHOULD get to set the definition)

Originally posted by Trajan -

brink of starvation
Click to expand...

There we go again, the "brink of starvation " standpoint again.

Here you go, prove that Native Americans that lived in the Americas for the last 30 thousand years were on the brink of starvation.

Bodi -
"So in order to have property rights, you must understand property rights?"

This wasn't really a question. ;)
You don't have to understand property rights in order to have property rights.

Originally posted by Trajan -
Because land is not a gift from the gods it's a quantifiable resource that is necessary in order to sustain a functioning society. If land is not being used to produce then it is utterly worthless.
Click to expand...

"Utterly worthless"...Great attitude. Wonderful inabilty to understand that since all land supports life in its own unique way, all land produces. Plants, oxygen, animals, rivers, climate changes and air patterns, Chao, if you will. Sorry if that is to abstract for you and your BIG Capitalistic ways...but it is utterly true regardless.

I guess that I can sum up your flaw in this one statement, though the rest were fun...

Originally posted by Trajan -

North America was unproductive before the colonies that's why the Indians were constantly on the brink of starvation....Because land is not a gift from the gods it's a quantifiable resource that is necessary in order to sustain a functioning society.
Click to expand...

North American land produced Native American SOCIETY.

Done.
 
Kelzie said:
So wealthy parents will their land away to their young child and it is taken away from the kid by the state. He doesn't understand property.
Click to expand...

Huh? That's not even close to the subject but I'll answer it anyways, if someone gives away their wealth that they have created to provide a better life for their children I don't think it should be taxed, allthough it is.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Huh? That's not even close to the subject but I'll answer it anyways, if someone gives away their wealth that they have created to provide a better life for their children I don't think it should be taxed, allthough it is.
Click to expand...

How could you not connect the dots on this one? Let me help you out. A small child does not understand the concept of propery. According to you, people who do not understand property have no claim to it. Therefore, anyone can take the land from this kid because he has no claim to it.
 
Kelzie said:
How could you not connect the dots on this one? Let me help you out. A small child does not understand the concept of propery. According to you, people who do not understand property have no claim to it. Therefore, anyone can take the land from this kid because he has no claim to it.
Click to expand...

No a society that doesn't understand the concept of property can not possibly understand the concept of property rights let alone have them, you can not compare a child to an entire society.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No a society that doesn't understand the concept of property can not possibly understand the concept of property rights let alone have them, you can not compare a child to an entire society.
Click to expand...

so a soceity has lived on the land, without having the problem of someone coming in and taking all those resources and land away. Of course they don't need to think about property rights. Property rights were concocted to defend a person's property. If the property doesn't need defense, they don't need property rights. (although they did in some sense, ocnsidering they had territorial disputes etc.). So does that mean they have no claim to the land?
 
nkgupta80 said:
so a soceity has lived on the land, without having the problem of someone coming in and taking all those resources and land away. Of course they don't need to think about property rights. Property rights were concocted to defend a person's property. If the property doesn't need defense, they don't need property rights. (although they did in some sense, ocnsidering they had territorial disputes etc.). So does that mean they have no claim to the land?
Click to expand...

But they didn't ever settle on one area of land, what is so hard to understand that to have property rights you must actually have property?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom