- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
He's correct.
"Seldom used"??? You new here?
Well, I don't know about the US article, but progressivism puts all the emphasis on the collective and gives all the control and responsibility to the government which must be controlled by progressives. Any who oppose such a government are usually considered wrong, evil, bad, selfish, or other uncomplimentary characterizations. To the progressive, it is the government's responsibility to address the major problems of humankind including poverty and only the most heartless among us would object to government programs, however ineffective or destructive, that are presented as efforts to fix what is wrong with society. We are not to question results or consequences--a noble sounding title on the program is considered adequate to support it, and good intentions are all important while the end result is immaterial. If the program is not delivering as advertised, then it is underfunded and needs to be made bigger and more powerful.
Individual initiative, liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and possibilities are set aside or squashed all in the interest of the 'common good' as government decrees it to be.
The progressive dismisses all arguments by non-progressives to end poverty. If government does not address poverty and fix it, in the progressive's mind it won't happen.
Absurd ideas that wont happen. Thank god.
Taking the mirror down will help.Go away, troll.
Are you a supporter of private property, including land?
I don't think you're describing actual progressiveism here.Well, I don't know about the US article, but progressivism puts all the emphasis on the collective and gives all the control and responsibility to the government which must be controlled by progressives. Any who oppose such a government are usually considered wrong, evil, bad, selfish, or other uncomplimentary characterizations. To the progressive, it is the government's responsibility to order society in the progressive mold and address the major problems of humankind including poverty and only the most heartless among us would object to government programs, however ineffective or destructive, that are presented as efforts to fix what is wrong with society. We are not to question results or consequences--a noble sounding title on the program is considered adequate to support it, and good intentions are all important while the end result is immaterial. If the program is not delivering as advertised, then it is underfunded and needs to be made bigger and more powerful.
Or evil, selfish, hateful, greedy conservatives prevented it from being effective.
Individual property, initiative, liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and possibilities are set aside or squashed all in the interest of the 'common good' as government decrees it to be.
The progressive dismisses all arguments by non-progressives to end poverty. If government does not address poverty and fix it, in the progressive's mind it won't happen.
They aren't doing it right.
So in other words, you do not support private property.I support the private possession of land. But I do not view it as property in the sense that capital is property. Capital is created. Land is not. We are all born with a right to access what nature has provided. It only makes sense that I pay a fee if I am to hold it in exclusion.
I support the private possession of land. But I do not view it as property in the sense that capital is property. Capital is created. Land is not. We are all born with a right to access what nature has provided. It only makes sense that I pay a fee if I am to hold it in exclusion.
I agree with you that possession of land is not a legitimate form of property, however I do have a question about this "fee" you are referring to. Who is the "fee" paid to? Where does it go?
So in other words, you do not support private property.
Which makes no sense at all.
So in other words, you do not support private property.
The whole line of reasoning makes no sense at all.
I support the private possession of land. But I do not view it as property in the sense that capital is property. Capital is created. Land is not. We are all born with a right to access what nature has provided. It only makes sense that I pay a fee if I am to hold it in exclusion.
:dohLand is not property. Property comes with an inherent right to destroy, and you have no right to destroy land. Property also presupposes creation, land can not be created.
Supporting "private property" is the intellectual equivalent of supporting mythical creatures. Private property does not exist, therefore any "support" for it is meaningless and subjective.
I don't think you're describing actual progressiveism here.
Sounds more like communism without the naked force.
:doh
Land is, and has been, property. It is owned.
:thumbs:It's Georgism. It runs on the false belief that we all own the earth. Anyone with that belief can't be expected to establish the ownership of all the land of the earth to all the people of the planet. It's a false belief that has to run on the unproven assumption that because we are born we own something other than ourselves.
Wrong.Nope. Land has been homesteaded, and possessed. It has never been owned. Ownership presupposes creation and the right to destroy. Land "ownership" entails neither.
Nope. Land has been homesteaded and possessed. It has never been owned. Ownership presupposes creation and the right to destroy. Land "ownership" entails neither.
Land is not property. Property comes with an inherent right to destroy, and you have no right to destroy land. Property also presupposes creation, land can not be created.
Supporting "private property" is the intellectual equivalent of supporting mythical creatures. Private property does not exist, therefore any "support" for it is meaningless and subjective.
You own things that come from the earth like apples, and acorns and there is no requirement that you planted the tree yourself.
Wrong.
Maybe they shouldn't have babies if they can't afford to feed them.
Very Marxian in concept.
However, we Americans pretty much go with the English common law concept when it comes to the land. In English common law, real property or real estate or any immovable property that is legally defined along with improvements to it such as buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, roads, etc. are indeed a person's private property when legally purchased or acquired. Real property and personal property are the two main subunits of property in English Common Law
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?