- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
If that is what you got out of my posts, that's too bad. I honestly don't know how to explain it any better, most especially to people who get it that wrong.
Of course it couldn't possibly be you that's wrong. Nope. Not at all. :roll:
But that has never happened has it. Because in a system like ours in which everybody's unalienable rights are recognized and defended, the more prosperous everybody else is, the more we can prosper. So there is not that much incentive to deny property to anybody else. There was concern on the part of some of the Founders that property would be concentrated in the hands of a few. But in a free market system it just hasn't happened because there is too much profit to be had in buying and selling property.
But that has never happened has it. Because in a system like ours in which everybody's unalienable rights are recognized and defended, the more prosperous everybody else is, the more we can prosper. So there is not that much incentive to deny property to anybody else.
Really? That's never happened? I suppose that's why they had to amend the Constitution to outlaw poll taxes.
That is the biggest bunch of bull**** ever. My own brother was being threatened with being locked up for he rest of his life in an institution when he didn't even lose his first tooth. That was a little over 20 years ago. What a bunch of crap you're spewing.
No incentive my ass. We had to fight like hell because the incentive was there every damn day, and he theoretically had constitutional protections. Didn't matter then.
I'm sure in your mind you see this as being somehow relative to the argument I'm making here. But I sure don't see it.
When you have to fight like hell to ensure them being able to actually *live* in society you can sure as heck understand that the programs they rely on to live also prevent them from growing any savings at all, which prevents them from getting property. Then there's the laws that actually prevented them from voting.
There's no argument that society intrinsically respects the right to own property when we already have the history and existing public policies in place to prevent that from occurring.
I am not saying there have not been other issues or that some people have trouble acquiring sufficient wealth to buy property. That is a different argument and a different discussion from the one I have been making however. Those who do have the wherewithal to buy property can almost always find property to buy. THAT is the argument I was making. Refute it if you can.
Not at all. In fact that's a pretty good way of looking at it. I wouldn't want people who disagree with me to represent me, so why would I want people who disagree with me to vote on who gets to represent me?
Excuse the language, but LBJ would seem to disagree with you.
You can spin it and dance around it all you want, but this really sums up everything you have been saying so far...Of course I could be wrong. But I don't believe I am wrong on the point I have been arguing. That you have yet to represent correctly or accurately.
It's all about you and what you gain from it. No sense of communal or collective consideration. If you don't get anything out of it, you want no part of it. Which is fine, just have the intellectual honesty to own it.That is a very different thing from voting to have you subsidize or pay for my healthcare or house or food or whatever when you benefit in no way at all from that.
Sure. Try to do that as a disabled person who needs services.
How do I know? Because my brother until just recently, had no hope whatsoever of being ALLOWED to save up any money in order to buy his own home.
But that has never happened has it. Because in a system like ours in which everybody's unalienable rights are recognized and defended, the more prosperous everybody else is, the more we can prosper. So there is not that much incentive to deny property to anybody else. There was concern on the part of some of the Founders that property would be concentrated in the hands of a few. But in a free market system it just hasn't happened because there is too much profit to be had in buying and selling property.
You can spin it and dance around it all you want, but this really sums up everything you have been saying so far...
It's all about you and what you gain from it. No sense of communal or collective consideration. If you don't get anything out of it, you want no part of it. Which is fine, just have the intellectual honesty to own it.
Please note that threads regarding this topic have been done before, and your point-of-view is well known.
It is happening right now in cities all over the world. It's what income inequality eventually leads to. Subtle effects at first, the average age of first time buyers creeping up and up. The scores of millennials who are being priced out of home ownership by 2nd home owners and buy to letters. Many young people are stuck in a cycle of renting and landlords absolutely stand to benefit from that.
The thought of becoming home owners is but a twinkle in the eye of most people in my demographic. The consequences of that are far reaching, we've got 30 year olds living at home, marriages and children coming later and later. Not owning a home is akin to not having skin in the game, and people are much less likely to actively contribute to their communities without that skin in the game.
I am sorry that your brother has had difficulties. That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with and is 100% unrelated to the argument I have been making.
It is happening right now in cities all over the world. It's what income inequality eventually leads to. Subtle effects at first, the average age of first time buyers creeping up and up. The scores of millennials who are being priced out of home ownership by 2nd home owners and buy to letters. Many young people are stuck in a cycle of renting and landlords absolutely stand to benefit from that.
The thought of becoming home owners is but a twinkle in the eye of most people in my demographic. The consequences of that are far reaching, we've got 30 year olds living at home, marriages and children coming later and later. Not owning a home is akin to not having skin in the game, and people are much less likely to actively contribute to their communities without that skin in the game.
Good lord woman. I gave you the perfect response to your horse**** about how we love natural rights and no one is prevented from getting property and it's a okay to consider clamping down on voting rights.
He doesn't have the ability to own property and there is an incentive to keep it that way.
Own up to it that your view practically removed the ability of an entire class of people to vote.
You are arguing income inequality that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am arguing.
No, you are arguing wealth inequality and I am arguing something quite different unrelated to wealth inequality. Do have a pleasant evening.
No, you are arguing wealth inequality and I am arguing something quite different unrelated to wealth inequality. Do have a pleasant evening.
The topic and wealth inequality are intrinsically linked.
Those without wealth are those without property. Those without wealth are those who certain people in this thread would seek to strip of a vote. It is these people who are most vulnerable and it is these people that we must fight for to ensure that they do have a voice.
The topic and wealth inequality are intrinsically linked.
Those without wealth are those without property. Those without wealth are those who certain people in this thread would seek to strip of a vote. It is these people who are most vulnerable and it is these people that we must fight for to ensure that they do have a voice.
You have a very compartmentalized mind.
If you bar voting for those without home ownership (or anything greater in equity to late 18th century voting practices), you inevitably run into your argument. Your argument stated that we value human rights (we don't, unless explicitly forced to do so) and that anyone who wants to can gain home ownership (again, I offer a class of people who are overwhelmingly prohibited from doing so), thus prohibiting voting on that basis is reasonable. You suffer from an idealistic liberalism which presupposes that mankind is rationale and good. Your liberalism further believes that mankind itself can be intrinsically improved. But conservatives rightly understood that mankind is brutish, ignorant, and needing of brute force to be corrected. I'm stating that you would not only disbar the poor from voting, but would also prohibit most persons with disabilities from voting. You believe that the poor are poor from matters less systemic and more personal. Even though social scientific data for the past 3 quarters of a century places you at a significant intellectual disadvantage, we can give you the benefit of the doubt, because of my trump card. The disabled are systematically prevented from climbing the social ladder because society purposefully designed it that way.
Or as Nilly put it a couple of hours ago:
He who is less learned suffers from argumental disadvantage, but as you have no less been pampered on your certainties, I am guessing I cannot sway you on how utterly incorrect you are. The ignorant wallow in their ignorance. C'est la vie.
As I told Nilly, I am arguing from a very different point of view and perspective than you are. And I also prefer to discuss complex subjects with people who are able to do that objectively and without resorting to ad hominem and personal insults.
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?