Ron Paul: property rights come before civil rights

Page 1 of 3 [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

22 May 2011, 3:12 pm

I think Paul's view is to apply many of his changes to the Federal Government such as Property Rights Vs. Civil Rights and giving more "sovereignty" to property and business owners.

However suppose you dispute this and think certain kinds of things should be challenged. I think under Ron Paul's view that would be a state issue. In fact under his property rights views he also want the States to have more power as put forth by the 10th Amendment.

I tend to like this as I would prefer to see social issues handled more by the states.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 May 2011, 3:34 pm

Property ownership and acquisition is a natural right. Without property we die.

Voting, the premier civil right, is man made and necessary only in a society where a government exercise tyrannical power over its subjects.

ruveyn



jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

22 May 2011, 9:25 pm

I disagree because hunters and gatherers did not have the concept of property and they lived just fine...there was also much less evidence of war among hunting gathering nomatic societies. Yes some did have war, but not to the degree that "civilzation" and property ownership brought.


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

22 May 2011, 10:50 pm

jojobean wrote:
I disagree because hunters and gatherers did not have the concept of property and they lived just fine...there was also much less evidence of war among hunting gathering nomatic societies. Yes some did have war, but not to the degree that "civilzation" and property ownership brought.


Well your thousands of years late because property is already owned and theres no way to un-own it without someone else owning it after you. The only way we're going back to a hunter/gatherer society would be after a total collapse of modern society and it's infrastructure and I can assure you that you don't want that.



jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

22 May 2011, 11:05 pm

Raptor wrote:
jojobean wrote:
I disagree because hunters and gatherers did not have the concept of property and they lived just fine...there was also much less evidence of war among hunting gathering nomatic societies. Yes some did have war, but not to the degree that "civilzation" and property ownership brought.


Well your thousands of years late because property is already owned and theres no way to un-own it without someone else owning it after you. The only way we're going back to a hunter/gatherer society would be after a total collapse of modern society and it's infrastructure and I can assure you that you don't want that.


I was making a point that people HAVE lived without property, however your probably right about what it would take to come back to that state on mind. However, I just cant understand how some of you think that civil rights should come second to those who have money and power. Obviously some folks have not suffered enough to understand how this is immoral.


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 May 2011, 1:12 am

jojobean wrote:
Raptor wrote:
jojobean wrote:
I disagree because hunters and gatherers did not have the concept of property and they lived just fine...there was also much less evidence of war among hunting gathering nomatic societies. Yes some did have war, but not to the degree that "civilzation" and property ownership brought.


Well your thousands of years late because property is already owned and theres no way to un-own it without someone else owning it after you. The only way we're going back to a hunter/gatherer society would be after a total collapse of modern society and it's infrastructure and I can assure you that you don't want that.


I was making a point that people HAVE lived without property, however your probably right about what it would take to come back to that state on mind. However, I just cant understand how some of you think that civil rights should come second to those who have money and power. Obviously some folks have not suffered enough to understand how this is immoral.


I tend to see a degree of class prejudice at work here. Those who have more are regarded to be of more worth than those who have less. And that's why each individual needs a vote - at least in the political process, each is of equal worth.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



WorldsEdge
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 458
Location: Massachusetts

23 May 2011, 6:28 am

Raptor wrote:
Well your thousands of years late because property is already owned and theres no way to un-own it without someone else owning it after you. The only way we're going back to a hunter/gatherer society would be after a total collapse of modern society and it's infrastructure and I can assure you that you don't want that.


Raptor, whatever point it is you're trying to make, maybe, just maybe, you'd have a better shot at convincing folks if you dropped the SS Logo as an avatar? :roll: To get specific, what you're parading about the boards with is the insignia of the 3rd SS Division Totenkopf (link) attached to each post.

Note #1: The link is to Wikipedia, but unfortunately the entry appears to have been written by some sort of Nazi fetishist. Especially the crap in the last few paragraphs about the US 1st Armored Division shooting prisoners.

Note #2: In some instances, you could make a plausible case that the Waffen-SS, to which Division Totenkopf belonged, was actually a purely front-line military force that had only the most tenuous of connections to the rest of the SS, and can't really be treated in the same fashion as the rest of the SS. (The SS was split into three or four large sub-groups, the Waffen-SS being the military arm. Their leadership is on record just about from day one as completely ignoring Himmler, when they weren't treating him and his silly pronouncements with contempt.) It is not an argument I personally accept, but legitimate historians like Heinrich Hoehne do make it, or something close to it, so I don't rule it out completely vis a vis several Waffen SS units. But it is not a case you can make here, as Division Totenkopf was recruited from straight from concentration camp guards.

Anyhoo, if you were ignorant of your avatar before, I hope I've enlightened you. And if you knew what it was and what it meant? I have several suggestions, all of which would unfortunately violate WP's terms of service. So I shall have to keep them to myself, alas.


_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell


dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

23 May 2011, 7:44 am

The only people that care about property rights are landed gentry.


_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

23 May 2011, 11:28 am

jojobean wrote:
I disagree because hunters and gatherers did not have the concept of property and they lived just fine...there was also much less evidence of war among hunting gathering nomatic societies. Yes some did have war, but not to the degree that "civilzation" and property ownership brought.

That is incorrect. The death rate from war among hunter-gatherer societies is many times higher than that seen in modern civilized societies. Even the two world wars of last century pale in comparison to the routinely high levels of bloodshed in hunter-gatherer societies. I also am highly skeptical of your claim that hunter-gatherers had no property- certainly at the very least personal possessions were thought of, ie my spear, my woman, etc. And various groups would undoubtedly compete for territory.

We are currently living in the most peaceful time in our species' history.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 May 2011, 1:47 pm

Orwell wrote:
jojobean wrote:
I disagree because hunters and gatherers did not have the concept of property and they lived just fine...there was also much less evidence of war among hunting gathering nomatic societies. Yes some did have war, but not to the degree that "civilzation" and property ownership brought.

That is incorrect. The death rate from war among hunter-gatherer societies is many times higher than that seen in modern civilized societies. Even the two world wars of last century pale in comparison to the routinely high levels of bloodshed in hunter-gatherer societies. I also am highly skeptical of your claim that hunter-gatherers had no property- certainly at the very least personal possessions were thought of, ie my spear, my woman, etc. And various groups would undoubtedly compete for territory.

We are currently living in the most peaceful time in our species' history.


I think it maybe more of a case that hunter/gatherer societies don't have the concept of owning land.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

23 May 2011, 2:34 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I think it maybe more of a case that hunter/gatherer societies don't have the concept of owning land.

I doubt that this is true. Early humans probably were at least somewhat territorial, and would say that this land belongs to my tribe, and your tribe may not hunt in our territory. Perhaps not individual ownership of clearly-demarcated tracts of land, but a sense of possession over the land nonetheless.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 May 2011, 3:01 pm

Orwell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I think it maybe more of a case that hunter/gatherer societies don't have the concept of owning land.

I doubt that this is true. Early humans probably were at least somewhat territorial, and would say that this land belongs to my tribe, and your tribe may not hunt in our territory. Perhaps not individual ownership of clearly-demarcated tracts of land, but a sense of possession over the land nonetheless.


I was meaning personal ownership. But you're correct about tribes claiming territory, as primitive societies have been observed carrying out such territorial policies in historic times.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

23 May 2011, 4:51 pm

I guess the origional point I was trying to make was that I dont see how proptry rights should enter into the equation of civil rights. The person who wants to shop or dine or work anywthere they want to and be an equal member of society is not trying to steal the propery from the person who owns it, they just want to not be treated as second class citizens. I also heard that some of the tea partiers want to go back to the origional constitution without the amendments. That would wipe out any progress we have made to be a more fair society, plus as a woman, I would not be allowed to vote, nor have any protection from sexual harrasment under the law. Dont forget any disability rights...we will not have any rights whatsoever as people with a disability.
I just dont see how this is a good thing.


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

23 May 2011, 5:35 pm

WorldsEdge wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Well your thousands of years late because property is already owned and theres no way to un-own it without someone else owning it after you. The only way we're going back to a hunter/gatherer society would be after a total collapse of modern society and it's infrastructure and I can assure you that you don't want that.


Raptor, whatever point it is you're trying to make, maybe, just maybe, you'd have a better shot at convincing folks if you dropped the SS Logo as an avatar? :roll: To get specific, what you're parading about the boards with is the insignia of the 3rd SS Division Totenkopf (link) attached to each post.

Note #1: The link is to Wikipedia, but unfortunately the entry appears to have been written by some sort of Nazi fetishist. Especially the crap in the last few paragraphs about the US 1st Armored Division shooting prisoners.

Note #2: In some instances, you could make a plausible case that the Waffen-SS, to which Division Totenkopf belonged, was actually a purely front-line military force that had only the most tenuous of connections to the rest of the SS, and can't really be treated in the same fashion as the rest of the SS. (The SS was split into three or four large sub-groups, the Waffen-SS being the military arm. Their leadership is on record just about from day one as completely ignoring Himmler, when they weren't treating him and his silly pronouncements with contempt.) It is not an argument I personally accept, but legitimate historians like Heinrich Hoehne do make it, or something close to it, so I don't rule it out completely vis a vis several Waffen SS units. But it is not a case you can make here, as Division Totenkopf was recruited from straight from concentration camp guards.

Anyhoo, if you were ignorant of your avatar before, I hope I've enlightened you. And if you knew what it was and what it meant? I have several suggestions, all of which would unfortunately violate WP's terms of service. So I shall have to keep them to myself, alas.


It's a pirate symbol known as a jolly roger.
Thats my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Some of you have too much of a craving to be offended.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

23 May 2011, 5:52 pm

Dionysian wrote:

Quote:
The only people that care about property rights are landed gentry.


Following that logic I guess that means the only people that care about gay rights are gays.
Hmmmmm……………:chin:

Anyhow, I don’t see an issue with property rights as it applies to civil rights.
Do you all think that “Whites Only” signs are going to start popping up on all white owned businesses?
‘Fraid not, because that would even drive away more white business than they can afford to lose in addition to the inevitable vandalism from “non-whites”.
Some of them might want to hang signs like that but they won’t except for an insignificantly very small minority.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

23 May 2011, 6:01 pm

Raptor wrote:
Following that logic I guess that means the only people that care about gay rights are gays.


That's a good point. I certainly care about property rights and I am definitely not 'landed gentry'...

Raptor wrote:
It's a pirate symbol known as a jolly roger.
Thats my story and I'm stickin' to it.


Jawohl, Hauptsturmführer!! :wink: :lol:


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do