# Locke believed citizens were people who owned property



## ihopehefails (Apr 25, 2010)

I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.

I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens but is it really that far fetched of an idea?   When I have a dispute with another citizen over something I own I use my government to protect what I think is rightfully mine.   It would not seem very plausible to go into a Canadian court and ask them to settle the dispute.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 25, 2010)

The Left is so far away from understanding this basic point that I predict Leftwingsewerworker and his ilk will be along in a minute comparing this to slavery.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 25, 2010)

Not far fetched at all.

Nobody belongs in the game without a buy-in.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 25, 2010)

Well, the left now believes a citizen to be someone who lives on the backs of others... all the while complaining about where the money's coming from.


----------



## Bill O'Olberman (Apr 25, 2010)

Dude said:


> Not far fetched at all.
> 
> Nobody belongs in the game without a buy-in.



Exactly what is that buy in? Just asking because I pay taxes to the federal government but dont own any property (land).


----------



## jswiftproposal (Apr 25, 2010)

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!! Baseless assumptions and libels of people!!!!!!! Can i call someone a socialist naz?i!?!?!?! Pleeeeeeaaaaaaazzzzzzeeeee!!!!!!!!!!! I know that they are two separate parties that hated each-other and are completely unrelated, but can i plleeeeeeaaaaasssseeeee call obama and other democrats socialist nazis?!?!?!?!?!!!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 25, 2010)

So the guy out there paying 2000 a month rent is not a citizen, and I am, because I own land I bought and paid off 30 years ago?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 25, 2010)

When the Us was founded, most of the rest of the world was ruled by kings. In a kingdom, only the landowners had status. It is not surprising that some of the founders held this idea of citizenship. 
Remember, women then didn't vote, and could only be beaten with a switch a large around as the thumb. Then there was that "peculiar institution" we call slavery.
I don't think it is an idea for today.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 25, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> So the guy out there paying 2000 a month rent is not a citizen, and I am, because I own land I bought and paid off 30 years ago?



That was the idea.  You have a problem with it?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 25, 2010)

Dude said:


> Not far fetched at all.
> 
> Nobody belongs in the game without a buy-in.



Therin lies the problem with your version of what society and our nations goals should be.  You think it is a game.  Thank you for making that point.


----------



## xsited1 (Apr 25, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
> 
> I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens but is it really that far fetched of an idea?   When I have a dispute with another citizen over something I own I use my government to protect what I think is rightfully mine.   It would not seem very plausible to go into a Canadian court and ask them to settle the dispute.



I wish I could say I owned property, but I really don't.  You see, I get a property tax bill every year which is quite sizable and if I refuse to pay it, the government will take away my property.  So, in fact, it's the government that owns my property.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 25, 2010)

So you like less freedom?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 25, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Not far fetched at all.
> ...


It's what's called an "analogy", Chumlee.

Thanks for proving that you're as dumb as a bag of hammers.


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 25, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
> 
> I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens but is it really that far fetched of an idea?   When I have a dispute with another citizen over something I own I use my government to protect what I think is rightfully mine.   It would not seem very plausible to go into a Canadian court and ask them to settle the dispute.



And English law gave the vote only to landholders or those with property worth more than 20 shillings a year.  The struggle for universal suffrage in Britain was long and bloody.  I wonder now if Locke came back would he argue that there should be no vote for those who did not have land holdings?  It's always useful to locate someone like Locke in their time and place to understand them better.


----------



## jillian (Apr 25, 2010)

Bill O'Olberman said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Not far fetched at all.
> ...



he's just pathetic. 

i love constitutionalists who know nothing about the point of the constitution.


----------



## del (Apr 25, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
> ...



you mean it was different in the 18th century?

damn, i had no idea.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 25, 2010)

del said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



You've just written a new sig line!


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 25, 2010)

del said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...


----------



## del (Apr 25, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



i'm touched.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 25, 2010)

del said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



He is an angel.


----------



## del (Apr 25, 2010)

Luissa said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



of course he is, and i'm della reese.


----------



## Toro (Apr 25, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
> 
> I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens but is it really that far fetched of an idea?   When I have a dispute with another citizen over something I own I use my government to protect what I think is rightfully mine.   It would not seem very plausible to go into a Canadian court and ask them to settle the dispute.



That's a great idea.

If this were 1674.

Why don't we just say "white males who own property are only citizens" and be done with it.


----------



## Toro (Apr 25, 2010)

jillian said:


> Bill O'Olberman said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Taxation without representation is a very American concept...


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 25, 2010)

How about "your vote doesn't mean squat anyway so don't worry about it" ?


----------



## del (Apr 25, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> How about "your vote doesn't mean squat anyway so don't worry about it" ?



you may be on to something. 

 feudalism is at least honest about it. serf's up!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 25, 2010)

John Locke was born during the reign of Charles I (1632) and died in 1704.  His philosophy some of our Constitution, but not much of our political beliefs of the 21st century.  We view the relationship of citizenship and property much differently today.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 25, 2010)

Bill O'Olberman said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Not far fetched at all.
> ...


Nobody paid federal taxes on their productivity back then, and the land ownership requirement was for _*federal*_ elections. The states made their own election laws insofar as participation was concerned.

At this point, we've been dragged by progressives/socialists so far from the republic set forth,  that the men who set it fort would be appalled.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 25, 2010)

Dude said:


> Bill O'Olberman said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



You do realize not allowing a certain group of people to vote, is pretty much fascism.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 25, 2010)

Not even.

Are we fascists because eight year olds can't vote?


----------



## Toro (Apr 25, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> John Locke was born during the reign of Charles I (1632) and died in 1704.  His philosophy some of our Constitution, but not much of our political beliefs of the 21st century.  We view the relationship of citizenship and property much differently today.



His was a time of aristocracy, where the landed gentry passed property from generation to generation for centuries.  Britain was not a meritocracy.  It was not a place that embodied "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  It was a class ridden system based on birthright.

Its not 1790 anymore.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 25, 2010)

In America, you could become part of the gentry through your own efforts, rather than  merely being a member of the lucky sperm club...That was the idea.


----------



## Toro (Apr 25, 2010)

Dude said:


> Not even.
> 
> Are we fascists because eight year olds can't vote?



We do not allow eight year olds to vote because we recognize that they do not have full rights under the law because they do not have the mental capacity to make all decisions in their best interests.

The idea that people don't have a stake in the system if they don't own property is absolutely ridiculous.  Though laws to protect private property are important, it is not physical property that is the primary driver of wealth creation in this country.  It is human capital.  It is what is peoples' mind.  The idea that a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who rents somehow has less invested in the system than some dumbass grade-eight educated hillbilly is bizarre.  The richest people in America today are not people who derived their wealth from land like they were 200 years ago.  They are people who have created new products.


----------



## Toro (Apr 25, 2010)

Dude said:


> In America, you could become part of the gentry through your own efforts, rather than  merely being a member of the lucky sperm club...That was the idea.



As long as you were white and male.  That's part of being in the lucky sperm club.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 25, 2010)

Toro said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Not even.
> ...



Like derivatives ?


----------



## jillian (Apr 25, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



like the iPod.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 25, 2010)

jillian said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



that was Warren Buffet wasn't it ?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 25, 2010)

Toro said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > In America, you could become part of the gentry through your own efforts, rather than  merely being a member of the lucky sperm club...That was the idea.
> ...


Actually, if you were a woman and your name was on the land patent you could vote....That just didn't happen very often. 

Likewise, the 3/5 compromise was made to get the Constitution ratified. It was designed to further perfect the Articles of Confederation, not be to be be-all-end-all.


----------



## jillian (Apr 25, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



steven jobs


----------



## Oddball (Apr 25, 2010)

Toro said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Not even.
> ...


That's simply ridiculous.

You really think the Silicon Valley entrepreneur is going to remain a tenant when he knows his say-so in the system is at stake?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 25, 2010)

jillian said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



and the poor investors that gambled on him


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

Toro said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Not even.
> ...



What about felons?  Illegal immigrants?  Non-residents?  There are countless classes of people not entitled to vote in this country.  Yours is a non-argument.
As for your assertion that rch people do not get that way from property, I'd suggest a look at the Forbes 400 and see how many of them made money from property.  Also check how many of them do not own property.
But the solution to that concern is what VA had: either a landowner or having a "freehold" (net worth) over a stated amount.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > So the guy out there paying 2000 a month rent is not a citizen, and I am, because I own land I bought and paid off 30 years ago?
> ...



It's idiocy.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Not even.
> 
> Are we fascists because eight year olds can't vote?



She said 'pretty much' fascism, not facism in all cases.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



John Locke and John Adams would agree with you, Rab.  American history since the early 19th-century repudiates your belief on this matter.  We are not going back; you do know that, don't you?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

We already are back...



> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



As opposed to what we have now?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > So the guy out there paying 2000 a month rent is not a citizen, and I am, because I own land I bought and paid off 30 years ago?
> ...



I do.  I have a major problem with it.  Why is it that certain groups of people among us are always trying to leaverage others out of thier rights?  It is always the same mealy mouth pieces of shit that are constantly attempting to steal ...trick ... make deals that intentionally are aimed at hoarding power and displacing those who just want to be good citizens and get along?  You know who I'm taliking about don't you Rabbi?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Huggy accurately describes Rabbi's hopes and deliberate intentions.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Huggy accurately describes Rabbi's hopes and deliberate intentions.



Does it disturb you that your views agree with a vile anti-Semite?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

The truth is the truth, regardless who writes it, Rabbi.  You are a corporatist elitist who wishes to disenfranchise citizens so that you can unethically and immorally lever economic opportunities to enrich yourself and oppress others.  I am not wrong about this: everything you write reveals that is how you think.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Truthmatersnot, is that you?..


----------



## Madeline (Apr 26, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
> 
> I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens but is it really that far fetched of an idea?   When I have a dispute with another citizen over something I own I use my government to protect what I think is rightfully mine.   It would not seem very plausible to go into a Canadian court and ask them to settle the dispute.



No, you dope.  You have it backwards.  Locke believed that only the rich/property owners needed government, and so the only purpose of government was to protect them.  The thingy they needed protecting from?  Us non-rich folks, unless you are Bill Gates.  If you are Bill, fuck you I hate Word 7.

Also see, Adam Smith "The Wealth of Nations".

The Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## manifold (Apr 26, 2010)

You'll all have to excuse ihopehefails for this particulary line of lunacy.

In keeping with his archaic views of the world, he recently underwent a bloodletting to treat a minor cold and his brain isn't receiving it's required supply of oxygen.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Huggy accurately describes Rabbi's hopes and deliberate intentions.
> ...



Why mince words ya slimey fuck?  How about "Jew Hater"?  My people , the Irish, are hard workers...not the thieves in the night that you represent.  On a personal note how's this for a comparrison of ethics and values.  My grandfather on my mom's side started a "penny bank" in the 30's to help working and non working people buy appliances and other modest purchases  charging very low interest and forgiving those that failed to pay under those very difficult circumstances.  He was very wealthy and there were few government programs to help the unemployed and destitute at that time.   Your kind would only make loans if there was a high likelyhood that you could repossess something and make the borrowers life even harder.  I don't have to put you down ..do I Rabbi?..  You know who and what you are.  Go fuck yourself...now run along ....its a long day and I doubt you have met your quota of people to cheat today.


----------



## Madeline (Apr 26, 2010)

Leeches.  Can't live with 'em.  Can't fulfill all your sick, twisted medieval fantasies without 'em.  I do give coo points to folks who have accessories for the "let's play dress up" times though.  

_*wanders off to look for my fur lined handcuffs...where the hell did I leave them last?....."_


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



How many Irish sit on the Supreme Court?  How many Irish have won the Nobel Prize?  How many Irish head banks?
Your people are a bunch of low class drunks and trouble makers.


----------



## del (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



you two deserve each other.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 26, 2010)

Holy jesus, more and more dumb arguments from hacks.  Not even worthy of a response if anybody really thinks that only property owners are citizens.

Government is there to protect our rights and freedom


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

The linchpin of all other rights and freedoms is the right to property, Gomer.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> When the Us was founded, most of the rest of the world was ruled by kings. In a kingdom, only the landowners had status. It is not surprising that some of the founders held this idea of citizenship.
> Remember, women then didn't vote, and could only be beaten with a switch a large around as the thumb. Then there was that "peculiar institution" we call slavery.
> I don't think it is an idea for today.



But those were the good old days, where white christian males had all the rights and were able to force everybody to live by their standards, according to the hacks


----------



## Intense (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> The linchpin of all other rights and freedoms is the right to property, Gomer.



The right to own property, as a defense against Tyranny. The right to citizenship and the right to vote, as a defense against Tyranny. They are compatible.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Intense said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The linchpin of all other rights and freedoms is the right to property, Gomer.
> ...


Universal suffrage is as sure a path to the tyranny of the mob as there is.

The balance against this is that the tenant class were to have their say at the state level (states were free to make any election law they wanted), then represented in the Senate via Senators appointed by the state legislatures.

The enacting of the 17th Amendment basically federalized mob rule.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Huggy accurately describes Rabbi's hopes and deliberate intentions.
> ...





did anyone NOT see this accusation coming just as soon as the Rabbi starts losing an argument?


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



THat is classic, someone agreeing only property owners should be considered citizens calling others "dumb as a bag of hammers"


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Not even.
> 
> Are we fascists because eight year olds can't vote?





Dude said:


> Thanks for proving that you're as dumb as a bag of hammers.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Just post "I got nothing", Gomer...It's much more relevant to the topic than any of that drivel.


----------



## Intense (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I believe that the straighter path to Justice is through Stronger establishment of Our Rights, Individual Rights, that includes Privacy, Property, and Voice. The Constitution protect's the Individual, whether in the majority or minority, based on higher principle, ethics, and a sense of impartial justice. The sad thing is how easily that is forgotten. The question should not be who get's to manipulate, but to what end. 

We are a Republic, founded in Federalism, not Nationalism. We have so lost our way.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > When the Us was founded, most of the rest of the world was ruled by kings. In a kingdom, only the landowners had status. It is not surprising that some of the founders held this idea of citizenship.
> ...



The left-wing hacks you mean.
The truth is that women, blacks, and non-Christians could all vote.  Sorry to disappoint your fantasies.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Intense said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


That direct path was in the jury box, which has been usurped by the judicial oligarchy.

That we have so lost our way is correct.


----------



## Intense (Apr 26, 2010)

The right to own property is so much more than real estate. From the clothes on your back, to your wallet, to the tools of your trade, to food, clothing, possessions, no Government should have the right to them without due process. The rule of law applies to all.


----------



## blu (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Huggy accurately describes Rabbi's hopes and deliberate intentions.
> ...





yourr favorite card


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Intense said:


> The right to own property is so much more than real estate. From the clothes on your back, to your wallet, to the tools of your trade, to food, clothing, possessions, no Government should have the right to them without due process. The rule of law applies to all.


No doubt.

However, if you give the tenant the power to vote themself the property of the land owner they'll do so every time.

Due process and the rule of law was to be seen to in the jury box.


----------



## Intense (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I know, in part. I'm just saying that the path is not by denying the Individual, but supporting Impartial Justice. Truth and fairness do matter, every violation brings consequence, both intended and unintended. Whether through Executive, Legislative, or Judicial. When we ignore the remedy, time after time, the foundation degrades. There are enough exceptions to every rule. Maybe We All need more mirrors to contemplate in.


----------



## Intense (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > The right to own property is so much more than real estate. From the clothes on your back, to your wallet, to the tools of your trade, to food, clothing, possessions, no Government should have the right to them without due process. The rule of law applies to all.
> ...



This concept is corrupted. Enumerated Powers, and Reason, dictates otherwise. Your right to your property is Constitutionally protected. One would first have to disable the function of these safeguards in order to achieve such a goal. In an Honorable society, such actions would be stopped, and the perpetrators exposed for the vile beings that they are, and charged with attempted theft. Upon conviction, the penalty should be based on the value of the attempted theft, the proportion could be worked out between the culprit and his lawyer, based on the split or fee the lawyer charged. No diabolical scheme should go unpunished. ... Somewhere over the Rainbow...


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 26, 2010)

Toro said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
> ...



Support for the _status quo ante_ is called Conservatism


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Bill O'Olberman said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...




They'd also be appalled to see women outside the kitchen and blacks out of the field, but it doesn't matter what they thought. The point of self-determination is that  we rule ourselves and form a more perfect nation. We are not ruled by kings or carcasses.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...




And we've made it more perfect, yet you want the words of a bunch of dead guys to be the be-all, end-all


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

The history of the creation of the Constitution and its ratification render that nonsense to ...well...nonsense.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Leeches.  Can't live with 'em.  Can't fulfill all your sick, twisted medieval fantasies without 'em.  I do give coo points to folks who have accessories for the "let's play dress up" times though.
> 
> _*wanders off to look for my fur lined handcuffs...where the hell did I leave them last?....."_



I was borrowing them..


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 26, 2010)

del said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNC0kIzM1Fo]YouTube - John Paul Young - Love Is In The Air (1978)[/ame]


----------



## Intense (Apr 26, 2010)

I think that Conservatism is building on the foundation of Federalism, rather than abandoning it. What needs remedy address, with principled solutions, compatible with our structure. Some confuse improvement with incompatible mandated, sometimes untried, constructs. You switch the Power, the Jurisdiction, the Purse, and the focus.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> The linchpin of all other rights and freedoms is the right to property, Gomer.


Fail.

All rights rest upon the right to life, for no other rights hold meaning if you have no right to exist in the first place.


----------



## jillian (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> The history of the creation of the Constitution and its ratification render that nonsense to ...well...nonsense.



the history of the "creation" of the constitution is less relevant than the history of the CONSTRUCTION of the constitution since we're a common law country.

but i don't mind giving slack to someone who thinks the founding fathers engaged in commentary on 'socialism'.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Universal suffrage is as sure a path to the tyranny of the mob as there is.



right... because a representative democracy is so much closer to totalitarianism than the oligarchy you espouse


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 26, 2010)

Shogun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...





> You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.


----------



## jillian (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> The linchpin of all other rights and freedoms is the right to property, Gomer.



what does the first amendment have to do with property rights?


----------



## Intense (Apr 26, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



I believe those dead guy's incorporated an amendment process to address that issue. The end all is the will of the people. It alway's has been here. The manipulation of the will of those people V.S. Reason.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 26, 2010)

> The end all is the will of the people




And the People have rejected the archaic oligarchy Dude, the Jew, and their ilk espouse.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

I espouse no oligarchy...I'm all for fully informed juries and the right of all residents of the district in which they reside to sit on them. Which is nonwithstanding the fact that the framers knew that universal suffrage would degenerate into mob rule.

Do have _*any*_ idea of what you're trying to yammer about?


----------



## jillian (Apr 26, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > The end all is the will of the people
> 
> 
> 
> ...



please don't confuse pretend rabbis with the way jews think. 

and let's try not to think 'jews' think any particular way at all, mmmkay? cause if you put 5 jews in a room, you get 15 opinions.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

jillian said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > The end all is the will of the people
> ...



Yes, because most Jews are brain-dead when it comes to issues of civil liberties and freedom.  That's why they tend to vote for Democrats.
Smart Jews understand things like survival and prospering and so tend to be Republican and conservative.
I'll leave anyone to guess what the nasty troll Jillian is.


----------



## jillian (Apr 26, 2010)

i love irony.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> The linchpin of all other rights and freedoms is the right to property, Gomer.



Thought it was guns.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

No, you didn't think.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Ya got me, Dood. 

I notice that all of your blather from late last summer and fall about the economy has not proven to come true.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Yeah, I'd try to change the subject, too.


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 26, 2010)

My bad, I read Locke and I thought "Lost".


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> My bad, I read Locke and I thought "Lost".



Nah, it's "Dewed".


----------



## Luissa (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Not even.
> 
> Are we fascists because eight year olds can't vote?



Not allowing people who don't own land is classic fascism.
It is a way manipulate the outcome, kind of like what they did in Italy.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Not far fetched at all.
> 
> Nobody belongs in the game without a buy-in.




Yep.  The modern day equivalent is those who produce vs. those who receive entitlements.  In Locke's era, income was produced largely through land-based activities.  Today, we can be productive in a broader variety of activities.

They key is having a stake in being a productive member of society.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Again, the land ownership requirement was for federal elections. The states were free to make their own election laws. Also, virtually anyone could serve on a jury.

That's the idea behind dual sovereignty, devolvement and separation of gubmint powers....Everybody has a say, just not all in the same place and all at once.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 26, 2010)

I'm guessing that most of our military are not property owners.  Good luck convincing them that they shouldn't be citizens.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Believing that a landowner should be a citizen and a renter a non-citizen is idiocy compared to almost anything.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 26, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You have to keep in mind how rightwingers think, or least how vast majority of them who frequent venues like this think.  They are always looking for rationales, in the form of changing the rules of the 'game', as Dude in his inimitable manner of erudition labeled it, 

so that the rules advance the rightwing agenda.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



No one is saying renters should be non-citizens.  That is idiocy.  Whether people without a stake in the country's well being, either by land ownership or "freehold" should be entitled to vote is the issue.  I think not, as people can simply vote themselves bigger and bigger entitlements until the state goes bankrupt.  About what we have now.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The majority of people recieving "entitlements" who vote, are over the age of 65. 
And just because you are renter, does not mean you don't have a stake in the country's well being. And to suggest they don't, is just being a partisan idiot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Luissa said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Anyone who believes in restricting voting status to only those who own property is nefarious in design and unAmerican in spirit.


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I think because it's called "universal suffrage" it means that it's assumed that everyone of the majority age is entitled to vote.  Some may forfeit that right, temporarily, but that doesn't invalidate Toro's argument.


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 26, 2010)

Interesting that there is an undercurrent of elitism here - I can hear Strauss (Leo not Richard) in the background.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Not elitism at all.

Every person has their interface and say-so in how the system operates, just not all at once and in the same venue.

As far flung form the idea of who is or isn't a "citizen" per se, that's how the diffused republic was set up to work.


----------



## Intense (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Not elitism at all.
> 
> Every person has their interface and say-so in how the system operates, just not all at once and in the same venue.
> 
> As far flung form the idea of who is or isn't a "citizen" per se, that's how the diffused republic was set up to work.



We agree on the concept on Government's role in serving Justice rather than Injustice. I just don't see deciding whom get's to vote based on what property they own, how rich they are, or who they know serves that. One legal aged citizen, in good legal standing, one vote. It takes 75% agreement to fuel Constitutional Amendment. Here is where Government Usurp's authority. I suggest new constructions not be automatic, but follow the amendment process. Remember too that Nationalism is not Federalism.


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Not elitism at all.
> 
> Every person has their interface and say-so in how the system operates, just not all at once and in the same venue.
> 
> As far flung form the idea of who is or isn't a "citizen" per se, that's how the diffused republic was set up to work.



I think that would be a return to the sort of society that most people who went to the American colonies wanted to avoid.  I do believe that that would simply reinforce privilege and the privileged classes would see to it that the ho polloi were kept in their place.  If I can cite an example from my own state/country.

My state (in common with my country) has a bi-cameral parliament.  The lower house (in the state) is elected on universal suffrage in a preferential voting system.  Until 1965 or thereabouts, the upper house was elected on a proportional system but only people who owned land were permitted to vote for it.  The upper house could effectively veto legislation from the lower house so what was happening was political rule by a small elite.  

I think you are not arguing for that though, from the little I know about historical politics in the US at least, so I'm not trying to put words on your keyboard.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

If that's what they wanted to avoid, why then did they codify exactly that system into law?

The notion that one has to be wealthy to own land is, quite frankly, absurd.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

Luissa said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Thank you for that irrelevant comment.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Not elitism at all.
> ...



Did I call this one or what?


> The Left is so far away from understanding this basic point that I predict Leftwingsewerworker and his ilk will be along in a minute comparing this to slavery


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Yes you were truly prescient 

Okay, you have to give me a chance at least, seeing as I was responding to other points.  What is your basic point?


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



In that post my point is that the idea of limiting suffrage to people with a stake in the system is so alien to the Left (and not just the Left) that they will confuse it will slavery.

My point in the discussion is that such a move will improve gov't tremendously by removing incentives to politicians to bribe citizens.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Who gets to vote on deciding who does or doesn't have sufficient 'stake in the country's well-being'?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 26, 2010)

What makes anyone think that owning a piece of land is going to prevent people from voting to bust the budget?


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Good question.  Given that the prospects for amending the constitution to do this are slim and none I'd call it an academic question at best.
But land ownership or something like assets worth $10,000 would be a decent enough measure.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Rab, the idea of limiting suffrage in America is loonyville, period, to the right, the center, and the left.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> What makes anyone think that owning a piece of land is going to prevent people from voting to bust the budget?



Because if you have something you are now "rich" in the government's eyes.  And they always want to tax the rich.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Rab, the idea of limiting suffrage in America is loonyville, period, to the right, the center, and the left.



No, Jake.  What's looneyville is the system we have now where politicians promise free this and free that to everyone in sight without regard to whether we have the money for it or not.  That system is not sustainable because it is too easy to "kick the can down the road for the next guy."  Limiting vote to people with something to lose reduces the incentive to politicians to bribe voters with other people's money.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Rab, you are talking to three folks in a phone booth out at the dump.  No one else is paying attention to you.  That is how loony you are.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Rab, you are talking to three folks in a phone booth out at the dump.  No one else is paying attention to you.  That is how loony you are.



So that's where you are, Jake.  That explains a lot.  Pass the Thunderbird for me.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 26, 2010)

Didn't the landowners themselves eventually GIVE the vote to the rest of the people?  I mean, if they originally held the power, then they must have been the ones who made the decision to expand voting rights.

This is meant in response to those claiming some sort of original intent, or whatever...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > What makes anyone think that owning a piece of land is going to prevent people from voting to bust the budget?
> ...



You get a big tax deduction when you have a mortgage, right?


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Didn't the landowners themselves eventually GIVE the vote to the rest of the people?  I mean, if they originally held the power, then they must have been the ones who made the decision to expand voting rights.
> 
> This is meant in response to those claiming some sort of original intent, or whatever...



They were nagged by their wives.
THere is also the influence of millions of potential voters which would naturally appeal to politicians.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't the landowners themselves eventually GIVE the vote to the rest of the people?  I mean, if they originally held the power, then they must have been the ones who made the decision to expand voting rights.
> ...



American home ownership has been over 60% since the 1960's.  What's the problem again?  Exactly?  That property owners don't have totalitarian authority in the US?


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
> 
> I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens but is it really that far fetched of an idea?   When I have a dispute with another citizen over something I own I use my government to protect what I think is rightfully mine.   It would not seem very plausible to go into a Canadian court and ask them to settle the dispute.



Who is this Locke and why should I care what he believed?


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 26, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



What does that have to do with anything, again?  WHat percentage of registered voters are property owners?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Rabbi, what is your point?  That you are unhappy?  OK, you are unhappy, but that will change nothing.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 27, 2010)

Why are people with children allowed to vote?  People with children get huge tax breaks that have to be subsidized by the people without children.   Why do we let the vast numbers of people with children use their vote to get themselves those massive tax breaks, and massive amounts of money for public education as well?


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 27, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Well, the left now believes a citizen to be someone who lives on the backs of others... all the while complaining about where the money's coming from.



Many on the left think everyone is a US citizen. 

That's why they want to grant them the rights of one....right?


----------



## editec (Apr 27, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
> 
> I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens but is it really that far fetched of an idea? When I have a dispute with another citizen over something I own I use my government to protect what I think is rightfully mine. It would not seem very plausible to go into a Canadian court and ask them to settle the dispute.


 
How many rentors died in Afghanistan last week, asshole?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Nobody is saying that?  ...from the OP:

I know the left may not understand this but *Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property *because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.

*I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens *but is it really that far fetched of an idea?

No one except the OP?  Not to mention the thread title.

I agree with you, Locke's belief is idiocy.


----------



## Intense (Apr 27, 2010)

Locke on Property. Please check out the link.

Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

Sec. 28. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.

Sec. 29. By making an explicit consent of every commoner, necessary to any one's appropriating to himself any part of what is given in common, children or servants could not cut the meat, which their father or master had provided for them in common, without assigning to every one his peculiar part. Though the water running in the fountain be every one's, yet who can doubt, but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His labour hath taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath thereby appropriated it to himself.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 5


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 27, 2010)

Dude said:


> I espouse no oligarchy...



You espouse only letting a certain group have a say in how the nation is governed- specifically the landed gentry

That is an oligarchy by definition.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 27, 2010)

Dude said:


> Yeah, I'd try to change the subject, too.


Like you did right now when jake called you on your economic predictions?


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 27, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> Interesting that there is an undercurrent of elitism here - I can hear Strauss (Leo not Richard) in the background.


undercurrent? The entire argument is that the elite gentry know better than the stupid peasants.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 27, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
> ...







Setarcos said:


> In Chapter 2, "Of the state of nature", Locke  describes the "state of nature" in which men exist before forming  governments:
> 
> 
> > ....a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of  their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the  laws of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any  other man.
> ...



.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 27, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I espouse no oligarchy...
> ...



Ah, see, but Dude has you on that one, because he also doesn't espouse knowing what he's talking about.

See?  Consistency.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 27, 2010)

So Now I know why I should not pay any attention to this Locke guy.
Thanks


----------



## Toro (Apr 27, 2010)

Dude said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



If you are an entrepreneur of a start-up in Silicon Valley, then yes, you are often renting because you are using your savings to fund your business.  It is expensive to live in the Bay Area.

Many highly paid people in Manhattan rent.  It is common for a professional in New York making, say $400k to rent.  Why does she have less of a stake in society than the guy making $12k and living in a trailer home in the backwoods?

Land is a bogus reason.  It was what defined the aristocracy and was a self-serving argument.  But land in and of itself is irrelevant.  Owning a tract of swampland is unproductive and does nothing to contribute to the welfare of society.  What is productive to society as a landowner is making the land productive.  That requires labor and capital (which is merely labor in physical form) to derive an income.  But that is no different than anyone who creates value to derive an income off the land.  What difference does it make if someone is a farmer or someone is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who is working 20 hour days to make The Next Big Thing?  What difference does it make if someone has chosen not to mortgage himself to the hilt and instead has put his money into a bank account?


----------



## Toro (Apr 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> What about felons?  Illegal immigrants?  Non-residents?  There are countless classes of people not entitled to vote in this country.  Yours is a non-argument.
> As for your assertion that rch people do not get that way from property, I'd suggest a look at the Forbes 400 and see how many of them made money from property.  Also check how many of them do not own property.
> But the solution to that concern is what VA had: either a landowner or having a "freehold" (net worth) over a stated amount.



Hey, I got an idea!  Why don't we give more votes to those who have more money!  If your net worth is $1, you get 1 vote.  If your net worth is $1 million, you get 1 million votes!  Why should someone who is worth far less have as much say as George Soros?  George Soros is a far better human being than almost any other American because he has more money!  Now that's what citizenship is all about!

Oh, and the Forbes 400 list, here it is.

The 400 Richest Americans 2009 - Forbes.com

I saw maybe one or two who made their money from real estate.  Virtually everyone on that list is either an entrepreneur, a financier or inherited it.


----------



## Richard-H (Apr 27, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
> 
> I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens but is it really that far fetched of an idea?   When I have a dispute with another citizen over something I own I use my government to protect what I think is rightfully mine.   It would not seem very plausible to go into a Canadian court and ask them to settle the dispute.



It's not really far fetched notion, but it's really only good for extremely primitive soceities.

For all but the last hundred years or so, the Roman legions consisted only of land owning male Roman citizens - and every land owning male citizen was required to serve 15-25 years in the legion. (there were also auxiliary legions which were for everybody else).

So what about a soceity where only land owning males where citizens, but only land owning males paid taxes and all land owning males, exclusively, were required to serve in the military for 15-25 years?

Hail Ceasar! (ah, the good old days!)

Remember - even under this system, the Romans had to have large 'entitlement programs'.

Me thinks that the land owning male citizens would quickly vote to extend citizenship and it's responsibilities to everyone.


----------



## Toro (Apr 27, 2010)

Dude said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Here is GDP per capita for the past 1000 years.






The biggest growth has come in the 20th century, which corresponds to the expansion of the vote, not only in America but around the world.

Milton Friedman knew this.  With the exception of a small oil rich kingdoms, the richest countries in the world are all democracies.


----------



## Toro (Apr 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Yes, because most Jews are brain-dead when it comes to issues of civil liberties and freedom.  That's why they tend to vote for Democrats.
> Smart Jews understand things like survival and prospering and so tend to be Republican and conservative.
> I'll leave anyone to guess what the nasty troll Jillian is.





jillian said:


> i love irony.



Indeed.  Arguing for civil liberties while disenfranchising people is the epitome of irony.


----------



## Toro (Apr 27, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I espouse no oligarchy...
> ...



Or an aristocracy.


----------



## Intense (Apr 27, 2010)

Locke believed in Salvation. Locke lived the two great commandments. Locke believed in Conscience. Locke was rooted in Separation of Church and State, advocating Conscience first. Locke was a major advocate of Non-Violent Protest and Non-Violent Civil Disobedience. Locke believed that the thoughts in your own head were your property, not the property of the State. Locke believed that Each Individual mattered, and had rights within the Society, whether in the majority or the minority, that should be protected serving a Principle higher than Man's or Government's. Locke felt that Government should be constructed to Recognize, serve, and defend these Principles. Unalienable Right, recognized by some societies, and not others. Unalienable Right, Despised by some on this very thread. Does it stand in the way of your world plan JB? For which of these do you persecute John Locke? What specifically do you condemn? One last question, Who is guarding Hell while You are here?


----------



## Intense (Apr 27, 2010)

Oligarchy, Think either George Orwell "1984" or Alexander Hamilton.


----------



## Intense (Apr 27, 2010)

Here is a Thought.

American Federalism 
Chapter Overview  

A federal system checks the growth of tyranny, allows unity without uniformity, encourages experimentation, and keeps government closer to the people. 
Alternatives to federal systems are unitary systems in which all constitutional power is vested in the central government and loose compacts among sovereign states. 

In the twenty-first century, nations are experimenting with forms of federalism because of the demand for greater autonomy by ethnic groups and others such as the countries of Western Europe have formed a European Union.

In the United States, the national government has the constitutional authority, stemming primarily from the national supremacy article, from its powers to tax and spend and to regulate commerce among the states, and from its war powers, to do what Congress thinks is necessary and proper to promote the general welfare and to provide for the common defense. These constitutional pillars have permitted tremendous expansion of the functions of the federal government. 

Congressional authority extends to all commerce that affects more than one state. Commerce includes the production, buying, selling, renting, and transporting of goods, services, and properties. The "Commerce Clause" is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. It gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." These few words confer on the federal government a constitutional justification for regulating a very wide range of human activity since few, if any, aspects of today&#8217;s economy affect commerce only in one state. 

States must give full faith and credit to each other&#8217;s public acts, records, and judicial proceedings; extend to each other&#8217;s citizens the privileges and immunities it gives its own; and return fugitives from justice. 

The "Full Faith and Credit Clause" is Article VI, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. This article maintains that state courts must enforce the judgments of courts in other states and accept their public records and acts as valid. This clause became controversial in 1998 when courts in Hawaii permitted same-sex marriages. With presidential support, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which relieved other states from any obligation to honor Hawaiian gay marriages. 

The federal courts umpire the division of power between the national and state governments. Today debates about federalism are less often about its constitutional structure than over whether action should come from the national or state and local levels. Recent Supreme Court decisions favor a decentralist position and may presage a major shift in the court&#8217;s interpretation of the constitutional nature of our federal system. 

The major instruments of federal intervention in state programs have been various kinds of financial grants-in-aid, of which the most prominent are categorical-formula grants, project grants, and block grants. The national government also imposes federal mandates and controls the activities of state and local governments by direct orders, cross-cutting requirements, cross-over sanctions in the use of federal funds, total preemption, and partial preemption. 

Over the past 200 years there has been a drift of power to the national government, but recently Congress has been pressured to reduce the size and scope of national programs and to shift some existing programs back to the states. While responsibility for welfare has been turned over to the states, the authority of the national government has increased in many areas. 

American Federalism


----------



## ihopehefails (Apr 27, 2010)

I wasn't really suggesting that only people who own property should be citizens but suggesting that the purpose of government is for the citizen over the things that belong to him or her naturally such as their property, life, liberty, and so forth.   

My question was that what other government other than your own is charge with protecting those things and who are they protecting them from?   They are protecting those things from your neighbors since it is your neigbors that scheme to take those things away from you hence government is not about maintaining the rights of the collective since those really don't exist but about the rights of the individual within the collective.


----------



## Intense (Apr 27, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> I wasn't really suggesting that only people who own property should be citizens but suggesting that the purpose of government is for the citizen over the things that belong to him or her naturally such as their property, life, liberty, and so forth.
> 
> My question was that what other government other than your own is charge with protecting those things and who are they protecting them from?   They are protecting those things from your neighbors since it is your neigbors that scheme to take those things away from you hence government is not about maintaining the rights of the collective since those really don't exist but about the rights of the individual within the collective.



The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I don't think it healthy to equate your neighbors with predators. There are allot of good people out there that you are not connecting with. How about spending more time on cause and effect? Try keeping a poker face, don't project negative.  Negative does not need encouragement.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > So the guy out there paying 2000 a month rent is not a citizen, and I am, because I own land I bought and paid off 30 years ago?
> ...



Yep, same problem I have with most of your nonsense. We are in the 21st Century, not the 18th. I realize that this may come as a surprise to you, but it is truly the case.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 28, 2010)

Toro said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


An aristocracy is a particular form of an oligarchy.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 28, 2010)

> Who is guarding Hell while You are here?



My dog. Each head takes a shift. Where do you think the my evil leftist army go the idea for three 8-hour shifts in the first place? One shift for each head of my beloved hound.

Any more stupid questions? Go read the other thread for my views on Locke. I posted the link already.


----------



## Intense (Apr 28, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > Who is guarding Hell while You are here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only thing I get from you is that you didn't flush again. Will you ever learn. Why is it that you hate Federalism so much freak? What did Locke have that you don't, that makes you so envious? A Soul?


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 28, 2010)

Locke was an idiot who argued that a starving child is repsonsible for his or her own suffering because (s)he has 'equal' ability and means to a rich man. He forms the cornerstone of Bourgeois Liberalism, which is an attempt to justify exploitation and suffering. His is a philosophy or amorality which seeks to justify inequality simply by ignoring it.

The thread was already linked where Locke was destroyed.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 28, 2010)

Setarcos said:


> Locke places his neck fully in Hume's Guillotine  and pulls the cord hmself





http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88295-what-constitutes-a-right-97.html#post1581461


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 28, 2010)

Setarcos said:


> AdlerianThinker said:
> 
> 
> > I do.  I read his Treatise many years ago.  Where you fail was the  assertion that Locke placed his head in it and pulled the cord.
> ...


.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 28, 2010)

Setarcos said:


> Does not exist in a state equal to
> 
> 
> 
> ...



.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 28, 2010)

You should remember Locke's failure. You were there when his second treatise was refuted.


----------



## Intense (Apr 28, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Locke was an idiot who argued that a starving child is repsonsible for his or her own suffering because (s)he has 'equal' ability and means to a rich man. He forms the cornerstone of Bourgeois Liberalism, which is an attempt to justify exploitation and suffering. His is a philosophy or amorality which seeks to justify inequality simply by ignoring it.
> 
> The thread was already linked where Locke was destroyed.



JB, How about a Link that quotes Locke directly? Your context is a fail as usual. The only thing that comes to mind is intellectual fraud and deceit. How about you just clarify your true motive. What is it exactly that you have to attempt to disgrace, defraud and misconstrue to advance your quest? Locke shows more tolerance on one page than you have shown in your entire life. Considering what he had available to him in his day, compared to you or I, you fail again. What is the grudge JB? What it the real reason behind the obsession? Tell us. What does he threaten in You?

Maybe you can find something in this link from what he said, rather than what was said about him. Show us from his own words in context. 

1689
John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 28, 2010)

I quoted him directly out of his treatise. I even linked you to the post that cites the book and the thread that links to the text of the entire work.


You were there the last time Locke was refuted on USMB. Have you already forgotten?

Locke was debunked on his 'natural state' and on his 'natural rights' and the 'inalienable' nature thereof. He and the bourgeois liberalism which rests upon him recognize only the right to exploit.


----------



## Intense (Apr 28, 2010)

Is it about impotence JB? Is that it? Penis Envy? Spit it out man.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 28, 2010)

Right... you can't defend Locke's baseless assertions after they're proven false so you want to talk about my penis?

Do a Google image search if you really need to see a cock. 

Come back when you can discuss the matter like an adult.


----------



## Intense (Apr 28, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> I quoted him directly out of his treatise. I even linked you to the post that cites the book and the thread that links to the text of the entire work.
> 
> 
> You were there the last time Locke was refuted on USMB. Have you already forgotten?



You imagine victory, that is between you, reality, and conscience, don't include me. I am not bound by your recollection or lack of reason.

CONCLUSION 


          The evidence of the early reception of the Two Treatises indicates that the work was not an immediate success in either providing a philosophy for the Whigs or in justifying the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Although many of his contemporaries came to admire the First Treatise for its refutation of Robert Filmer&#65533;s Patriarcha, many felt that Locke&#65533;s philosophical justification of the 1688 Revolution lacked the necessary emphasis on the Ancient Constitution of England to defend the removal of James II from power. Partially due to his work&#65533;s anonymity, Locke&#65533;s foray into the political realm initially made him little more than one philosopher among many political philosophers. *Furthermore, an examination of early references to the Two Treatises suggests that beyond his refutation of Robert Filmer; Locke&#65533;s ideas were assembled, disassembled, utilized to support political agendas, and often gotten wrong.* However; as the frenzied issues surrounding the Glorious Revolution began to settle, scholars more closely analyzed Locke&#65533;s work and his political ideas secured widespread attention. Soon, scholars placed greater emphasis on his broad analysis of natural rights and a social contract. Proponents of Patriarchalism and Divine Right eventually ceased to voice their opinions, and arguments began sprouting around the ideas of Locke&#65533;s Second Treatise. As a consequence of these more philosophical and timeless debates, emphasis on the First Treatise has taken a place beneath the pedestal bearing John Locke&#65533;s Second Treatise. 

The Early Reception of John Locke's Two Treaties of Government: 1668-1702


----------



## Intense (Apr 28, 2010)

Two Treatises is divided into the First Treatise and the Second Treatise. The original title of the Second Treatise appears to have been simply "Book II," corresponding to the title of the First Treatise, "Book I." Before publication, however, Locke gave it greater prominence by (hastily) inserting a separate title page: "An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government."[10] The First Treatise is focused on the refutation of Sir Robert Filmer, in particular his Patriarcha which argued that civil society was founded on a divinely-sanctioned patriarchalism. Locke proceeds through Filmer's arguments, contesting his proofs from Scripture and ridiculing them as senseless, until concluding that no government can be justified by an appeal to the divine right of kings.

The Second Treatise outlines a theory of civil society. Locke begins by describing the state of nature, a picture much more stable than Thomas Hobbes' state of "war of every man against every man," and argues that all men are created equal in the state of nature by God. From this, he goes on to explain the hypothetical rise of property and civilization, in the process explaining that the only legitimate governments are those which have the consent of the people. Thus, any government that rules without the consent of the people can, in theory, be overthrown.

Two Treatises of Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 28, 2010)

> Locke begins by describing the state of nature



A false representation that I refuted in the other thread.


> argues that all men are created equal in the state of nature]quote]
> Another lie I debunked in the other thread
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 28, 2010)

Intense argues from a priori position, not from critical thinking and evaluation of the evidence.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 28, 2010)

The evidence debunks his magical natural state. The natural State is not one of equality but of inequality and exploitation.

The fact is that he has no evidence to support his assertion that any god made Man.


----------



## Intense (Apr 28, 2010)

CHAP. II.

Of the State of Nature.

Sec. 4. TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

Sec. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are,

"The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals in nature as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant, Eccl. Pol. Lib. 1."

Sec. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 2

Your argument is philosophical. One either believes or disbelieves in God. Locke did. The Founders of this Nation did. I do. You don't. Learn to deal with it .


----------



## Intense (Apr 28, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Intense argues from a priori position, not from critical thinking and evaluation of the evidence.



Jake You assume way too much. Try to stay focused.


----------

