Economy Trump tax cuts 6 months later: it was exactly what critics projected - everyone but the rich suffers

[sub_thug]

They were only self evident in the context of a specific cultural milieu and historical moment.

Most people would agree to that today but in many societies the legitimacy of slavery was self evident even to the slaves themselves.

I never liked how some on the left try to argue that healthcare or even education should be a right. They are entitlements that are perfectly rational to offer in our society but elevating them to the status of rights is a mistake IMO.

I'd say that we still view them as self-evident today, wouldn't you?

That's because slavery is wrong, and even our Founding Fathers had debates. I think they decided to kick the can down the road for a number of reasons, although that probably warrants its own discussion.

I would agree to that point. Call them for what they are, and then make the case why a government should offer them. I think that's a much more reasonable stance than digging in one's heels and claiming that it is somehow a right.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'd say that we still view them as self-evident today, wouldn't you?

Yes but because we're not that far removed from that cultural milieu or historical moment.

That's because slavery is wrong, and even our Founding Fathers had debates. I think they decided to kick the can down the road for a number of reasons, although that probably warrants its own discussion.

I agree its wrong but its not wrong in some inherently self evident way that holds across time and space within the human experience just as the legitimacy of property rights aren't either. Many people throughout history would've considered it tyrannical to end slavery as did so many Americans at one point. For them it was self evident that slavery was protected by property rights.

I would agree to that point. Call them for what they are, and then make the case why a government should offer them. I think that's a much more reasonable stance than digging in one's heels and claiming that it is somehow a right.

That's how I see it as well.

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

It's only within the context of society that eating an apple can be considered aggression. As a member of society you gain the right to physically move someone for doing something as innocuous as standing on some grass. But with rights come responsibility. It's narcissistic to reap the benefits of society and then complain when society seeks to remedy inequities it creates.

Standing on whose grass? The property owner?

 

[Rod1]

Standing on whose grass? The property owner?

Again, who decides who is the owner of the property?

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Again, who decides who is the owner of the property?

Whoever buys the property from the previous owner.

Is that a serious question, or are you off-the-chain shertarded?

 

[Rod1]

Whoever buys the property from the previous owner.

Is that a serious question, or are you off-the-chain shertarded?

Circular logic, who decides who is the previous owner?

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Circular logic, who decides who is the previous owner?

Whoever purchases the property is the propety owner. When you purchase or obtain property, there is a voluntary exchange between two parties.

 

[Rod1]

Whoever purchases the property is the propety owner. When you purchase or obtain property, there is a voluntary exchange between two parties.

Are you this dense? imagine a world where government never existed, how do someone proves they own the property without a deed?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Standing on whose grass? The property owner?

Right. Who is only allowed to physically move someone because his government grants him that right.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Are you this dense? imagine a world where government never existed, how do someone proves they own the property without a deed?

Just because you're unable to conceive of a way that property can be transferred without the use of a government, doesn't mean that it's impossible.

I've always believed that those who convince themselves to be afraid of freedom, suffer from a fairly serious lack of imagination.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Just because you're unable to conceive of a way that property can be transferred without the use of a government, doesn't mean that it's impossible.

In absence of government property will be transferred through use of force.

 

[Rod1]

Just because you're unable to conceive of a way that property can be transferred without the use of a government, doesn't mean that it's impossible.

I've always believed that those who convince themselves to be afraid of freedom, suffer from a fairly serious lack of imagination.

Entertain me with an hypotethical on how land property would work in a world without compulsory government.

 

[Rod1]

In absence of government property will be transferred through use of force.

No, it would be a "private" entity that would establish "private" borders which will be enforced by force and would regulate the sale and ownership of property, of course said entity will need to fund itself so it will charge "fees" that are going to be compulsory.

The world will be divided in several of these "private" entities with defined borders and rules.

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Right. Who is only allowed to physically move someone because his government grants him that right.

Wrong. Rights are not granted by any government. This was recognized in the bill of rights. Rights are inalienable. They can't be alienated from a person by any person or institution. Rights are part of the nature of man.

Only uneducated slaves think that rights are granted by a government. If government can grant rights, then they can take them away. At least some of the founders of America understood this, and tried to correct that sick and twisted thinking.

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Just because you're unable to conceive of a way that property can be transferred without the use of a government, doesn't mean that it's impossible.

I've always believed that those who convince themselves to be afraid of freedom, suffer from a fairly serious lack of imagination.

Here is a great story that I remember reading about. There was small panic that broke out when one of the small Soviet states was released from Communism. The state run industry was the only entity that made shoes, so when the government dissolved, the people wondered if they would ever have shoes again.

Think about that....then apply it to every other question about the "necessity" of government.

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Are you this dense? imagine a world where government never existed, how do someone proves they own the property without a deed?

How do you prove you own your iPhone without a government?

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Entertain me with an hypotethical on how land property would work in a world without compulsory government.

You purchase a house from the previous owner, you close on the house, you move in to the house.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wrong. Rights are not granted by any government. This was recognized in the bill of rights. Rights are inalienable. They can't be alienated from a person by any person or institution. Rights are part of the nature of man.

Property rights are fundamentally different from, say, the right to free speech. Non-property rights are things you can do with no one around, and the idea is that you don't cede them when you join a society. But property rights have no meaning outside of a society, as they are defined by excluding other people.

Only uneducated slaves think that rights are granted by a government. If government can grant rights, then they can take them away. At least some of the founders of America understood this, and tried to correct that sick and twisted thinking.

Really, you're the one who comes off being totally uneducated and having a slave mentality. Property rights have no moral dimension and are maintained only through brute force. Gov'ts supply that force, but enlightened ones do it according to a set of rules that are designed for the benefit of the community.

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Property rights are fundamentally different from, say, the right to free speech. Non-property rights are things you can do with no one around, and the idea is that you don't cede them when you join a society. But property rights have no meaning outside of a society, as they are defined by excluding other people.



Really, you're the one who comes off being totally uneducated and having a slave mentality. Property rights have no moral dimension and are maintained only through brute force. Gov'ts supply that force, but enlightened ones do it according to a set of rules that are designed for the benefit of the community.

Property rights are maintained only by brute force? Are you a home owner? I am. There was no brute force involved in my home ownership.

Property is no different from anything else you own. People buy and sell property like they buy and sell cars and phones.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Property rights are maintained only by brute force? Are you a home owner? I am. There was no brute force involved in my home ownership.

Sure, because the state has full control over the territory. The force is so overwhelming that it doesn't need to be used. Absent a state, that isn't the case.

Property is no different from anything else you own. People buy and sell property like they buy and sell cars and phones.

You assert that only because of ignorance. We know because individual goods have been individually owned for as long as we know, but private property is a relatively recent invention of gov'ts. And because logically your assertion doesn't hold up (see the earlier discussion in this thread on the Lockean proviso for more details on that).

You purchase a house from the previous owner, you close on the house, you move in to the house.

What's the origin of the chain, though?