It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do socialists want to take away the right to own private property?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I don't understand this.

Socialists argue for the abolition of property rights.

Yet I hardly see any socialists being a nonmaterialist themselves.

I think it's an inherent contradiction with their idealism and the reality. They want to take all that private property for themselves.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
It is a demeaning, demoralizing control thing.

If you have nothing you are dependent.

If you are self-sufficient they are nothing.

This socialism worked ok for small tribes that had to cooperate and share to survive. It has never worked and will never work in the world today.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
it feels like a dont give them attention and they may lose a bit of their steam. Seriously, bag it, fight it with all your energy and all. Don't even debate it, and work for the status quo.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Well to tell you the truth, In the US, nobody owns land. Even if you buy it, technically it isn't yours.

If you look at the constitution closely, there is a part that states that you are a tenant, not an owner. The government can take your land at any time for any reasons.

Furthermore, It's actually owned by the Vatican and the UK.

Not to burst anybodie's bubble.

I'll try and find the paper I read about it and post it up here.

~Keeper

PS: Owning land is stupid anyway, it belongs to all of us.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



It might even be simpler than that.
Rather than paying taxes ONCE, at the time of sale.
We pay taxes year after year after year.
Try skipping a year, and it's off to the auction house. where the "in the know" realtors, swipe it at a major discount.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I'm with the native americans on this one, how can someone over the great blue sea own a whole country on this side of the planet. Native Americans, or was that the Hopi Indians? said that land is not owned by anyone but shared by everyone.

Yeah, and I claim my stake to own 1/4 of the dark side of the moon, get out of the way moonies, I'm planting my flag!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Well to tell you the truth, In the US, nobody owns land. Even if you buy it, technically it isn't yours.

If you look at the constitution closely, there is a part that states that you are a tenant, not an owner. The government can take your land at any time for any reasons.

Furthermore, It's actually owned by the Vatican and the UK.

Not to burst anybodie's bubble.

I'll try and find the paper I read about it and post it up here.

~Keeper

PS: Owning land is stupid anyway, it belongs to all of us.



How do ya figure that? I'll go along with no private "ownership" in the U.S. I rent what I allegedly "own" from the county. That becomes obvious the first time you ignore your property taxes.

But actual ownership by the Vatican and the UK? I can't get behind that concept.

And as far as the "it belongs to all of us" mentality, I'd not recommend trespassing on any of what you think is yours, but which WE pay the tax-rent on, at least in my neck of the woods, without the renter's permission. Folks around here get a bit testy about that sort of disrespect. Same goes for Vatican and/or UK representatives.

Folks put those signs up for a reason.

nenothtu out



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I don't understand this.

Socialists argue for the abolition of property rights.

Yet I hardly see any socialists being a nonmaterialist themselves.

I think it's an inherent contradiction with their idealism and the reality. They want to take all that private property for themselves.


I'm sorry but are you referring to SOCIALISTS or DEMOCRATS??? Or are you using big brother fox news code talk???

Sounds like you are referencing Hard core Marxists and I have yet come across any of those.

(I already know the jokes that are coming - I'll make you look like a fool people so joke away!!! but please do not cry latter)



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
What socialists mean by 'private ownership' is the private ownership of the 'means of production', land, machinery, factories etc. It does not mean your personal property.

This property is what constitutes the 'State', it's what allows the 'state' to perpetuate. 'The State' is the system that forces a class of people to be subservient to another, as in 'owner' and 'labourer'.

Capitalism is exploitative because workers are forced to work for a wage, set by the employer, for their survival. It's private ownership that allows this exploitation of labour, and it's the state, set up using this system, that keeps us in wage slavery and capitalist tyranny.

Socialists want the 'means of production' to be owned by the people who do the work, as in cooperatives/collectives. In this way instead of a wage set by the private owner, and all profit going to him, every employee will benefit from their labour, i.e. profits, equally within their place of employment.
This is the most efficient way to deal with labour. Workers who benefit directly from their labour will be motivated to work harder and more efficiently, unlike now where most workers do the least they can to keep their job, just as the boss pays them the least he can to keep his employ.

We have a very inefficient labour system that benefits only a few, and forces the majority to work many hours for little pay creating useless junk in order to make very few people wealthy. This labour could be better used to make life comfortable for all of us. BECAUSE IT IS US. We have to realise we are all the same, these divisions are just illusions to make you feel powerless to have control over your own life. The world belongs to us all, not the few who created 'the state' and exploit it, thus exploiting us all.

Edited for typo.

[edit on 3/9/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I'm saying that it's very silly to draw imaginary lines in the sand then fight over it.

What gives any man the right to own land? I think property taxes are stupid, I can understand nobody messing with the land you live on, but as far as owning that piece of land goes...simply ridiculous.

And my reference to the Vatican and the UK, I am unable to find the reference where I saw it, but it is written into law in one of the amendments or something like that, I'm still researching it.

Furthermore, it is peopel who are "testy" about their supposed "ownership" of land that are causing this problem with people being killed for tresspassing.

Now I don't mean to condone any sort of vandalism to your home or vehicle, your home belongs to you that's for sure and I won't say that's not true.

But the "land" iself, hell if anything it belongs to Native Americans. And I don't think I own anything really, that's a silly concept. Everything I own came from the labors and sweat of many people, some of which deserve more than I have. I think the earth you walk on belongs to the earth, and yes can be used by us for our survival, it's only when we decide to own things do we fight over them and destroy said land.

~Keeper

[edit on 3/9/2009 by tothetenthpower]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I am by no means a socialist, rather, quite the opposite. But, if I may play (perhaps literally) devil's advocate.

Socialists (not communists or fascists [national socialists]) argue that there is an intrinsic good to government. Rather than relying on a fallible and imperfect man to give to his neighbor, it is best to have a distinct and real structure for the protection and equality of all people.

Now, to many, including myself, this sounds idiotic. However, it is a strict difference in the interpretation of what is best for the majority. At least, that's my hope. Either that or its a distinct attempt to try to subvert the one to the will of the whole. This is where communism and national socialism happens.

A small bit of socialism, at the local level, is actually beneficial to the whole and the individual. However, the problem is when detached bureaucrats, especially those at the national level, decide to get involved. Then the wonderful descent into philosophy and power-hunger.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Is there a link or an article? What is the source of this information? I am sorry but this doesn't make much sense to me.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


I'm kind of offended....


I'm a very big tree hunger. I LOVE trees, which if you look at my avatar you can very much see.

I am by no means a socialist, I think socialism only works on paper as a matter a fact. Just like communism, democracy etc...

The only real system that works is a Republic...WHEN it is governed as a Republic and not as a fake democracy as the US stands now.

~Keeper



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iago18
....I am by no means a socialist, rather, quite the opposite. But, if I may play (perhaps literally) devil's advocate.

Socialists (not communists or fascists [national socialists]) argue that there is an intrinsic good to government.


That is incorrect, a HUGE misconception. Socialism does not require government. Socialism has been historically anti-government and anti-state.

Socialism is an economic system, not a political one, all it requires is the 'means of production' be in the hands of us all and not private entities. No government is required to do this.

Some 'lefties', Marxists, Leninists, support authority, i.e. government, but it is not a requirement of socialism. Look up Libertarian Socialism.

BTW Fascists are not 'National Socialists', that was just Hitlers political party, shortened to the Nazi party. The name was designed to fool the working class into thinking they were being represented by their government.
Hitler was simply Fascist, modeled after Mussolinis Fascism.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


Bad misconception.

I hate trees, I hate government, I hate social services.

Yet I am a socialist.

You should try reading books once in awhile instead of getting your education from the MSM.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
socialists

Call them by there real names democrats, treehuggerss, thieves,
that is what they are.
They also believe there should be no Inheritance when you die everything you own should go to the government`for there use.(as long as THEY control the government,)


Just a guess here but are you a grown up who used to be a spoilt child??? Its kind of pathetic considering you riffed that entire post in the key BS. I hope when you get the corprofascist world you seem to want, you get to be TEAM LEADER of the diaper section at your local local walmart. Tell your mommy to but some Bourbon on your binky, OK?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I don't understand this.

Socialists argue for the abolition of property rights.

Yet I hardly see any socialists being a nonmaterialist themselves.

I think it's an inherent contradiction with their idealism and the reality. They want to take all that private property for themselves.


Im sorry but that is not socialism that is communism. Socialism does not do that look at the many socialist countries around the globe none of them have that. You are mixing up different types of systems.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
The ignorance on this thread is appalling. I honestly don't think America ever recovered from the McCarthy period and I wouldn't be surprised that some here literally do check under their beds for Reds before they can sleep.

What's worse is that this kind of thinking happens here on ATS; I thought this place was about denying ignorance not perpetuating it?

I find it bizarre that many people here seem to pride themselves as being 'informed' and 'clued-up' and privy to what's really happening in the world, unlike 'the blind' and 'the sheep' who are suckled by a mainstream media. Often these people will rail against governments for lying and their distortions. Yet, when I read yet another 'oh noes! socialists!' thread, I see the same things happening: the perpetuation of untruths and unnecessary scare-mongering. It's worse that it happens here because, apparently, we're meant to know better, know different.

Ideologies like socialism, Marxism and communism aren't some arcane knowledge that has to be gleaned through Freedom of Information processes or found on little known corners of book shops or the internet. Real definitions and understanding of all these ideologies are out there and are easy enough to find and yet people are insistent on regurgitating misunderstandings or even out-and-out lies.

Worrying, truly worrying.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
The ignorance on this thread is appalling. I honestly don't think America ever recovered from the McCarthy period and I wouldn't be surprised that some here literally do check under their beds for Reds before they can sleep.

What's worse is that this kind of thinking happens here on ATS; I thought this place was about denying ignorance not perpetuating it?

I find it bizarre that many people here seem to pride themselves as being 'informed' and 'clued-up' and privy to what's really happening in the world, unlike 'the blind' and 'the sheep' who are suckled by a mainstream media. Often these people will rail against governments for lying and their distortions. Yet, when I read yet another 'oh noes! socialists!' thread, I see the same things happening: the perpetuation of untruths and unnecessary scare-mongering. It's worse that it happens here because, apparently, we're meant to know better, know different.

Ideologies like socialism, Marxism and communism aren't some arcane knowledge that has to be gleaned through Freedom of Information processes or found on little known corners of book shops or the internet. Real definitions and understanding of all these ideologies are out there and are easy enough to find and yet people are insistent on regurgitating misunderstandings or even out-and-out lies.

Worrying, truly worrying.


THIS is buzzword

at the heart of it are the WEALTHIEST Elites who fear they will lose money and influence...

A great way to transfer this fear is to place it in the realm of pride and AMERICANISM -
boobs who jump at the chance of conflict will FIGHT THE UNAMERICAN SOCIALISTS

It is framed as a FREEDOM issue- ya freedom to debase more currency and further enslave AMERICA... These morons, yes morons are in essence defending the same entities that tanked the economy with purpose and malice .

SOCIALISTISMISTS!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join