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.
It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess the most property end up with great power over others. Dressed up as freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to address inequality, hardship or social exclusion. A transparently self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of those with wealth and power.
The owners of coal-burning power stations in the UK have not obtained the consent of everyone who owns a lake or a forest in Sweden to deposit acid rain there. So their emissions, in the libertarian worldview, should be regarded as a form of trespass on the property of Swedish landowners. Nor have they received the consent of the people of this country to allow mercury and other heavy metals to enter our bloodstreams, which means that they are intruding upon our property in the form of our bodies.
Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by jjf3rd77
Depends what your vision of "freedom" is.
Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I was not aiming to diminish freedom in any way or form. I just believe that the right to own property is not an unalienable right we are born with.
The bourgeoisie are indeed animals like those named and so must be over-thrown for humanities sakeedit on 8-1-2012 by Tea4One because: (no reason given)edit on 8-1-2012 by Tea4One because: (no reason given)
You seem to be saying that there is a right to own property but that right comes from some other person or institution. What kind of right is it that somebody else can grant, or not, as they see fit?
I just believe that the right to own property is not an unalienable right we are born with.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Tea4One
May I ask a question or two in order to clarify your position?
You seem to be saying that there is a right to own property but that right comes from some other person or institution. What kind of right is it that somebody else can grant, or not, as they see fit?
I just believe that the right to own property is not an unalienable right we are born with.
And what do you mean by "property?" Someone has lent my coffee cup to me? It's never my coffee cup to do with as I please? Who do I have to reimburse if I break it? Who does own my coffee cup? The institution of the state? The majority of people living in my area?
These questions, off the top of my head may indicate the confusion I'm having with your posts. Would you be so kind as to clarify things for me?
This confuses me even more. Surely, you can't mean it exactly as you have written it.
The people who would own that cup would be everyone.
Originally posted by Tea4One
The connection of private property and global warming is the impact that private ownership can have on the environment in the continuing search for capital. For in a world of common ownership the persons of said world would not need to pollute and destroy peoples homes in order to gain capital.
That's the thinking behind it anyway.