Socialists hoping to unseat Dems in Albany want to abolish private property

[blackangst1]

Name one.

Jhhhn. He's spoken about the evils of ownership society many many times.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

OK?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Jhhhn. He's spoken about the evils of ownership society many many times.

While i often disagree with him, such a statement requires direct evidence and contextual commentary. I do not recall him saying you shouldn't have your own home as an example.

 

[glenn1]

While i often disagree with him, such a statement requires direct evidence and contextual commentary. I do not recall him saying you shouldn't have your own home as an example.

Yeah, @Jhhnn just wants his imagined Nordic model where someone like Bill Gates who kickstarts the modern electronic age is forced to live in a 1,200 square foot house for "equality" reasons. It's unfair that someone who dropped out of 5th grade shouldn't be able to live as well as the founder of a multi-billion dollar company. If everyone can't have a mansion like Bill Gates, nobody should have a mansion like Bill Gates.

 

[HomerJS]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Trump want to abolish private property along the southern border to build his wall that Mexico is not going to pay for??

 

[nakedfrog]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Trump want to abolish private property along the southern border to build his wall that Mexico is not going to pay for??

Well, that's different, because that's for the greater good... oh crap!

 

[glenn1]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Trump want to abolish private property along the southern border to build his wall that Mexico is not going to pay for??

Eminent domain is expressly allowed in the Constitution plus requires actually paying for what you seize (let's set aside for the moment the legitimate questions about the wisdom of doing such a thing, or whether the compensation would represent fair market value).

OTOH, it's not giving me the warm fuzzies that avowed Socialists who want to "abolish private property" have any intent whatsoever to compensate those from whom the property is confiscated. That's not the typical socialist M.O. where when they talk about "collective ownership" and whatnot the way they generally acquire the property being collectivized is simply seizing it by force if not outright simply killing the owners.

 

[blackangst1]

While i often disagree with him, such a statement requires direct evidence and contextual commentary. I do not recall him saying you shouldn't have your own home as an example.

Specifically no but he's made references to such. Search is a wonderful thing.

 

[nickqt]

Specifically no but he's made references to such. Search is a wonderful thing.

Then post it, you're making the accusation. Post where he is against any type of property rights.

Additionally, there's a difference between Property Rights, and Propertarianism as used by oligarchs, in a system they've paid to rig for their own benefit.

Not that I think you're interested in reading something that hasn't already been shat into your skull by your thought leaders, but for anyone else interested, here's a relatively short essay on the difference between property rights and Propertarianism. One is a universal way of leveraging work with capital, whereas the other is a way for the rich to stay richer at almost everyone else's expense.

Property Rights vs Propertarianism: Part I

A blog about science, technology, science fiction, books, and the future.

davidbrin.blogspot.com

 

[woolfe9998]

Jhhhn. He's spoken about the evils of ownership society many many times.

The "ownership society" (quotes are important here) was a slogan of George Bush, a label given by Bush to a set of rather typical conservative economic principles. Opposing the "ownership society" is not the same thing as opposing private property.

It's important to actually understand what people are talking about before trying to characterize what they've said.

 

[Meghan54]

The "ownership society" (quotes are important here) was a slogan of George Bush, a label given by Bush to a set of rather typical conservative economic principles. Opposing the "ownership society" is not the same thing as opposing private property.

It's important to actually understand what people are talking about before trying to characterize what they've said.

Awwww, come on. No it's not important to know what the hell you're talking about.....is it? LOL!

 

[Starbuck1975]

The "ownership society" (quotes are important here) was a slogan of George Bush, a label given by Bush to a set of rather typical conservative economic principles. Opposing the "ownership society" is not the same thing as opposing private property.

It's important to actually understand what people are talking about before trying to characterize what they've said.

He needs to cite Jhnnn’s posts, but I also wouldn’t assume that Jhnnn specifically referenced Bush either. Ownership related to property is a broad term.

Wait, I was always told that the Dems are the socialists... now you're telling me that the socialists are trying to unseat the Dems? How can this be?

*head explodes*

It’s a primary challenge, which means that the Democrats at least humor this ideology as part of its coalition. That the candidate is even viable tells me that enough Democrats embrace it.

You would have a point if this were a general election and a Socialist was running against a Democrat.

 

[Jaskalas]

It’s a primary challenge, which means that the Democrats at least humor this ideology as part of its coalition. That the candidate is even viable tells me that enough Democrats embrace it.

The longer Republicans defend trickle down and block efforts to reform it, the worse income inequality becomes. The more we lose the Middle Class. People are losing faith in Capitalism every day as they bear increasingly fruitless labor. "Democratic Socialism" is our idea to reform and save Capitalism. By restoring income inequality to at least the level it was in the 50s and 60s. To mimic America's short lived golden age.

People like Andrew Yang, Bernie Sanders and I want to strike a balance between public and private ownership. Republicans, in general, are for private ownership at the expense of public interest. Where as the "socialists" described by the OP are for public ownership at the expense of private interest. Though if one wants to eliminate private ownership, that sounds more like Communism. I suggest this topic is mislabel a bit, but that's quite common for these sort of things.

• 100% Private, 0% Public. <- Republican / Libertarian Extremists.
• 75% Private, 25% Public. <- Moderate (Most) Republicans and Democrats.
• 50% Private, 50% Public. <- My "Democratic Socialist" position. Affords UBI, UHC, Housing, even the kitchen sink.
• 0% Private, 100% Public. <- Communists, and the "Socialist" described by the original post.

Does this help visualize the different factions on this issue?

 

[HomerJS]

Eminent domain is expressly allowed in the Constitution plus requires actually paying for what you seize (let's set aside for the moment the legitimate questions about the wisdom of doing such a thing, or whether the compensation would represent fair market value).

OTOH, it's not giving me the warm fuzzies that avowed Socialists who want to "abolish private property" have any intent whatsoever to compensate those from whom the property is confiscated. That's not the typical socialist M.O. where when they talk about "collective ownership" and whatnot the way they generally acquire the property being collectivized is simply seizing it by force if not outright simply killing the owners.

But...but...you guys have always been against ED. Oh that's right its different now.

This thread is about as useful as previous threads spreading fear of imminent Sharia Law. Stirring fear for the sake of fear.

BTW - I find the fear of socialism ironic since you same people have embraced Communism as practiced in Russia and China. At least you guys could start practicing the bullshit you preach.

The red highlighted is the kind of attack that will no longer be allowed.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[blackangst1]

Then post it, you're making the accusation. Post where he is against any type of property rights.

Additionally, there's a difference between Property Rights, and Propertarianism as used by oligarchs, in a system they've paid to rig for their own benefit.

Not that I think you're interested in reading something that hasn't already been shat into your skull by your thought leaders, but for anyone else interested, here's a relatively short essay on the difference between property rights and Propertarianism. One is a universal way of leveraging work with capital, whereas the other is a way for the rich to stay richer at almost everyone else's expense.

Property Rights vs Propertarianism: Part I

A blog about science, technology, science fiction, books, and the future.

davidbrin.blogspot.com

I never said he was against property rights. I said he was against ownership society. Look it up. It's a thing.

 

[blackangst1]

The "ownership society" (quotes are important here) was a slogan of George Bush, a label given by Bush to a set of rather typical conservative economic principles. Opposing the "ownership society" is not the same thing as opposing private property.

It's important to actually understand what people are talking about before trying to characterize what they've said.

I never said Jhhhn was against property ownership. Those words were put in my mouth.

 

[Jhhnn]

The "ownership society" (quotes are important here) was a slogan of George Bush, a label given by Bush to a set of rather typical conservative economic principles. Opposing the "ownership society" is not the same thing as opposing private property.

It's important to actually understand what people are talking about before trying to characterize what they've said.

Thank you. The "Ownership Society" & the "innovative financial products that let everybody own the house of their dreams" were just descriptors of the housing bubble scam. The only conservative economic principle involved was the usual avaricious greed of top down class warfare.

 

[Jhhnn]

..