PDA

View Full Version : Why Do the Masses not Understand Property Rights?




IndianaPolitico
08-02-2011, 12:28 PM
A local county sheriff in my area, posted a status update on his private facebook account. He asked his friend list what they thought if his county's fair implemented a policy on people wearing their pants around their ankles. He said he was not going to push it, (He is on the fair board.) he simply wanted to see what people thought, and was interested in the discussion that would most likely follow. Today the paper has a full article on it implying that he is against the first ammendment, and comments have been posted on the article saying that he is "racist" (Because of course when you want people to pull up their pants, then you are racist...:confused:), and he was against "free speech." He asked, (not proposed) thoughts about a FAIR policy, not a GOVERNMENT policy, yet people are yelling and screaming.

This brings up a point, why is it that the masses don't know ANYTHING about private property rights? Is it really such a hard issue to grasp? I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

AGRP
08-02-2011, 12:51 PM
It's hard to see the forest through the trees.

dannno
08-02-2011, 01:04 PM
(Because of course when you want people to pull up their pants, then you are racist...:confused:)

Beliefs like this tend to make me think that people who hold them are racist. Not all of them are, but a lot of people don't like the way that black people dress and act, so they try and legislate how they can dress and act. They try and hide behind the idea that the law applies to everyone, but when it really it only applies mostly to black people in their area then it's pretty easy to put 2 + 2 together.

In the mean time all the cool kids are trying to emulate them because hot chicks are into it.

If most hot chicks were really into nerdy guys, most guys would be geeks.

Travlyr
08-02-2011, 01:07 PM
The short answer is government schooling.

Property rights are not clear because as AGRP says, "It's hard to see the forest through the trees."

Food, water, and air are three ingredients necessary for life. As you eat, drink, and breathe you lay claim to those property rights. Since food can be grown on land, then land property rights become important for security reasons. You can grow your garden year after year on your land if you can get rights to own land. Also, if you fertilize your land and plant good seeds, then you can reap a plentiful harvest that you can sell or share with others in order to have abundance. Living a healthy wealthy life can be full of purpose. A purposeful life is worth living. Property rights are key to liberty.

kahless
08-02-2011, 01:08 PM
Years of public school, mainstream media and Hollywood entertainment industry indoctrination.

Anti Federalist
08-02-2011, 01:19 PM
Why Do the Masses not Understand Property Rights?

Pfffttt...The masses are lucky if they can remember what they had for breakfast.

AGRP
08-02-2011, 01:23 PM
Property rights are not clear because as AGRP says, "It's hard to see the forest through the trees."


It's actually crystal clear. People just need to take a step back.

The problem is rooted where people are asked to frame questions/debates.

Questions should be framed around personal liberty.

Questions should not be framed as should this or that be funded. They should be "Should we use lethal force to abduct Mrs. Jones from her own home and throw her in a cage if she chooses not to fund things in which she doesn't agree with."

awake
08-02-2011, 01:24 PM
the state survives by subverting and destroying property rights. It then teaches this example as sound government through its public schools.

The state truly sets the example and reinforces its infallibility in this "example" through relentless propaganda.

In a more simplified explanation, children will take from others with out asking. When they grow up they become much better at cleverly disguising this behavior through outright self disillusionment to justify it.

IndianaPolitico
08-02-2011, 01:25 PM
If most hot chicks were really into nerdy guys, most guys would be geeks.

Sadly they usually aren't, and I still am a geek.... =)

Sola_Fide
08-02-2011, 01:26 PM
Government school?

DamianTV
08-02-2011, 04:52 PM
Mostly because the Mundanes are flat out Lazy, and actually believe the government is trying to do everything it can to benefit the Mundanes, not the self serving interests of the governments.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIMqwJI2uI&feature=player_embedded

heavenlyboy34
08-02-2011, 05:03 PM
the state survives by subverting and destroying property rights. It then teaches this example as sound government through its public schools.

The state truly sets the example and reinforces its infallibility in this "example" through relentless propaganda.

In a more simplified explanation, children will take from others with out asking. When they grow up they become much better at cleverly disguising this behavior through outright self disillusionment to justify it.
Pretty much this^^ Hollywood and TV tend to reinforce and repeat propaganda as well.

ChaosControl
08-02-2011, 05:11 PM
Because property rights don't exist in this country as the government can just take away anything of yours, including your life, any time it feels like it and no one will blink twice at it.

Echoes
08-02-2011, 05:14 PM
It's the wussification of America, through Govt schools and liberal ideology. American men are feminized bitches of the State.

heavenlyboy34
08-02-2011, 06:29 PM
It's the wussification of America, through Govt schools and liberal ideology. American men are feminized bitches of the State.
make that socialist/progressive ideology. Don't sully the great word "liberal" by associating it with the scum in congress and the so-called "left", plz. Using "liberal" in place of "socialist" is just newspeak to make it more acceptable to Boobus Americanus. /end rant

Seraphim
08-02-2011, 06:39 PM
Agreed.

Liberals in the modern sense are not liberal at all. Socialist/communist, yes.

Liberals, the real kind - are staunch fiscal conservatives.


make that socialist/progressive ideology. Don't sully the great word "liberal" by associating it with the scum in congress and the so-called "left", plz. Using "liberal" in place of "socialist" is just newspeak to make it more acceptable to Boobus Americanus. /end rant

ItsTime
08-02-2011, 06:41 PM
Government schooling and parents allowing their children to be taught by the school with little or no oversight.

Watch
08-02-2011, 07:15 PM
Agreed.

Liberals in the modern sense are not liberal at all. Socialist/communist, yes.

Liberals, the real kind - are staunch fiscal conservatives.

Agreed +1 to both of you.
I find it amusing to speak to a "liberal" and to ask them exactly what does liberalism mean? And then I say...hmmm, strange that it changed from private property rights, limited government, laissez faire, and civil liberties when it was created...strange indeed huh? Now, how are you a liberal again??

Seraphim
08-02-2011, 07:23 PM
Yes exactly. It's Orwellian double-speak.

Liberal= to liberate

Explain to me how big intrusive government (both socially and economically) represents LIBERATION?

Ruh Roh - who will save us from the evil corporations?!??


Agreed +1 to both of you.
I find it amusing to speak to a "liberal" and to ask them exactly what does liberalism mean? And then I say...hmmm, strange that it changed from private property rights, limited government, laissez faire, and civil liberties when it was created...strange indeed huh? Now, how are you a liberal again??

Anti Federalist
08-02-2011, 07:29 PM
It's the wussification of America, through Govt schools and liberal ideology. American men are feminized bitches of the State.

This.

And it's real, not just sociological.

Men's sperm counts and testosterone levels are declining across the board.

I don't know if it's hormones in the beef and dairy products, vaccines, drugs, something in the water or air or being sprayed.

But it's happening.

Seraphim
08-02-2011, 07:38 PM
Fluoride in EVERYTHING that is liquid...


This.

And it's real, not just sociological.

Men's sperm counts and testosterone levels are declining across the board.

I don't know if it's hormones in the beef and dairy products, vaccines, drugs, something in the water or air or being sprayed.

But it's happening.

Chieppa1
08-02-2011, 07:40 PM
No, no they don't. Or they think its somehow "selfish".

Teaser Rate
08-02-2011, 07:49 PM
Please stop using "the masses" in a negative connotation. It makes you sound arrogant and elitist.

Just because you're a libertarian, it does not mean that you're better than anyone else.

DamianTV
08-03-2011, 02:24 AM
This.

And it's real, not just sociological.

Men's sperm counts and testosterone levels are declining across the board.

I don't know if it's hormones in the beef and dairy products, vaccines, drugs, something in the water or air or being sprayed.

But it's happening.

Population Control, and Population Winter. (hit up Youtube for Population Winter...)

Look at it this way. The US Govt comes out and tells us we need a license to have a kid, we are limited to one child every couple of families, and they get to pick and choose, sex becomes a felony and birth of a child without the concent of the Govt is an offense punishable by Death, you would have a Revolution on your doorstep within a month. That is the Front Door Approach. Any One Front Door Approach will put the people up in arms. Laws. Mandatory Infertilization (Tubes Tied or the Big V). Or if it comes from an "Accidental" source, like Vaccines. People will focus on that one particular area. They will focus on the Law. They will focus on the Govt Intrustion. Or, they will focus on Vaccines.

But what if it isnt from just one source? What if every imaginable source you can think of was contributing to it? What if the radiation emitted by TV's, Cell Phones, and Power Lines all played their part? Then, the Hormones in Meat Products, Artifical Flavors and the pleothora of chemically manufatured bullshit fillers they put in food, or the Preservatives? Every food that isnt natural also adds to the problem. Dont stop there. Fluoridated Water, shit in the air, coming from cars, pesticides, airplanes, etc, they all contributed also? What if our very way of a consumption driven life was what was causing that? Who do we rebel against then? The Govt? You know they will just disavow all knowledge of it and play stupid. Accuse the Food Manufacturers? They will just turn around and shift ALL of the blame on Electronics. And everyone else will do the same thing, shift as much blame away from themselves as they can so they can continue with their Profit Margins.

But it isnt all just Enviornmental Causes that have lowered population growth. The more Intellectually Advanced a Society Becomes, the less children they have. People realize that there is no need to have eleventeen kids, and expect to lose half of them before the age of 10. We arent a third world country where this kind of shit happens, but we are working our way there. However, that isnt the point. The point is that Intelligent People that can control their impulses by using contraception and controlling when they have kids so that they are damn well ready and prepared for the child, in order to give that single child the best chances of success.

The other side of that coin in Government Subsidies as usual causes more problems than it fixes. The more kids you have, the more Welfare you can collect. Thus, it is advantageous for those that cant afford to take care of themselves, many times because of race, find that having as many kids as possible is as profitable for those individuals as possible. Children born into these situations are what I think could be appropriately referred to as CROTCHFRUIT. They are just there so Mommy can collect more money on Welfare. The Father, of course, is an Absentee Parent, and the kids grow up to repeat the same pattern of breeding and becoming dependant on Welfare. The end result is that the More Intelligent Middle Class allows its population to shrink, while those that choose to be scum and reproduce for the sake of leeching more money from the Welfare System are rewarded for what every one else would consider to be an abuse of the Social System. And then we turn it back on its head, and realize that there are solutions.

The first solution is to not reward someone for "bad behavior". Now, our opinion of Good and Bad Behavior is Subjective, not Objective, and is biased on the idea of Overpopulation. End the Welfare System. If you dont want your neighbor to have Five Crotch Critters every couple of years, stop encouraging them by offering a reward for doing so. If anyone couldnt afford to have a kid and were not rewarded by having kids with Government Handouts that You and I pay for, they would think long and hard before unzipping their pants. However, I think the best and most Libertarian Solution is to let the system work itself out. Non Involvement. Youre having a kid? Great! Good for you! But youre not getting Tax Breaks for having kids, and get no special treatment (reasonable exceptions excluded like Maternity or Paternity Leave). Eliminating any form of Income Tax accomplishes this. You keep what you earn. If there was no Income Tax, no one would look at people with kids as a Tax Write Off.

However, I think the most important solution would come from allowing Free Markets and an Honest Money System where the Freedoms and Liberties and Society Itself can thrive. A Society where the Wealth belongs to the People, and not the Top 5% controlling 95% of the Nations Wealth. People can afford to live. The quality of their lives improves. People can afford the time to better themselves in areas that interest them, not just in an education that will be profitable, like I believe we currently have. When the Quality of Everyones Life Improves, you end up having Better Medical Care, and directly resulting from that, a lower Infant Mortality Rate. The need for popping out as many Rugrats as possible for Profit goes away, and the population balances itself. But when Government steps in, rewards everyone for turning the Womans Vagina into a Clown Car, which is to say they essencially Subsidize the Growth of the Population Artificially, we end up with Overpopulation.

Okay, apparently I accidentally took a Oral Laxitive today and ended up with a rather severe case of Verbal Diahhrea, and got completely off the point. So, to tie this back to Property Rights, Welfare also ties back to that rather quickly. People decide that the "Wealthy" should pay for everyone else. See the video I posted for more on that. That is no different than any other form of Theft. Welfare is Theft, although the Govt will never agree with that idea, however, I like this idea of Non Intervention, and think that there should be no Welfare. Youre on your own. And for those that say that these people couldnt afford to live, well, ideally, if the Wealth beloned to the People that Produced the Value (GDP, fuck any form of currency that represents that Value for a sec, their Products and Work have Value and should belong to the People), the people would be able to afford to help others that were down on their luck. The people that were down on their luck would get a Hand Up, not a Hand Out. Sure, shit happens. Shit happens all the time. If we didnt have Wars, we wouldnt have problems like we did after WWII causing the Baby Boom. Children wouldnt grow up Fatherless because Daddy painted the wall of some foreign building with his brains in a squabble between two countries where one Super Bank was funding both sides of the war. But, shit does happen, and if Daddy got killed in an accident, Society would voluntarily step in and help the Widowed Mother Up.

But look at us today. We are so far gone from that idea of helping out our neighbors that well over half of us dont even know our Neighbors First Names. We are so broke as a society, both Financially and Morally that when someone really does need our help, we just keep walking. We get shot on the street, we will lay on a busy sidewalk with hundreds of pedestrians and bleed to death before anyone even bothers to ask if we are alright. And if we do, we get involved. We might try to help, but somehow, we will probably be fined for lending a hand. Or get shot ourselves. We take no responsibility and expect our Goverment to handle everything, the same Government that we expect to return our Freedoms to us, and yet every time it is convenient to surrender our Liberty for the Luxury of No Responsiblity, we bitch about it. This is the result of having a Democracy. A Democracy where we figure out that we can VOTE more funds from the Public Coffers. A Democracy where we Deprive the Minority for the benefit of the Majority. Well, in an Overpopulated Democracy with Socialistic Tendancies, who do you think is going to be the Majority? The people that choose to exercise their Freedoms and Responsibilities, or the people that will roam the streets demanding More Government Welfare? Our Govt gave us pretty much exactly what we asked for, and we shouldnt be suprised when they refuse to give it back. And if we ever do manage to take it back, how will we behave then? Will we continue to reward people for having kids by offering Government Handouts and Welfare to every one else? Or are we going to be a little more responsible if we can afford to be a bit more compassionate?

There is all sorts of shit that needs to change in this Country, nay, in this World, and WE need to Be the Change. (yeah, that wasnt really intended to sound like an Obama Victory Campaign speech, it just came out that way)

End of Rant.

---

Another Video that explains the Difference between a Democracy and a Republic. I couldnt find a way to work that into my wall of text...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXBZd3jmbWg

DamianTV
08-03-2011, 02:26 AM
Please stop using "the masses" in a negative connotation. It makes you sound arrogant and elitist.

Just because you're a libertarian, it does not mean that you're better than anyone else.

Hey now! I should give you a +rep for that, just so you arent in the Red anymore! :P

VBRonPaulFan
08-03-2011, 06:18 AM
the government does everything it can to make sure you are never taught and never understand your property rights.

people that are educated and understand them are much more likely to stand up for them and refuse to submit to authority. but people who don't understand property rights? those are the kinds of people that the government loves. it just takes a shoddy argument and a guilt trip to make them feel happy to give up anything they have.

ChristianAnarchist
08-03-2011, 06:45 AM
government school?

bingo !!!

tremendoustie
08-03-2011, 06:59 AM
A local county sheriff in my area, posted a status update on his private facebook account. He asked his friend list what they thought if his county's fair implemented a policy on people wearing their pants around their ankles. He said he was not going to push it, (He is on the fair board.) he simply wanted to see what people thought, and was interested in the discussion that would most likely follow. Today the paper has a full article on it implying that he is against the first ammendment, and comments have been posted on the article saying that he is "racist" (Because of course when you want people to pull up their pants, then you are racist...:confused:), and he was against "free speech." He asked, (not proposed) thoughts about a FAIR policy, not a GOVERNMENT policy, yet people are yelling and screaming.

This brings up a point, why is it that the masses don't know ANYTHING about private property rights? Is it really such a hard issue to grasp? I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

Is the fair funded by government? If not, you're completely right, their policies are their own business.

libertyjam
08-03-2011, 07:19 AM
I want to know if people on this board actually know and uphold property rights? We sure seem to have a lot of that bleat all about property rights when is comes to "the man" and keeping him out of your stuff and tax protesters, but when a squatter, which by definition is nothing more than a common thief, wants to apropriate someone else's property for their own, we have primarily cheering for the thief, here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?305402-Man-Gets-330-000-House-for-16&p=3436616#post3436616). So do the majority on this board actually support property rights or is it all convenient rhetoric for populist politics when it suits them?

tremendoustie
08-03-2011, 07:49 AM
I want to know if people on this board actually know and uphold property rights? We sure seem to have a lot of that bleat all about property rights when is comes to "the man" and keeping him out of your stuff and tax protesters, but when a squatter, which by definition is nothing more than a common thief, wants to apropriate someone else's property for their own, we have primarily cheering for the thief, here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?305402-Man-Gets-330-000-House-for-16&p=3436616#post3436616). So do the majority on this board actually support property rights or is it all convenient rhetoric for populist politics when it suits them?

The banks are thieves too. They accept money from the federal reserve at zero percent, as well as bailouts and Tarp.

DamianTV
08-03-2011, 08:13 AM
The banks are thieves too. They accept money from the federal reserve at zero percent, as well as bailouts and Tarp.

Every time I hear the term "Bank Robbery" I imagine that a new "customer" just went in and came out with a sore backside and a disappointed customer that didnt even so much receive a courtesy reach-around.

Ronulus
08-03-2011, 08:21 AM
I find it amusing that some would defend wearing your pants so low to the point of calling someone racist and saying they are against the first amendment. Yet I have people constantly violating my property rights at work when they think that by paying a golf cart fee they have the right to drive it all over the place, modify it to make it go faster, flip it, and they are not responsible.

People are just becoming so self centered that anyone saying anything that may be against them or make them accept responsibility for something makes them get really defensive. They know they are doing something wrong or unacceptable yet they have to try and put that blame on someone else (The guy being racist).

libertyjam
08-03-2011, 08:24 AM
The banks are thieves too. They accept money from the federal reserve at zero percent, as well as bailouts and Tarp.

That may be to some extent, but banks have depositors and shareholders too, so how would you feel if you were a depositor and there were no FDIC or you had deposits in excess of FDIC limits, and your bank folded, and then you were told "sorry you won't get any of your money back cause see, all these squatters took over the properties we were holding as assets and they have rights greater than yours so we no longer own those assets." The squatter has now effectively stolen your money.