• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do you still support our system of government?

Why do you still support our system of government?

  • I’m one of the 15% - 20% who think it is working properly.

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • I’m one of the 15% - 20% but think any problems can easily be fixed.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • I’m among the 15% - 20% but think it’s not the system it’s the party running it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but think it’s not the system but the people running it.

    Votes: 11 33.3%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but don’t think there is anything we can do about it.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but don’t think there’s enough support to reinvent it.

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% and am willing to act, just waiting for the right time.

    Votes: 7 21.2%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but just don’t give a crap.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I’m not American, and not that concernd about your mess.

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Total voters
    33
Under Hoppe's system they certainly do have the authority to remove people because it is their land.

I don't think Hobbes is talking about shunning when he refers to 'forcibly removing' anyone who doesn't abide by his elitist standards.

So as long as the land is the 'private property' of the landlord then feudalism is 'libertarian'? I disagree with this notion.

There is nothing libertarian about a select group of elitists having the power to physically remove people who don't agree with their views.

He wants the land to be 'homesteaded' which has very broad meaning when it comes to Austrians. To many Austrians that simply means stepping onto a piece of unclaimed land and declaring that everything he/she can see to the horizon is now theirs, which is imo a ludicrous way to look at property rights.

As you saw in his quotes about removing people from society he clearly does advocate aggression (though he may not admit it).

I guess I just disagree that removing someone from one's own property is an initiation of violence. A trespasser has no right to be on my land, so I would have no ethical objection to removing him.

And, in my opinion, it doesn't make me a monarch.
 
Why do I still support our government? Because any meaningful action that withdraws my support would be considered an act of treason. The government would have the media cast me as a conspiratorial quack or a mental case, everyone and their brother would call me a terrorist who hates them for their freedom, I'd be shuffled off to Gitmo or someplace far worse and forgot about. Does that answer the question well enough?
 
Why do I still support our government? Because any meaningful action that withdraws my support would be considered an act of treason. The government would have the media cast me as a conspiratorial quack or a mental case, everyone and their brother would call me a terrorist who hates them for their freedom, I'd be shuffled off to Gitmo or someplace far worse and forgot about. Does that answer the question well enough?

Nope. You forgot about the obligatory waterboarding period, followed by anal probing with an MP's baton...then being abandoned for alien pickup at the Area 51 military reserve. That would have covered it. :)
 
For all its flaws and imperfections, I still have yet to see a better option.

A`better option would be to eliminate the majority of it's flaws. Flaws created by an obsessive expansion of it's powers.
 
A`better option would be to eliminate the majority of it's flaws. Flaws created by an obsessive expansion of it's powers.
Agreed, but your response suggests that we're not viewing the question the same way. What I mean is that I support our system of government in an overall sense, but that's just it... I support the system... and I most certainly feel there is need for improvement. I just don't see said improvement necessitating the complete discarding of the overall system.
 
Agreed, but your response suggests that we're not viewing the question the same way. What I mean is that I support our system of government in an overall sense, but that's just it... I support the system... and I most certainly feel there is need for improvement. I just don't see said improvement necessitating the complete discarding of the overall system.

Thanks, I did misunderstand. I can also agree with this position. :)
 
I disagree. A landlord is still subject to the laws of the government. For example, the government forbids, say, murder. If a landlord truly were a government, he could declare murder legal in his "country". He can't.

Because he's not a government.
Good try at sidestepping the issue! :lol:
 
Good try at sidestepping the issue! :lol:

Sidestepping? Not really. The poster claimed that a landlord is a government. This obviously is not true, since the landlord is SUBJECT TO the laws of the government. A landlord is simply not a government. The notion is ridiculous.
 
Sidestepping? Not really. The poster claimed that a landlord is a government. This obviously is not true, since the landlord is SUBJECT TO the laws of the government. A landlord is simply not a government. The notion is ridiculous.
If you read the article then you're well aware it concerned economies as well as additional "laws" the landlord adds. You yourself have said you understand and agree that a landlord can "do what he wants" on his own property - and we've always understood YOU to mean "except for that which violates criminal law". Why would you not accept the same caveat when someone else expresses their views?


Are you saying there's some other economic choice for residence other those presented in the article???
Are you saying a landlord can't make additional laws for his own property???
 
If you read the article then you're well aware it concerned economies as well as additional "laws" the landlord adds. You yourself have said you understand and agree that a landlord can "do what he wants" on his own property - and we've always understood YOU to mean "except for that which violates criminal law". Why would you not accept the same caveat when someone else expresses their views?

Because the poster is claiming that a landlord is a government.

A landlord is not a government. A landlord can't do whatever he wants on his own property. He can't rape people. He can't murder people. And on and on. A landlord simply owns land and controls who may access that land and under what conditions that access is allowed.

Are you saying there's some other economic choice for residence other those presented in the article???
Are you saying a landlord can't make additional laws for his own property???

A person who owns land controls who may access that property and sets the conditions under which that access is allowed.

This does not make a person who owns land a government.
 
Because the poster is claiming that a landlord is a government.

A landlord is not a government. A landlord can't do whatever he wants on his own property. He can't rape people. He can't murder people. And on and on. A landlord simply owns land and controls who may access that land and under what conditions that access is allowed.



A person who owns land controls who may access that property and sets the conditions under which that access is allowed.

This does not make a person who owns land a government.
Would you call a State a government???
How about a county?
A city?
 
Yes, to all.
But they have to follow Fed laws, then State laws, too, then county laws in addition to all the rest, respectively.

You've just torpedoed your own argument. Obviously, landlords are a government even though they have to follow the laws of the governments "above" them, just like State, county, and city governments.
 
But they have to follow Fed laws, then State laws, too, then county laws in addition to all the rest, respectively.

You've just torpedoed your own argument. Obviously, landlords are a government.

I see. So a landlord is a government that has to follow federal, state, county, and municipal laws.
 
I see. So a landlord is a government that has to follow federal, state, county, and municipal laws.
You said a city is a government - and all cities have to follow Fed, State, and County laws - so, yes, landlords are governments. They might even be as high in the government food chain as cities if their property is located in the unincorporated part of the county instead of in a city.
 
You said a city is a government - and all cities have to follow Fed, State, and County laws - so, yes, landlords are governments. They might even be as high in the government food chain as cities if their property isn't located in a city but in the unincorporated part of the county.

So if a landlord must obey city, county, state, and federal law, what governmental powers does he have exactly, over and above, say a regular run-of-the-mill homeowner?
 
So if a landlord must obey city, county, state, and federal law, what governmental powers does he have exactly, over and above, say a regular run-of-the-mill homeowner?
I don't require my guests to sign contracts with specific clauses to stay in my home (no extra laws) - nor do I charge them rent to stay there (no taxes).
 
I don't require my guests to sign contracts with specific clauses to stay in my home (no extra laws) - nor do I charge them rent to stay there (no taxes).

You choose not to do so, but, as a homeowner, you have the power to do so if you wish.

So I still don't see how a landlord has any special powers over and above the rest of us.
 
You choose not to do so, but, as a homeowner, you have the power to do so if you wish.

So I still don't see how a landlord has any special powers over and above the rest of us.
Any of us with land can be landlords under the right conditions. Have you never thought of yourself that way?

I've paid my freedom tax, or to be more precise, I am paying my freedom tax - since I still owe the bank a little for the house. That's one of the options in the article, a one-time freedom tax from slavery. At some point, I'll own my house and be truly free - though, to be honest, I passed that point long ago. I could have owned my first house by now. Still doesn't change the point of the article.
 
Last edited:
Any of us with land can be landlords under the right conditions. Have you never thought of yourself that way?

I've paid my freedom tax, or to be more precise, I am paying my freedom tax - since I still owe the bank a little for the house. That's one of the options in the article, a one-time freedom tax from slavery. At some point, I'll own my house and be truly free.

I'm still not seeing how a landlord is a government, if he must obey city, county, state, and federal laws. It sounds to me like a landlord is simply another citizen just like everyone else.
 
I'm still not seeing how a landlord is a government, if he must obey city, county, state, and federal laws. It sounds to me like a landlord is simply another citizen just like everyone else.
Cities have to obey federal, state, and county laws. And ...?

A landlord is a land owner, not just "another citizen". More specifically, a landlord is a person who rents out his property.
 
A landlord is a land owner, not just "another citizen". More specifically, a landlord is a person who rents out his property.

And this makes him a government how?
 
Back
Top Bottom