• 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!

Social justice

What does "sociail justice" mean to you?

  • Equality

    Votes: 13 22.8%

  • Solidarity

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • Wealth redistribution

    Votes: 21 36.8%

  • Socialism

    Votes: 16 28.1%

  • Justice

    Votes: 17 29.8%

  • Unjustice

    Votes: 11 19.3%

  • Good

    Votes: 9 15.8%

  • Evil

    Votes: 9 15.8%

  • Prosperity

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 17 29.8%
  • Total voters
    57
RGacky3 said:
oh of coarse, in principle rights are rights.

Property is not a right though, it doens't exist in a state of nature, it needs violence to exist.

I can talk without the state, it requires violence to make me stop, thus freedom of speach.

If I claim that a large swathe of land is my land it is nothing more than an empty claim without the threat of violence, so property is NOT a right.

As far as smoking, yes, if you own a restaurant your providing a public service, your property is protected by the community and recognized as such, and as thus the community has a right to say if you wnat to have a restaurant in our community, we want it to be smoke free, becasue we want people to be able to use public services in our community without fear of second hand smoke.....
Click to expand...

life liberty and the........ pursuit of happiness, has been translated into property.

I also refer you to the founders who state the right to property is the same as the right to free speech.



RGacky3 said:
You're just making that up, that isn't what a "republic" means, there are many different types of republics, also the states are also (in theory) in the hands of the people.

A democratic government CAN and generally does, have checks and balances and constitutions.

The states are also democratic ....
Click to expand...


I refer you to the constitution article 4 section 4
 
ernst barkmann said:
life liberty and the........ pursuit of happiness, has been translated into property.

I also refer you to the founders who state the right to property is the same as the right to free speech.
Click to expand...

I thought rights were not up to people?

Also the founders didnt' say that the right to property was more important than the common good.

I refer you to the constitution article 4 section 4
Click to expand...

Where does that define it differently than what I said?
 
RGacky3 said:
I thought rights were not up to people?

Also the founders didnt' say that the right to property was more important than the common good.
Click to expand...

you or I cannot vote to take rights away from another person because how he uses/exercises them his rights...just to make ourselves happy.





RGacky3 said:
Where does that define it differently than what I said?
Click to expand...

it states the federal government and every state government is republican government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you or I cannot vote to take rights away from another person because how he uses/exercises them his rights...just to make ourselves happy.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my question, I had an argumetn that property rights were not fundemental rights.

You're argument was "the founders said so," which implies that your rights depend on what a couple dudes hundreds of years ago said.

it states the federal government and every state government is republican government.
Click to expand...

Yeah .... That isn't a definitional statement, it doesn't say what the definition of a republican government IS, I explained what it means in my previous post, it isn't distinct from a democratic government at all.
 
RGacky3 said:
That wasn't my question, I had an argumetn that property rights were not fundemental rights.

You're argument was "the founders said so," which implies that your rights depend on what a couple dudes hundreds of years ago said..
Click to expand...

all you have told me is, you don't believe the men who created the constitution and the DOI

right to property is the corner stone of all rights, without a right to property, everything would belong to the state.

of coarse you do understand the communist manifesto calls for the abolishment of all property rights


RGacky3 said:
Yeah .... That isn't a definitional statement, it doesn't say what the definition of a republican government IS, I explained what it means in my previous post, it isn't distinct from a democratic government at all.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...esenative-democracy-but-mixed-government.html

The Republican Form of government is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. individuals retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.


the democratic form of government, in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the whole body of free citizens, individuals do not retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form to the states. (See Art.4,Sec.4)
 
RGacky3 said:
No they arn't, you can sack your insurence company and try get another one, but good luck with that, the companies know you NEED insurance and will gouge you, like they do, for more and more profits, the individual purchasers need the insurance company, not vise versa, the insurance companies know this, and then when you get sick they'll put you in debt, lessening your options even more, and limiting your actual freedom.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Just like I need food and shelter, right? Which is why government housing and government food is such higher quality. :roll:

Insurance companies can only abuse me to the extent that government enables them to do so by protecting them from competition. Which, agreeably, is currently to say quite a bit.

Public healthcare is beholdent to the voters in the end,
Click to expand...

No it's not, except in the most theoretical of states. No ones' healthcare is beholden to the voters. At best general arguments about the shape and funding is beholden to the voters. If the election is on that single issue.

The progressive idea of liberty is ACTUAL freedom,
Click to expand...

Yeah.

534084_465013603580876_45239567_n.jpg


No thanks.
 
Strucker said:
No. In Canada, the government makes zero decisions about health care
Click to expand...

Gosh. Makes you wonder why they have such a large bureaucracy devoted to doing just that, then, huh? :roll:
 
RGacky3 said:
oh of coarse, in principle rights are rights.

Property is not a right though, it doens't exist in a state of nature, it needs violence to exist.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, every animal in nature has a feeling of own territory, especially nests and dens.
OK, try this one - give a bone to your dog and try to take it back. Unless you have a very civilized or dribbler dog, the chances are you will get bitten. How about that for property rights?
 
cpwill said:
Gosh. Makes you wonder why they have such a large bureaucracy devoted to doing just that, then, huh? :roll:
Click to expand...

What i meant was that there are no bureaucrats sitting about and discussing what should or should'tbe done, re individuals and their health care.

(There are bureacracies sitting around and doing exactly that for you, however. "Death panels" is more of a private insurance concept that a universal health care one.)

After all. one of the arguments y'all have been having for universal health care is that it's more efficient and bureaucratically cheaper than the system you'e using now.

And again, I'm not declaring that it's the necessary way to go. That's an American choice.

You, however, don't quite seem to grasp that the Amrican method of...well, everything, might not always be inherently superior.

Not exactly a controversial suggestion.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no ,I am not saying give up your vote, I am saying that in republican government the people vote for their u.s. house representatives, and the people vote for their state representatives, those state representatives then appoint the u.s. senators of their state.

this is know as separation of powers through representation. the people elect the house, and the state appoint the senate, this way power in not just in the hands of the people but the states also, so there can be no majority rule by the voting public.

this is what as know as 1 direct vote , and 1 indirect vote, and the president is elected by the electoral college, another indirect vote, those are also chosen by the state legislatures.

the founders say power should never be in just one set of hands, because that power will corrupt, that is why republican government puts powers in two different sets of hands, so it will limit corruption.

problem is we have depart from republican government 100 years ago and moves towards democracy which has corrupted the u.s.
Click to expand...

I am surprised the founders actually chose to let the people vote on the president in this republic. Anyway, I think what you are actually saying is that we should further limit the consensus of the mob and only let the mob vote indirectly, infrequently and at the lowest levels possible. Direct democracy is reserved only for our representatives because only they know what is the best interest of the country.

Why not just take the mob out of the picture? Maybe the founders were actually a bunch of bleeding heart liberals who catered to the will of the people too much by giving them an indirect, limited say in the matters that affect their lives. They were pansies; they really should have let those few real people who know how to get things done, make a country rich, get the most out of human and natural resources, etc. run the country. You know where I'm going right? The elite, or in today's terms, the top .1%. They are rich for a reason. They know how to manage human and environmental resources to make the most wealth possible. Why not just stop with all this facade of democracy, both of the people and within the government, and just let the elite run things, and vote with their dollars on how things should be run?

Starts to put democracy in better perspective, huh?
 
Strucker said:
What i meant was that there are no bureaucrats sitting about and discussing what should or should'tbe done, re individuals and their health care
Click to expand...

That is sort of correct - they make decisions only on what the state will or will not pay for. And, for a while there, attempting to escape their decisions (if they denied you) by purchasing your own healthcare was illegal.

Because the nanny state is still a state - and states are build upon coercion.
.
There are bureacracies sitting around and doing exactly that for you, however. "Death panels" is more of a private insurance concept that a universal health care one.)
Click to expand...

That is not correct. I would urge you, for example, to read up on the properly Orwellian named N.I.C.E. in Britain. The IPAB under Obamacare is simply the same concept - use the ability of the government to refuse to pay to hold down costs.

After all. one of the arguments y'all have been having for universal health care is that it's more efficient and bureaucratically cheaper than the system you'e using now.
Click to expand...

Well the system we're using now is sort of a public utility model dominated by third-party payers. Not exactly a market. Where we do use the market, however, it beats universal hands down, even as our current system beats universal in terms of actually providing care to the sick.

And again, I'm not declaring that it's the necessary way to go. That's an American choice.

You, however, don't quite seem to grasp that the Amrican method of...well, everything, might not always be inherently superior.

Not exactly a controversial suggestion.
Click to expand...

First off: 'Mericuh.

images





....Now, if that argument doesn't convince you, you are probably beyond reason. However, the ability of the market to provide superior results for reduced costs over time to the populace has been historically demonstrated across cultures and national borders - and the inferior results of government planning in terms of economic efficiency and the provision of goods has also been consistently demonstrated across cultures and national borders.
 
ernst barkmann said:
all you have told me is, you don't believe the men who created the constitution and the DOI

right to property is the corner stone of all rights, without a right to property, everything would belong to the state.

of coarse you do understand the communist manifesto calls for the abolishment of all property rights
Click to expand...

Why would not having a right to property mean everything belongs to the state? That doesn't follow at all ... It could be common, it could be possessional but not property based, it could be individual but not corporate, it could be community it could be many things.

There is nothing that follows in the statement. "no right to absolute private property = Everything belongs to the state."

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...esenative-democracy-but-mixed-government.html

The Republican Form of government is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. individuals retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.


the democratic form of government, in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the whole body of free citizens, individuals do not retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form to the states. (See Art.4,Sec.4)
Click to expand...

You're just making up these definitions .... Article 4 Secion 4 is NOT a definitional statement.

A Democratic form of government IS A TYPE OF republican form of government, the soviet union was a republic, not a democracy, democracy is a concept that can apply to many different things, companeis can be democracires (cooperatives) but nto republics since they are not nation-states.

You're just making up definition that no one uses and arguing against strawmen.

BTW, you cannot own yourself, since you ARE yourself, ownership is agent in relationship to object, you are not an object, you are the agent.

Also you can't own your labor, only the result of your labor, which capitalists DO NOT respect since they take capital ownership to as primary, i.e. the result of your labor is only yours if you also own the capital.

Just some logical faults in your argument.
 
cpwill said:
Well the system we're using now is sort of a public utility model dominated by third-party payers. Not exactly a market. Where we do use the market, however, it beats universal hands down, even as our current system beats universal in terms of actually providing care to the sick.
Click to expand...

Not according to the WHO rankings - but perhaps you meant to write "providing care to those Americans who can afford it". :mrgreen:
 
cpwill said:
Yeah. Just like I need food and shelter, right? Which is why government housing and government food is such higher quality. :roll:

Insurance companies can only abuse me to the extent that government enables them to do so by protecting them from competition. Which, agreeably, is currently to say quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Government housing is taking care of the market failing to make low income housing, its lower quality because it's LOW INCOME, private construction or real estate doesn't find it profitable to make low income housing, it's a problem with capitalism, so the state has to fill in the holes, unless you want mass homelessness, squatting and so on.

That's an argument for why Capitalism doesn't work, that we need government housing.

There is no such thing as government food ....

The government does not protect them from competition ... Capitalism does.

No it's not, except in the most theoretical of states. No ones' healthcare is beholden to the voters. At best general arguments about the shape and funding is beholden to the voters. If the election is on that single issue.
Click to expand...

Healthcare insurance is ONLY DEALING WITH THE FUNDING, not delivery of healthcare ..... for gods sake, pay attention,

Yeah.

534084_465013603580876_45239567_n.jpg


No thanks.

Is that supposed to be an arugment? the main aspect of progressivism is left out, i.e. democracy and individual autonomy, it's an idiotic strawman.
Click to expand...
 
Canell said:
On the contrary, every animal in nature has a feeling of own territory, especially nests and dens.
OK, try this one - give a bone to your dog and try to take it back. Unless you have a very civilized or dribbler dog, the chances are you will get bitten. How about that for property rights?
Click to expand...

Not at all, some animals do, some animals don't, also territory is generally collective, and it isn't absolute, it's liquid and chances based on needs.

No one is saying people shouldn't have their own stuff, but that isn't what property rights are, when I say property rights, I mean you can own a farm miles and miles away, and never have seen it, it was passed down 5 generations to you, and people around it are starving but you can still use the police and violence of the state to stop them from picking apples from that farm because it's "Yours" Even though you have no relationship with it, whereas people who worked on the farm as workers for decades have literally 0 claim to the fruits of their labor.

THAT'S what property rights are. Not a dog wanting a bone, lets be serious.
 
Jerry said:
No thank you, I know everything I need to know on how the term impacts my life today :2wave:
Click to expand...

There we go, this is basically the mantra of the right wing. You are basically saying you want to stay willfully ignorant, but still want to have **** to say ... which is why no one takes the American right wing seriously, the whole world looks at you as the clowns you are.
 
RGacky3 said:
whereas people who worked on the farm as workers for decades have literally 0 claim to the fruits of their labor.
Click to expand...

They got their pay for the job, didn't they?
 
Canell said:
They got their pay for the job, didn't they?
Click to expand...

That isn't the fruits of their labor, the fruits are what they reaped and harvested.
 
RGacky3 said:
That isn't the fruits of their labor, the fruits are what they reaped and harvested.
Click to expand...

But the sower deserves a share too. Or he should work for nothing?
How about the laboratory that produced the seeds?
 
Canell said:
But the sower deserves a share too. Or he should work for nothing?
Click to expand...

Yeah .... he's also a farm worker ...

Look at the post, I was looking at the difference between the farm workers and the absent landowner, who may have never even seen the land.
 
RGacky3 said:
Look at the post, I was looking at the difference between the farm workers and the absent landowner, who may have never even seen the land.
Click to expand...

OK, I see you are against inheritance, is that correct?

 
It means that somebody wants to take money from me to pay for something I find morally repugnant.
 
Canell said:
OK, I see you are against inheritance, is that correct?

Click to expand...


No, I'm against absolute property laws.

I.e. the concept that property laws are absolute and not subject to the democratic social welfare.

In other words you're right to hold a piece of land and thus exclude everyone else's access to that, depends on the concent of those effected, if you're expecting society to enforce you're exclusive access to a piece of land, it must be justified as good for sociey, it is NOT self evident.

But please follow the origional argument when I brought up the landowner and the farmer, you're kind of throwing up a red herring here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom