The Democrat Party Hates America

[Alexiev]

] I decry them for being hypocrites, actually. They neither care about the environment, nor about migrants, nor about Ukraine, nor about Israel or Gaza. What they care about is getting and holding power, so they can soak American taxpayers and launder the money into foreign wars and useless bureaucratic boondoggles. That much is very obvious.

I'm glad you know what other people "care" about.

Judge by their actions. Don't believe their speeches.

Politicians are hypocritical.

Now we agree.

"Free markets", by the way, are not and never were "free".

I said that. I even said that they could only be partly free. But being toward the free side is much better than being toward the authoritarian side, obviously.

capitalism developed

The whole idea of "capitalism" was "developed" by Marxists during the last century, during the Industrial Revolution. It had no existence before. Before that, you had things like feudalism and aristocracy.

However "free markets" depend on the definition of "property" and by the state's enforcement of property law.

Not quite: they depend on a society recognizing "property rights," whether by formal enforcement or by mutual consent. The law is only supposed to recognize and support the unalienable right to property...it doesn't create that right. The right pre-exists all laws.

Property, after all, does nothing except limit freedom (directly -- of course there are indirect effects).

I know what you're trying to say...that if I have some property, then it means you can't also have that property at the same time, or in the same way. But actually, possession of property is the sine qua non of freedom. If you can possess no property, then you are left with absolutely nothing at your disposal, nothing with which to make choices or to direct your own life, so you become utterly incapable of any moral or independent action. You have no life: you are owned by outside forces exclusively.

So, for example, if you have no money, you can neither buy a home, nor travel, nor secure your future, nor give presents or give charitably to others, nor even feed and clothe your family in a daily way. Instead, you are entirely controlled by outside agencies, who may or may not (and always not) have your interests in their view. You're a slave, not a free man.

But slavery has one consolation: namely, that since a slave has no choices, neither has he any responsibilities. So some people, those who fear responsibility, prefer their slavery to their freedom.

I do not.

GK Chesterton agreed in his debates with the Socialist GB Shaw. Shaw thought private propert should be eliminated, because it creates a system resembling slavery; Chesterton thought everyone should own property (a house, for example). Of course if property is "unalienable", not everyone will own any. Therein the problem. Hypothetically, if one person owns everything, we all become slaves.

My position: property rights are not natural rights. We can define them however we want, snd argue about which definitions conduce human happiness. Of course almost everyone agrees -- hence taxes, easements, zoning laws, etc.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course if property is "unalienable", not everyone will own any.

The opposite is true, actually.

"Property" is not a zero-sum situation: there's an infinite amount of it around. You can't own my property, and I can't own yours, at least, not at the same time and to the same extent. But there's effectively no end of things you can own, and no end of things I can own.

And in fact, new "property" is often created: Bill Gates "owns" as his "property" the blueprints and rights to manufacture of certain kinds of computers, and gets profit from it. But his "ownership" of those does not hurt me at all...in fact, it helps me, because now I can own one of the things he created, and use it to type to you right now. So I'm winning, and Bill Gates is winning, and a new sort of property is being owned by us both.

...if one person owns everything, we all become slaves.

Yes, quite right. Which is precisely why one person -- or especially, some government -- must never be permitted to claim ownership of everything. Socialism is slavery.

My position: property rights are not natural rights.

How do you refute Locke's argument, then?

[Belinda]

"your goods put not to usury" is a biblical commandment, particularly referenced in Psalm 15:5 and Deuteronomy 23:19, advocating against charging interest on loans, especially to fellow Israelites.

But Immanuel Can says capitalism was invented by socialists:
The whole idea of "capitalism" was "developed" by Marxists during the last century, during the Industrial Revolution. It had no existence before. Before that, you had things like feudalism and aristocracy.

[Alexiev]

[
How do you refute Locke's argument, then?

Locke saw the "right" to property as a basic (unaleinable) feature of a just society. However, what constitutes property and how a person deserves to have a right to it varies dramatically from culture to culture.

For example, Locke thought that people had a right to the fruits of their labor, because labor was an extension of self. But under a Capitalist system, many people don't have a "right" to the fruits of their labor. The owners of the means of production -- and the state through taxes-- control much of the fruits of that labor. Sharecroppers had to give most of the crops they grew to the land owners.

Chesterton agreed that property was essential to a prosperous and just society, but that every family should own a house. This would combine the value of the pride and care inherent in ownership with the fairness and charity of a Socialist system.

[Immanuel Can]

How do you refute Locke's argument, then?

Locke saw the "right" to property as a basic (unaleinable) feature of a just society.

Not exactly. Locke doesn't even speak about "society." He doesn't appeal to some abstract idea of "justice." He doesn't appeal to "culture," either. He holds that rights are inherent and unalienable within each individual, endowed by the Creator -- meaning that a government or an oppressor can illegitimately steal those rights, but he can't make his theft of them legit.

Locke thought that people had a right to the fruits of their labor, because labor was an extension of self.

Again, not exactly. Locke doesn't talk about "labour." That's Marxist language, if anything. He doesn't see "self" as sacred either, except derivative of the self's duty to God. But he sees property as a stewardship given each person, under God. Everybody has to give an account for what he does, and he can only do things if he has means to exercise his freedom, and he can only have that freedom if he has property.

For Locke, people are endowed with an unalienable right to property because of their obligation to give account to God, on what Locke calls "The Great Day," meaning the Day of Judgment. If a man has no property, Locke argued, how can he show his obedience and responsibility for his stewardship of creation to his Maker? He can't, because he has nothing in his hands with which to work. So a person who deprives another of his property is stealing from him the means to give his personal account to his Maker, and thus is interfering with the relationship between God and another person.

Now, you're not a Theist, I assume. But Theism is the only rationale for any human rights at all. Secularism cannot explain why anybody is due any rights...in can only plead, "Well, society says..." or "Well, culture suggests..." But when push comes to shove, secularism has to assume that all rights are merely derivative of society or culture, which means they don't transfer across cultures, and can be taken away by a different culture, and there's no universal duty to give people any rights.

How do we insist on some treatment of others as being "moral" or "immoral," when "moral" is merely arbitrated by whatever society, culture and time-period they happen to have fallen into, and the next society can arbitrate even the dead opposite, and call it "moral" legitimately? And how do we tell people have any right to property, when (on secular assumptions) they will never give any ultimate account for what they do or don't do with what they have or don't have?

That's the problem.

[Immanuel Can]

"your goods put not to usury" is a biblical commandment, particularly referenced in Psalm 15:5 and Deuteronomy 23:19, advocating against charging interest on loans, especially to fellow Israelites.

So far, so good.

But Immanuel Can says capitalism was invented by socialists:
The whole idea of "capitalism" was "developed" by Marxists during the last century, during the Industrial Revolution. It had no existence before. Before that, you had things like feudalism and aristocracy.

You are mixing up two different concepts: "capitalism" and "usury." They're not at all the same, even in Marxist thought.

[commonsense]

I hate to tell you...one case does not signify whether or not the Federal Government has the power to deport. They do.

No one disputes that. It’s the way in which it’s being carried out.

What "way" is it wrong?

Really??? Have you no humanity?

[commonsense]

What's your evidence that this has not been done?

Everyone who was deported solely on the basis of the appearance of a tattoo.

What's your evidence that this is being done? It seems a very bizarre thing to allege, so you'll need to back it up, of course.

What do you mean, being done? Are you saying it’s NOT HAPPENING?

[commonsense]

Absolutely. What's your evidence that this has not been done?

Anyone who was deported en masse.

What do you mean "en masse"? A mass of genuine criminals being deported is unequivocally a good thing, don't you think? Are you trying to suggest they didn't check to see who they were deporting? The opposite looks to be true, as it seems they can give quite a detailed account of who they're deporting and why; so you'll have to justify that concern.

But did anyone check to see if these detailed accounts included any convictions by US courts?

[FlashDangerpants]

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only. Those that are illegal immigrants already are not owed any particular "process" by the country they invaded. They aren't its citizens.

This is where you butted into my conversation with Walker to tell me I was wrong. I was perfectly right, it's a simple factual matter that you got wrong. So admit it and just stop trying to gaslight me.

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied. Due process is not reserved for citizens

[Immanuel Can]

No one disputes that. It’s the way in which it’s being carried out.

What "way" is it wrong?

Really??? Have you no humanity?

What you're not giving me are facts. What is the specific way in which you imagine things are not being done right, and what's your evidence that that is the way they're being done?

[Immanuel Can]

Everyone who was deported solely on the basis of the appearance of a tattoo.

What's your evidence that this is being done? It seems a very bizarre thing to allege, so you'll need to back it up, of course.

What do you mean, being done? Are you saying it’s NOT HAPPENING?

You say that people are being deported on no more than the appearance of a tattoo. You'll need to show that's so, because it defies common sense, so it will be hard for anybody to believe.

[Immanuel Can]

Anyone who was deported en masse.

What do you mean "en masse"? A mass of genuine criminals being deported is unequivocally a good thing, don't you think? Are you trying to suggest they didn't check to see who they were deporting? The opposite looks to be true, as it seems they can give quite a detailed account of who they're deporting and why; so you'll have to justify that concern.

But did anyone check to see if these detailed accounts included any convictions by US courts?

Convictions of what? If you're an illegal migrant, you've already violated federal law. You're convicted; case closed. There isn't even a possible defense for that. Why didn't you come in at a legal port of entry, if you had a case?

[Immanuel Can]

Due process was denied...

To A-G? You said you had no view on anybody else, right? You denied that you had any general claim about deportation policy. You said you were only talking about A-G.

Well, A-G is gone. So now you've got nothing left to say.

[FlashDangerpants]

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only. Those that are illegal immigrants already are not owed any particular "process" by the country they invaded. They aren't its citizens.

This is where you butted into my conversation with Walker to tell me I was wrong. I was perfectly right, it's a simple factual matter that you got wrong. So admit it and just stop trying to gaslight me.

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied. Due process is not reserved for citizens