Should there be limits to an individual's property in society?

[Gary Childress]

I've heard it argued that the problem with "socialism" is that it seeks to eliminate private property. Most versions of socialism I've read about do not seek to eliminate ALL property, however.

If eliminating all property is the definition of "socialism" then it seems that Marx wouldn't qualify as a "socialist" because he distinguished between "private property" and "personal possessions". Marx thought individuals could own "personal possessions" such as tools and things, but not "private property" such as factories. Other socialists I've read agree that ownership of property to some degree is fine. Therefore, it seems mistaken to think of all walks of "socialism" as advocating absolute abolishment of property. What they advocate for is the abolition of certain kinds of property.

The kinds of property I have seen most often described as being abolished by "socialism" are large societal institutions such as factories, banks, plantations, etc, or things that large portions of society depend upon. Why, because individual ownership of things that large portions of society depend on gives an individual (or a few individuals) inordinate power and control over others.

Some "socialists" believe that it's fine for individuals to own small businesses. I think MOST socialists, at least those I've read, believe that it's OK for individuals to own routinely needed things such as personal transportation, a home, furnishings, food, clothing, tools, things to entertain themselves, etc.

I believe it is a misunderstanding of "socialism" to define it as the abolition of all property and that's what I think some people accuse Marx of being in favor of and by extension, use as a definition of what "socialism" is. If we put aside that misunderstanding, then are all "flavors of "socialism" really a terrible thing? Doesn't it seem reasonable that an individual should be able to own some possessions but not socially critical things that would give them inordinate power over all?

Does anyone believe that there should be no limits to what an individual may own?

The reason for my current formulation of the poll is to block the potential criticism that if one cannot safely draw a line exactly where to ban individual ownership of things, then one cannot have any ban whatsoever on individual ownership of things. That would be a "slippery slope" fallacy to believe that no limit can be set on property without banning all property or else without allowing any and all things to be owned by individuals.

It is my belief that we can all agree that individuals should be able to own some things but not all things. The only dispute we may have is where to draw the line at what individuals cannot own.

In order to test my theory that we can all agree on that one criterion; I've set up a poll for the question with four possible answers that I think pretty much cover every broad possibility concerning what individuals can own. It is set so that you can change your vote if you later change your mind about the poll questions.

Please vote.

I hope this will clear up misunderstandings about "socialism" by some.

NOTE: Of course, comments are welcome also. Commenting or asking questions may help in the voting process.

[Impenitent]

your labor is not your own

your intention is not your own

the collective has spoken

obey

-Imp

envy is a beautiful thing

[Walker]

NOTE: Of course, comments are welcome also. Commenting or asking questions may help in the voting process.

It's a rigged poll.

Only you can understand the rigging for yourself.
I can’t understand it for you.
However, in the spirit of that, try this:

Imagine that the first option receives the majority of responses.
What would be your conclusion?
Now do that for each of the options.
What would be your conclusion for each option that receives a majority?
What would be your conclusion that it received more than the others?

[MikeNovack]

There is an argument that a ratio richest/poorest above a certain value, does not bode well for a democratic society.

Marginal amounts worth little to those with a lot. Perhaps little enough that compensation possible in another form. Silly example -- there is a "millionaire's tax" but what collected from each accounted for. When what has accumulated in a person's account as much as some project, they get to have their name on the project.

[Walker]

There is an argument that a ratio richest/poorest above a certain value, does not bode well for a democratic society.

That explains the intent behind the illegal open border policy of the Biden administration, because setting the table for one party rule does not bode well.

[Gary Childress]

NOTE: Of course, comments are welcome also. Commenting or asking questions may help in the voting process.

It's a rigged poll.

Only you can understand the rigging for yourself.
I can’t understand it for you.
However, in the spirit of that, try this:

Imagine that the first option receives the majority of responses.
What would be your conclusion?
Now do that for each of the options.
What would be your conclusion for each option that receives a majority?
What would be your conclusion that it received more than the others?

If you were going to make a poll regarding whether or not there should be limits to private property, then what would you put for poll questions?

[MikeNovack]

There is an argument that a ratio richest/poorest above a certain value, does not bode well for a democratic society.

That explains the intent behind the illegal open border policy of the Biden administration, because setting the table for one party rule does not bode well.

WTF? The reason for the "open border" is the need for workers who will not revolt in those unpleasant low paying jobs. SOMEBODY has to be willing to work in the fields to week, pick the crop, etc., so there is food on the tsles of rich folk.

It is the foolish notion of some tat if we closed the borders and did away with welfare we could force our own poor to do that work. The problem is in reality our own poor are too familiar with our society, would instead revolt. Not that this couldn't be put down, but that still leaves the crops unpicked. A good size segment of the "liberals" aren't bleeding hearts. They are just being PRACTICAL.

[Walker]

If you were going to make a poll regarding whether or not there should be limits to private property, then what would you put for poll questions?

I see no need to do such a thing.

The question is, did you do your exercise to understand the rigging of the poll?

If so, you would understand that your unstated premise is a system of governance where the government grants rights to citizens. That's an inherently totalitarian premise.

[Walker]

Democrats do love their slave-class, i.e., slave class modernized to underclass.
If they're going to clean the toilets and pick the vegetables, I certainly hope they wash their hands in between.

Did you hear about the Southern Poverty Law Center expose?
Big fans of the KKK, amongst other things.

I remember hearing somewhere along the line that only 2% of illegals take up a career in agriculture.

[MikeNovack]

If so, you would understand that your unstated premise is a system of governance where the government grants rights to citizens. That's an inherently totalitarian premise.

Non sequitor --- no such premise that the system of governance is such that "the government" grants rights to citizens.

Why are you supposing a system of governance like that? Why not think of one similar to that which might actually have?

I live in the Town of Buckland (town - township) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Is it the "government" of Buckland which gives me the rights what I can or cannot do on my land? The citizens of this town gather in town meeting to vote up or down zoning regulations, set our taxes, etc. Is it the commonwealth government? We hold elections to choose who will represent us in the General Court (the MA "house of representatives") or state Senate, elect whom the governor will be, to pass laws in the ordinary course of events. Laws according to the state constitution. Or to "propose" changes to that constitution (to be ratified by plebiscite). BUT ALSO -- if some citizens get together to do the work of collecting enough signatures on a petition, get a proposed law onto the ballot to be voted up or down by the citizenry at the next election bypassing the legislature and governor.

That's totalitarian ????? Seems like republican democracy at the state level and direct democracy at the town level.

[Gary Childress]

If you were going to make a poll regarding whether or not there should be limits to private property, then what would you put for poll questions?

I see no need to do such a thing.

The question is, did you do your exercise to understand the rigging of the poll?

If so, you would understand that your unstated premise is a system of governance where the government grants rights to citizens. That's an inherently totalitarian premise.

Trying to enlighten you is a waste of time. You don't care. You voted for Trump and company and you'll defend them all the way to the gates of Hell. And in response to the people pointing out your errors, you'll just spew a bunch of incoherent, irrelevant nonsense. Grow a brain for God sakes.

[Walker]

They are just being PRACTICAL.

Practical, of course. Cotton is King ... Vegetables are King.

Democrats need their slave class.

Some things never change.

[Walker]

Translation: you didn't do your assignment.

[Walker]

Non sequitor --- no such premise that the system of governance is such that "the government" grants rights to citizens.

Negatory Captain. Shouldbe's are well known to require enforcement, by enforcers. No enforcers means no enforcement ... kind of like no creator means no creation. Our only options available for the vote are ... Shouldbe's, which have evolved from too much time.

On the other hand, Trump had a proven record of success, which is what got him elected ... not what he Shouldbe according to some conceptual ideal.

Interesting how things connect.

[MikeNovack]

Non sequitor --- no such premise that the system of governance is such that "the government" grants rights to citizens.

Negatory Captain. Shouldbe's are well known to require enforcement, by enforcers. No enforcers means no enforcement ... kind of like no creator means no creation. Our only options available for the vote are ... Shouldbe's, which have evolved from too much time.

Strange --- so if I violate the regulations imposed by my fellow citizens of Buckland (say dumping raw sewage) and the town sends its "enforcers" to shut me down, these "enforcers" being persons the citizens of Buckland have hired for the purpose, that is enforcement by some outside agency and not my fellow citizens of Buckland?

And WHAT might you mean by "only options available for the vote". Are you unaware that when voting for candidates, in most places you are not limited to those on the ballot? Locally, it is not unusual for candidates to run (and even win) as "write in". We even have one US Senator, Lisa Murkowski, who won election as a "write in". If the only person you trust for the job is yourself, go ahead and write your naame in.