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

[Impenitent]

squandering?!? getting your next fix is never squandering...

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

squandering?!? getting your next fix is never squandering...

-Imp

Please do as I suggested and look up the results of these experiments.

Note that you are making an incorrect assumption about why those at the bottom are there., Yes of course, a sizeable fraction are persons with substance abuse problems. Persons with mental health issues. But a very large fraction are there through no fault of their own. Remember those NEAR the bottom (the working poor) have close to zero cash reserves (nothing like the three months recommended). Given the large number of such working poor some will encounter an adverse event, like breaking a leg (and not having paid sick leave). Having their parked car hit, totaled (the typical beatrer these folks drive has low "write off" amount) and now need expensive alternatives to get to work, Events like that. So now in a hole, cast down to the bottom, and no way to climb out. "Assistance" does NOT provide ways out of the hole.

THIS is the sizeable fraction for which there are positive results. No of course, no positive results for the fraction with substance abuse problems. However most cost effective not to try to determine in advance wo will e helped and who not.

[Cammy K]

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.

To limit ownership would be to limit individual liberty. The greatest principle is that of individual liberty. Liberty is the freedom to make the choices that benefit you the most. The state limiting your choices is akin to playing God with your life. "Here are you choices. Have a good day." As a Gangsta, there is no limit to my freedom anywhere on the planet. Law applies everywhere, and as such, I'm free anywhere conceivable. The power of God backs my every move, and there is a trust in my Well-Being, the increasing of well-being.

[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.

To limit ownership would be to limit individual liberty. The greatest principle is that of individual liberty. Liberty is the freedom to make the choices that benefit you the most. The state limiting your choices is akin to playing God with your life. "Here are you choices. Have a good day." As a Gangsta, there is no limit to my freedom anywhere on the planet. Law applies everywhere, and as such, I'm free anywhere conceivable. The power of God backs my every move, and there is a trust in my Well-Being, the increasing of well-being.

So the state says that you cannot murder another human being. Is the state not justified in giving you that limit? If someone becomes an economic monarch, using his or her wealth to unilaterally create whatever policy suits him or her, which the rest of us are economically obligated to follow, is that justified?

[MikeNovack]

OF course society should place limits, perhaps by quantity but certainly by kind. Was it wrong of society to take away the slave owner's right to own another person?

Also note that there is a problem with "property", we haven't yet nailed down what it is. What CAUSES the relation X owns Y? Might I suggest that it is a SOCIAL relation meaning X believes he/she owns Y and all the other people around, or most of them (the society) believes this also.

If X believes it but the other people around do not, X is judged insane. If the rest of society believes it but X does not, usually moot << except consider a situation where the society insists X owns Y and claims the taxes due on Y (on the owner of Y) but Y denies ownership --- NOT moot >>

Does anybody care to counter that ownership is a material relationship? (not a social relationship) That something is MATERIALLY different when Z owns Y instead of X owns Y.

[Impenitent]

someone said possession is nine tenths of the law... apostrophe s be damned...

-Imp

[seeds]

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

Logically, in all fairness,...

(especially in a capitalistic society)

...anyone should be able to accumulate extra wealth in life in proportion to the extra efforts they may have put in, in order to earn that extra wealth.

However, what bothers me is how the banking system is rigged to reward the super-wealthy in ways that allows them to gain unimaginable amounts of "free money" just because they are already rich.

I took this issue up with Google's AI Overview...

Me:
How much "free money' (in interest returns) does a billion dollars get you from just letting it sit in a bank account?

AI Overview:
A billion dollars sitting in a traditional bank savings account (at the national average of ~0.38% APY) yields about $3.8 million annually. If placed in a high-yield savings account or a Certificate of Deposit (around 4.5%–5% APY), that return jumps to $45 million to $50 million per year.

In the meantime, the system punishes poor folks by giving them, for example, a $15 monthly fee if they are unable to maintain at least a $1500 daily balance in their checking account.

So, yeah, it irks me that you can get 50 million dollars every year for free from the rigged system when you're already rich beyond your wildest dreams,...

...however, if you're dirt poor, then the system is setup to make you even poorer.
_______

[Cammy K]

So the state says that you cannot murder another human being. Is the state not justified in giving you that limit? If someone becomes an economic monarch, using his or her wealth to unilaterally create whatever policy suits him or her, which the rest of us are economically obligated to follow, is that justified?

No limits are justified, as God is already limiting you with repercussions according to Law. Lawful response only applies to killing someone in a manner beyond Law. Self-Defense, for example, is completely justified under Law.

An economic monarch only becomes a monarch by the voting of individual customers with their well-chosen purchases and expenditures. They must be on the up and up, otherwise bolstered by bad people and their wallet.

[Cammy K]

Bad people are confused about Good. They feel that whatever Opposition applies to the 4th Principle of Summum. Good and Bad are actually the only opposition to which the Principle of Opposition does not apply. The Principle states that all oppositions are a scale of more or less than one thing. This confuses them into not caring that two-thirds of what they do is Bad.

They even can strategize and coordinate to fulfill goals, but they don't realize the hard work that has to be put in doing something without God. For the Gangsta (the highest Good), all endevour is easy and fun forever. It is done for the joy of doing as much as it's done for the objective. There is nothing done that escapes the love and passion of activity. This is an advanced state of being, yes, but has correlations to beginning Gangsta stages.

My experience recently is one of extreme love for anything I'm doing and anyone around me. There's an effulgence of Benevolence. The Holy Idea of Holy Love (in my case, capital "H" and "L") is full and complete. Look inside for your drive (in your core); reach for it. As you reach it say, "holy love."

[Gary Childress]

So the state says that you cannot murder another human being. Is the state not justified in giving you that limit? If someone becomes an economic monarch, using his or her wealth to unilaterally create whatever policy suits him or her, which the rest of us are economically obligated to follow, is that justified?

No limits are justified, as God is already limiting you with repercussions according to Law. Lawful response only applies to killing someone in a manner beyond Law. Self-Defense, for example, is completely justified under Law.

An economic monarch only becomes a monarch by the voting of individual customers with their well-chosen purchases and expenditures. They must be on the up and up, otherwise bolstered by bad people and their wallet.

So is it your belief that there is no need for the state to imprison or sanction those guilty of murder. Do we just let things happen and God will ensure that everything works out the way it should? What about Federal regulations for food safety? Is there need for them?