If they left it saying property then they wouldn’t have been able to tax us.
May need a place to stay; Landlord threatening eviction for asking for repairs
- Thread starter joegrizzy
- Start Date
- Status
If they left it saying property then they wouldn’t have been able to tax us.
OK, you're saying the old people designed a system that allows the WEF to do what they're doing by taking advantage of the weaknesses, loopholes, in the system...?
OK, I can see that.
Can you design a system where corrupt people cannot take advantage of others? I don't think you can. Bad people will find a way to get around what ever is in their way.
Don't take this as me agreeing that buying houses to rent is wrong.
>34. It is true, in land that is common in England or any other country, where there are plenty of people under government who have money and commerce, no one can enclose or appropriate any part without the consent of all his fellow-commoners; because this is left common by compact—i.e., by the law of the land, which is not to be violated. And, though it be common in respect of some men, it is not so to all mankind, but is the joint propriety of this country, or this parish. Besides, the remainder, after such enclosure, would not be as good to the rest of the commoners as the whole was, when they could all make use of the whole; whereas in the beginning and first peopling of the great common of the world it was quite otherwise.
>35. The measure of property Nature well set, by the extent of men’s labour and the conveniency of life. No man’s labour could subdue or appropriate all, nor could his enjoyment consume more than a small part; so that it was impossible for any man, this way, to entrench upon the right of another or acquire to himself a property to the prejudice of his neighbour, who would still have room for as good and as large a possession (after the other had taken out his) as before it was appropriated. Which measure did confine every man’s possession to a very moderate proportion, and such as he might appropriate to himself without injury to anybody in the first ages of the world, when men were more in danger to be lost, by wandering from their company, in the then vast wilderness of the earth than to be straitened for want of room to plant in.
ya'll act like this is MY opinion LOL
>35. The measure of property Nature well set, by the extent of men’s labour and the conveniency of life. No man’s labour could subdue or appropriate all, nor could his enjoyment consume more than a small part; so that it was impossible for any man, this way, to entrench upon the right of another or acquire to himself a property to the prejudice of his neighbour, who would still have room for as good and as large a possession (after the other had taken out his) as before it was appropriated. Which measure did confine every man’s possession to a very moderate proportion, and such as he might appropriate to himself without injury to anybody in the first ages of the world, when men were more in danger to be lost, by wandering from their company, in the then vast wilderness of the earth than to be straitened for want of room to plant in.
ya'll act like this is MY opinion LOL
- Joined
- May 14, 2020
- Messages
- 7,359
- Reaction score
- 23,148
The key there is they didn't leave it as "property". Today, as Joe G is proof, people would read that as equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. He may not admit it but he's definitely a believer in equality of outcome.
yes, i offered very early in the thread taxing multiple properties THAT ARE NOT A PRIMARY DWELLING so much that there is no incentive to own them. this would allow the actual rich who can afford multiple property to still have them, but would prevent people who are in good standing with the bank but poorer than others from buying any available property. especially under the condition that someone else is going to pay for said property.
this was misconstrued into "make it illegal for people to own two houses" which wasn't the position. that happens a lot when people fail to read correctly or comprehend.
there's no such thing as equal opportunity.
yes, but my point is that phrase was bastardized from the original conception. the first of MANY
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Man shot 15 times with .45, returns fire ... Maybe shot placement?? 🤷- Latest: Glock 'em down
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
