“”Collective property” is a potentially dangerous notion; I look forward to your fleshing out this thought.”
I’d be happy to, JustSayNoToNannies.
The entire United States is the collective psychological property of all United States citizens. It’s about sovereignty where all the people recognize these united states as our property. It’s how nations are created.
This way, if an enemy attacks New York City, we recognize it as an attack against the entire property known as these united states and the citizens who occupy that land.
If you disagree with that notion, maybe you’d like to see the people on 5th Avenue raise an army and go get the attackers after 9-11, while everyone else ignores the attack.
The collective of a nation is defined as “belonging or relating to all the members of a group.”
I realize you wanted to play juvenile libertarian mind games because I used the word “collective.”
The F’n commies don’t own that word. I do.
Good answer!
I was involved in the libertarian party back in the 1990s and helped develop and promote the private property tenets of libertarianism as laid out by the Cato Instititute.
Cato published a well-developed treatise on the concept of private property, where it came from and how to defend private property when confronted.
I don’t think Ron Paul has a clue about the tenets of private property. I seriously question whether Paul is a libertarian. I base my opinion about Paul on the fact that he doesn’t recognize the United States, collectively, as the private property of the citizens of these united states.
”Collective property” is a potentially dangerous notion; I look forward to your fleshing out this thought.
I’d be happy to, JustSayNoToNannies.
The entire United States is the collective psychological property of all United States citizens. It’s about sovereignty where all the people recognize these united states as our property. It’s how nations are created.
This way, if an enemy attacks New York City, we recognize it as an attack against the entire property known as these united states and the citizens who occupy that land.
I'm guessing that Cato's well-developed treatise doesn't say one word about this sort of "property."
If you disagree with that notion, maybe you’d like to see the people on 5th Avenue raise an army and go get the attackers after 9-11, while everyone else ignores the attack.
The collective of a nation is defined as “belonging or relating to all the members of a group.”
I disagree with calling it "property," psychological or otherwise - but I approve of a sense of national unity. What has Paul said that makes you think he’d like to see the people on 5th Avenue raise an army and go get the attackers after 9-11, while everyone else ignores the attack?
I realize you wanted to play juvenile libertarian mind games
Ad hominems and pretensions to mind-reading - that's your idea of how to "raise the level of discussion"?