Re: Libertarian Party lying?

SJ Doc wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:45:21 -0400, Jet Graphics wrote:
>
>>Apparently you felt the need to reply.
>
> Reply, yes. Rebuttal, no. I quit playing games with
> dictionary definitions taken out of context when I
> got old enough to shave. Why should I resume such
> a puerile practice?

Puer - from the latin - boy / child.

If you are unaware of the actual meaning of terms used in law, is it
reasonable to disregard said knowledge? Wouldn't such an action be puerile
(childish)?

What dictionary definition was taken "out of context" or that you disagreed
with?

PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public
uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an
individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of
disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible
nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted
to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.
- - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

Is it not clear?

Private property is ABSOLUTELY OWNED by an INDIVIDUAL.

If two or more own it, it's not private property.
If it is not absolutely owned, it's not private property.

And the definition for estate (real property) is that which is held with an
interest that is less than title. Seems clear to me.

The constitution plainly states that private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation. But there's no mention that "REAL
ESTATE" is protected.

Did you presume that all land is real estate?

How about "Capitalism"?
Are you sure you know what that means?

CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for
private profit. Webster's Dictionary

And if we link "capitalism" with "private property", then we get "an
economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange
are absolutely owned by individuals..."

Brain teaser - Is joint ownership of a corporation or business absolute
ownership by an individual ("private property")?
No.
Then stock corporations ARE NOT CAPITALISM, with regard to the legal
definition for "private property".
And you are aware that corporate income is subject to taxation, because it
is a privilege, not a right.
The first wage tax was instituted by the Social Security Act of 1935. Wages
of nonsocialists were never "income" subject to taxation before that date.
Public employees tax act was passed in 1939, again, taxed for the privilege
of working for the government.

Is America a capitalist nation?
Not since 1935.

If you examine the complaints of those who attack "Capitalism", you will
find that their targets are corporations and banks, which are both involved
in usury, not absolutely owned, and are not truly capitalism.

And you are aware that the so-called "communist" nations admit that they
only achieved socialism.

So what nations in the world are NOT SOCIALIST?
The "Communists" are socialists.
The UK and commonwealths are socialists.
The U.S.A is socialist.
Most of Europe is socialist.

Can you name any country that honors private property rights of the
individual, and will not confiscate it "for the good of the people"?

.

Loading