AM I A PROPERTY PROTECTIONIST? 2/2

As a libertarian I support the free market. I'm also a student aspiring to be a property owner and the ideas of foreign investment preventing first time buyers getting onto the property ladder concerns me. The property-owning democracy has so many benefits and solves issues arising if the welfare state was abolished. Property according to Locke is a natural right; surely it is fundamental that we encourage property ownership, but would it follow as a consequence limiting foreign investment? By upholding, promoting and extending property rights, do we limit the free market?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• libertarianism
• property
• protectionism
• free
• markets
• housing
• market
• ladder
• natural
• rights
• welfare
• state

[dummyspitter]

sort that barnet out mate

[ConservativeKen]

If a "right" is so easily violated, what good is its "existence?"

How can you say that a normative concept exists at all? A normative concept is not "truth," so your paper analogy above is a faulty analogy fallacy.

[CONCEPTUALMAN]

one interesting thing to look at regarding this notion is the history of Cuba in pre revolution times .

i would agree that the foreign ownership should be curtailed so that the future generations have the opportunity to have part ownership in the means of wealth creation .

[CONCEPTUALMAN]

that is like saying that if a truth is written on a piece of paper and the piece of paper is destroyed then that truth was just a claim which is no longer true

when a right is violated , that does not cancel the existence of that right

[ConservativeKen]

You cannot prove that Natural Rights exist.

Your life can be taken, but never restored.

Your liberty can be taken, but the years are gone forever.

The Holocaust disproves Natural Rights. Can you restore 6 million lives and restore their original property? NO!

If "Natural Rights" can be taken so easily, and not restored as before, how are they in any sense "inalienable" or "self-evident?"

The term "Natural Rights" is metaphysical nonsense.

We have reciprocal DUTIES, but no "rights."

[NeonKnight88]

I never thought protectionism was a good idea but its not really an issue in the US.

[legendre007]

7th post.  YouTube told me that it has to restrict the number of posts I place on this video, so I e-mailed you the rest of my thoughts. Final verdict: Very intellectually stimulating! I can't wait for your next video. :-)

[legendre007]

6th post.  In its radicalized interpretation of natural rights, I think ISIL would say that the right to property just means that if you have it, it's wrong for someone to forcibly take it from you or ruin it against your consent. The price at which you could sell some commodity would have to be left up to unfettered supply & demand.

[legendre007]

6th post. If we go by ISIL's radicalized version of natural rights theory, then the right to property just means that if you have property, it's wrong for somebody to forcibly take it from you or physically ruin it against your consent. And the price of whatever commodity you choose to sell should be left up to supply & demand.

[legendre007]

5th post. And the now the price for real estate is much lower than it would be if this gov. intervention hadn't existed. These regulations exacerbate boom-and-bust cycles rather than smooth them out.