This is silly socialist sophistry. Words means things, and socialism specifically means gov't ownership of capital which necessitates authoritarian control of people's economic decisions, which inevitably degenerates into mass violence. Rothbard explains:https://mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited …
-
-
Replying to @saifedean @La__Cuen
source for your definition? this is all im seeingpic.twitter.com/EFvPm0doHL
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
"Community as a whole" is typical despicable socialist speak, so I highly recommend finding a non-retarded dictionary. The only coherent definition was made by Mises: gov't ownership of capital and the shuttering of the stock market. Read the above piece.
3 replies 1 retweet 52 likes -
The legal definition of ownership: whey a government owns something, they own it, not anybody else.
1 reply 4 retweets 39 likes -
Replying to @NickSzabo4 @saifedean and
In particular, governments usually have a very small number of particular officials who are legally authorized to make decisions regarding the disposal or use of government property their department controls, within usually wide constraints of abstract laws and executive orders.
2 replies 3 retweets 43 likes -
Replying to @NickSzabo4 @saifedean and
To call this being "controlled by the community" is a malicious double lie -- the electorate of a typical state does not form a community of people who talk to each other peer-to-peer, and the actual legal control is in the hands of only an extremely small number of officials.
5 replies 16 retweets 102 likes -
Replying to @Ragnarly @saifedean and
P.S. don't get me started on "social contract." Yet another political buzzword that turns out to be preposterously false and dangerously misleading when one studies the actual law (here of contracts, for this thread of property).
1 reply 2 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @Ragnarly @saifedean and
Yes all he had to do was study some actual contract law.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
P.S. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion. Constitutions are much more akin to treaties, which can be and almost always are agreed to under coercion, whereas coercion nullifies an actual contract. I generally consider treaties to be legit, just not as legit as contracts.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.