Results 1 to 20 of 22
Passing an "Abolition of private property" bill
I think this in the correct forum.
I'm in JSA (a very large student political/debate organization). Coming up soon we are having a conference in Washington DC to hold a mock congress.
The conference we had in Fall went very well for me. I won a number of debates and even won best speaker on the topic of class war.
Now, I want to pass the aboltion of private property through this mock congress. I'm in a group with 3 others and I'm supposed to take a lead on it because we have a back up bill for the ending of NAFTA if this one doesn't come out well.
I got to put a lot of work into this because they take these conferences really seriously and I think it would be the coolest thing to be the group who abolished private property.
So now I come to you comrades. What could legally shoot down a bill that would abolish private ownership of productive property? Constitution wise or Bill of Rights or anything.
I need to know what they are going to throw at me.
Freedom before Peace
The Fifth Amendment prohibits the abolition (or rather confiscation) of private property without just compensation.
In other words, if you want to pass this bill you need have the budget to buy all private property before abolishing it.
Luckily, progressive taxes are allowed since 100 years or so (I think) so you would need to raise taxes 100% for the owners of property, but only for them, in order to buy their property. It takes some legal gymnastics and a very persuasive tongue, but I suppose it can be done.
Further evidence that the consitution was actually written for the bourgiouse not for the productive classes for the 100th time.
This thread is a joke.
Well there wouldn't need to be any law against private property because private property is an artificial creation of the state, you just need to abolish the already existing laws which create and protect it.
States Rights: Congress only has the powers stated in the constitution as the result of the Tenth Amendment (Bill of Rights) and cannot exceed those rights constitutionally.
To extend those powers would require a Constitutional Amendment, rather than a Bill. Hence both the abolition of slavery (13th Amendment) and the introduction of federal income tax (16th Amendment) were constitutional amendments.
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_A...s_Constitution
Corporate Personhood: Corporations are recognised as persons and therefore have 'human rights' in the United States as a result of the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court. (a Neo-liberal or libertarian could theoretically therefore argue that state ownership may constitute slavery under the Thirteenth amendment. I believe this has done before, but I can't find where).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution
Thanks, we're still working on how to word/submit this.
To the 15th Amendment about "just compensation", if it was declared unlawful to privately own the means of production would this get around that? Example being, slaves were viewed as property but when slavery was declared unlawful the slave owners were not compensated for their loss of property.
Last edited by Leftsolidarity; 12th January 2012 at 23:44.
Freedom before Peace
Yes, and how is that?
It's talking about how to pass this bill through a mock congress. I think we all acknowledge that this isn't liberating the proletariat or anything like that.
Freedom before Peace
Why do you want to pass this bill? Useless I say.
Prolier than thou!
I thought sending a 12 year old to prison for life only happened in religious extremist countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia or the United States? - MattShizzle
Hmm.... maybe you don't understand. This is a mock Congress. Everything passed in it is "useless". It is for the experience of debating and trying to do things like thing. I'd say if I got a few hundred youth to pass a bill to abolish private property, that'd be pretty fucking cool.
Freedom before Peace
Abolishing private property could be loosely seen as discrimination in the 14th amendment.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is specifically for states, but then again there is no basis to say that a nation can systematically take away private property.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 10th amendment also suggests a literalist interpretation of the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 9th amendment could be used to specifically defend property as a "right" given to the people.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
The fifth amendment is the most clear of all of them saying that without due process of law you can't deprive someone of private property.
Instead of staying on the defensive where you leave yourself vulnerable to attack, you should find places in the Constitution where it makes it unclear or perhaps even legal to take away private property.
“How in the hell could a man enjoy being awakened at 6:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so?” Charles Bukowski, Factotum
"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped." MLK
-fka Redbrother
[FONT=Calibri]This may be a joke.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]The legislative wing of any state can pass any “legal” measure it likes, but without the wherewithal (power) (armed bodies) to enforce that supposed “legality”, it is only a perspective. In this case a good perspective, but without the dictatorship of the working class, still only a perspective.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Are you primarily interested in ‘winning the debate’ for yourselves again, or opening up the debate for the perspective which, if argued fully and honestly, would pose the question of power for the now poor workers. In short, are you a trio of reformist trash or serious revolutionary agitators pulling a stroke on the system? [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]‘For the avoidance of doubt’, as lawyer say, I am in favour of using any and every forum, bus stop, café, bar, domestic kitchen, university, and workplace for revolutionary agitation. [FONT=Calibri]( Stand on any shit heap and shout ! ) [/FONT]I understand very well the necessity for tactical considerations and the limitations that revolutionaries are compelled to adapt to in our current environment. We are at present outnumbered and ‘out gunned’ on their territory, so both caution and integrity is essential for revolutionaries. It isn’t for reformists [FONT=Calibri]and opportunist rats. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Yes it would. Then follow up with general discussion, in a general way about how it might or might not be implemented.[/FONT]
I'm just trying to explain how the US system works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiO1C...endscreen&NR=1
Tha's how it works
Passing a law abolishing private property (which would presumably mean all property would belong to the state) without doing something (understatement) to radically democratize the state and make it accountable to the proletariat is a huge mistake, even in theory.
Question 2: What is the aim of the Communists?
Answer: To organize society in such a way that every member of it can develop and use all his capabilities and powers in complete freedom and without thereby infringing the basic conditions of this society.
"For the whole task of the Communists is to be able to convince the backward elements, to work among them, and not to fence themselves off from them by artificial and childishly "Left" slogans." -Lenin
Since just compensation is a very subjective concept, you could argue that since private property is a means for exploiting those less well off, just compensation would involve imprisonment of the worst offenders.
I don't know how far that would get you in a debate though.
If you want a more sneaky effective argument you could try and tack it through inheritance. Ask why does someone deserve more because of their parents wealth and go for the liberal vote on equality of oppertunity, and simply make the INHERITANCE of private property illegal. All property reverts to the state upon the death of the current owner, and the state doesn't give any of it away. It shouldn't take too long for everything to revert to the state at which point you can abolish the principle of private property. You would then have to tag on a bit that bans the trading or exchange of ownership of private property so that parents cant just give their kids all their stuff before they die.
"It is better to die on your feet, than to live on your knees"
I agree. If we do end up doing this bill. I'd make sure to have stuff mandated in it about worker's having a voice in the workplace.
Looking at some of the laws though I'm not sure if I should bother with this. What are ways I could get around these laws?
Freedom before Peace
Your main issue is that you are trying to use the american constitution, one of the archetypal documents in support of the position of the bourgeoisie, to try and pass what is basically a revolutionary leftist policy. I doubt it can be done, the whole ideolological basis of the american constitution is fundamentally opposed to the idea. but if you do do it then all I can say is respect, seriously we are not worthy.
I'd say its worth giving it a try, if only to provoke a discussion. Is it more important to win the debate or to draw peoples attention to alternatives to private property?
"It is better to die on your feet, than to live on your knees"
I'm not bothering trying to use those documents for my support; I'm trying to by-pass them.
The discussion part is most imporant to me personally but not to all my other group members. 1 of them does have a good bill written up against NAFTA which we would propose if this turns out poorly. I don't want to ruin his chance of getting something passed just for me to provoke a discussion.
Freedom before Peace
