General Discussion

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)

18. Nope not at all in jest...........

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 01:29 PM

Jan 2012

Don't mistake personal property (your pensions, your house, your car, your iPod) for "private" property. Unless you don't think that the people should benefit from closed buildings and even manufactories that they've invested in with those tax subsidies.

Do you think that the 1% should get all those perks from the people who were investing in their community and "jobs" and then just close it down when it's no longer "profitable" enough? And then SELL it off at a profit without having to pay back the people?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

RE: Occupying abandoned "private" property.......... [View all] socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 OP

Ah, a new tactic. randome Jan 2012 #1

Use unjust, unfair laws to justify an insistence on fair and just laws. aquart Jan 2012 #3

I doubt that you or anyone with OWS can explain what laws they were trying to right. randome Jan 2012 #4

See, OWS ain't the ones that gotta be specific, Procrustes. aquart Jan 2012 #6

If they are never specific, then they will never accomplish anything. randome Jan 2012 #8

Well, I would go even farther than the Occupiers do in this case socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 #13

Sounds good to me. randome Jan 2012 #23

Actually a LOT of Occupy Oakland......... socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 #25

How would you handle increased salary demands? michreject Jan 2012 #31

I would leave it up to the workers............ socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 #36

Nice evasive answer. michreject Jan 2012 #39

You're wrong. They do quite well. Capitalocracy Jan 2012 #40

Guy on the top doesn't take all of the profits michreject Jan 2012 #42

The guy on the top doesn't take all the profits... Capitalocracy Jan 2012 #43

Agree that the CEO is getting a healthy salary michreject Jan 2012 #45

There are numerous international examples of occupied workplaces providing a good living Capitalocracy Jan 2012 #50

This message was self-deleted by its author Capitalocracy Jan 2012 #49

So what about permits? kctim Jan 2012 #44

that is authoritarian tiny elvis Jan 2012 #58

That is reality kctim Jan 2012 #61

That is also true of many of the residential buildings in this country - built with housing loans jwirr Jan 2012 #2

Yep. Occupy them too........ socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 #9

That also applies to your house. So it's okay to come and take that away from you? nt TheWraith Jan 2012 #5

That's PERSONAL property as opposed to "private" property socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 #10

No, your house is also PRIVATE PROPERTY. TheWraith Jan 2012 #16

Um....WHAAAAAAAAT? Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #19

Marx came up with that rule 160 years ago........ socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 #22

My property is personal, yours is private. Recovered Repug Jan 2012 #46

Now THAT'S funny. n/t cherokeeprogressive Jan 2012 #32

Your house is "real property" if it is on a foundation. ScreamingMeemie Jan 2012 #60

For people for whom "property rights" are sacrosanct, personal and private mean the same thing. MNBrewer Jan 2012 #17

The city of Oakland owns the building Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #7

From what I read the Occupiers are looking to use........ socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 #11

I can't find the link, but I did read somewhere that Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #14

Well, don't you think there's a difference between socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 #24

To be honest, at this level of irresponsibility, no Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #34

I read back over this sub thread and the only question socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 #38

Okay, if that's your position Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #59

This message was self-deleted by its author Obamanaut Jan 2012 #12

Nope not at all in jest........... socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 #18

Please elaborate guardian Jan 2012 #47

No, you just owe us a return on our investment. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #21

This message was self-deleted by its author Obamanaut Jan 2012 #26

Great - let the occupiers then pay taxes on their property. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #15

I would imagine that that could be covered...... socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 #20

You seem to imagine a lot of things. oneshooter Jan 2012 #28

Why do you think that taxes would be a problem? socialist_n_TN Jan 2012 #29

Any building with a toilet now belongs to the people? dems_rightnow Jan 2012 #27

k&r Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #30

The anti-Occupy BS in this thread is DISGUSTING!!! Odin2005 Jan 2012 #33

Can I still be a Scotsman? nt hack89 Jan 2012 #35

Yeah the DLC types are out in force in this thread. white_wolf Jan 2012 #48

Exactly AngryAmish Jan 2012 #37

I'm willing to bet she wouldn't endorse property siezure...even for a progressive cause. brooklynite Jan 2012 #51

K&R (nt) T S Justly Jan 2012 #41

So can any body seize public property or just groups we agree with? EX500rider Jan 2012 #52

Yes. randome Jan 2012 #54

People pooh-poohing Occupy Oakland's tactics should also be condemning Rosa Parks... backscatter712 Jan 2012 #53

OWS is not equivalent to civil rights. randome Jan 2012 #55

So what constitutes "abandoned"? badtoworse Jan 2012 #56

Floating in Oakland's Lake Merrit Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #57

Some confusion of terms here Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #62