|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 19, 2023 21:24:54 GMT
The UK has had property rights going back to Magna Carta - No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled; nor will we proceed with force against him, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
So what? There are no constitutional limitations on how Parliament may deal with anyone's property. Property does not have the same legal protections as it has in other European countries. Parliament can take every bit of property you own away from you if it chooses to do so. This is not true of other European countries. Any Government can change the Law to confiscate private property - several European countries (especially the ones you highlighted) have done just that within the past 100 years. So what is your point? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on May 19, 2023 21:41:29 GMT
There are no constitutional limitations on how Parliament may deal with anyone's property. Property does not have the same legal protections as it has in other European countries. Parliament can take every bit of property you own away from you if it chooses to do so. This is not true of other European countries. Unmitigated horseshit, Whoiney. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 19, 2023 22:25:57 GMT
There are no constitutional limitations on how Parliament may deal with anyone's property. Property does not have the same legal protections as it has in other European countries. Parliament can take every bit of property you own away from you if it chooses to do so. This is not true of other European countries. Unmitigated horseshit, Whoiney. And you would know, of course, Squeaky. Being a constitutional law expert, you will no doubt have discovered some work-around for the rule that Parliament is sovereign. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 19, 2023 22:27:18 GMT
So what? There are no constitutional limitations on how Parliament may deal with anyone's property. Property does not have the same legal protections as it has in other European countries. Parliament can take every bit of property you own away from you if it chooses to do so. This is not true of other European countries. Any Government can change the Law to confiscate private property - several European countries (especially the ones you highlighted) have done just that within the past 100 years. So what is your point? Within constitutional limits, subject to checks and balances. Whereas, Parliament is sovereign in the UK. It can make any law it chooses. And just to underline the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, the German constitution hasn't been around for 100 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 19, 2023 22:42:32 GMT
This is the most amusing of your points. You are admitting that the franchise was enlarged as a result of class struggle, not capitalist market forces. Good man. Marx can rest in peace, now. The franchise was enlarged through the self interest of the aristocracy - feel free to see that as a victory of the class struggle. I dont think the French would agree with you..  LOL! So, the franchise was enlarged by capitalist market forces? I don't really understand what you're saying in the above. The only interpretation I can give it is so ridiculous it almost seems unfair to assume you intended it. Then again ... |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on May 20, 2023 0:32:08 GMT
Unmitigated horseshit, Whoiney. And you would know, of course, Squeaky. Being a constitutional law expert, you will no doubt have discovered some work-around for the rule that Parliament is sovereign. LOL! Honestly Whoiney, do they actually pay you to lecture in this shit? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 20, 2023 6:37:06 GMT
Any Government can change the Law to confiscate private property - several European countries (especially the ones you highlighted) have done just that within the past 100 years. So what is your point? Within constitutional limits, subject to checks and balances. Whereas, Parliament is sovereign in the UK. It can make any law it chooses. And just to underline the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, the German constitution hasn't been around for 100 years. Germany had plenty of Laws against the confiscation of private property - until they didn't. That this needs explaining to you is pretty funny really. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 20, 2023 6:38:49 GMT
The franchise was enlarged through the self interest of the aristocracy - feel free to see that as a victory of the class struggle. I dont think the French would agree with you.. LOL! So, the franchise was enlarged by capitalist market forces? I don't really understand what you're saying in the above. The only interpretation I can give it is so ridiculous it almost seems unfair to assume you intended it. Then again ... The franchise was enlarged by people in power looking out for themselves - all good socialists apparently..  |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 20, 2023 8:50:03 GMT
And you would know, of course, Squeaky. Being a constitutional law expert, you will no doubt have discovered some work-around for the rule that Parliament is sovereign. LOL! Honestly Whoiney, do they actually pay you to lecture in this shit? Me: Parliament is sovereign. You: Unmitigated horseshit! Me: No, Parliament is sovereign. You: Do they pay you to teach this shit? You'll note that nowhere in the above exchange do you actually demonstrate that Parliament isn't sovereign, Squeaky. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 20, 2023 8:56:42 GMT
LOL! So, the franchise was enlarged by capitalist market forces? I don't really understand what you're saying in the above. The only interpretation I can give it is so ridiculous it almost seems unfair to assume you intended it. Then again ... The franchise was enlarged by people in power looking out for themselves - all good socialists apparently.. Yes, they were looking out for themselves. That's the point: they needed to look out for themselves. The question is: why? The answer is: there existed an opposing social force that would have taken action if they had not compromised. It's called class conflict, Doc. Democracy was created by class conflict, not capitalist market forces. Capitalism had existed in the UK for approximately 150 years before the average man acquired democratic rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 20, 2023 10:40:16 GMT
Darlene is saying that capitalism has to have a rigid definition because he says so but Socialism can be defined across whatever spectrum he chooses because he says so.
I can see a fault in that argument .😁
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 20, 2023 10:41:23 GMT
Darlene is saying that capitalism has to have a rigid definition because he says so but Socialism can be defined across whatever spectrum he chooses because he says so. I can see a fault in that argument .😁 You may have mentioned that, Needy. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 20, 2023 10:51:58 GMT
The franchise was enlarged by people in power looking out for themselves - all good socialists apparently.. Yes, they were looking out for themselves. That's the point: they needed to look out for themselves. The question is: why? The answer is: there existed an opposing social force that would have taken action if they had not compromised. It's called class conflict, Doc. Democracy was created by class conflict, not capitalist market forces. Capitalism had existed in the UK for approximately 150 years before the average man acquired democratic rights. Loss of property and power is the definition of market forces. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 20, 2023 10:53:10 GMT
Yes, they were looking out for themselves. That's the point: they needed to look out for themselves. The question is: why? The answer is: there existed an opposing social force that would have taken action if they had not compromised. It's called class conflict, Doc. Democracy was created by class conflict, not capitalist market forces. Capitalism had existed in the UK for approximately 150 years before the average man acquired democratic rights. Loss of property and power is the definition of market forces. If you say so, Doc. The rest of us think it is the profit motive. But have it your way. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 20, 2023 10:56:56 GMT
Darlene is saying that capitalism has to have a rigid definition because he says so but Socialism can be defined across whatever spectrum he chooses because he says so. I can see a fault in that argument .😁 You may have mentioned that, Needy. How would you know Darlene ? You told me that you didn’t read my posts.😁 |
|
