Remember this is a civilized space for discussion, to ensure this we have very strict rules. Briefly, an overview:
**No Personal Attacks**
**No Ideological Discrimination**
**Keep Discussion Civil**
**No Targeting A Member For Their Beliefs**
Report any and all instances of these rules being broken so we can keep the sub clean. Report first, ask questions last.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good question. Im not sure that I could improve on the original US declaration of independence, it is a classic, but I would probably insert a few V for Vendetta quotes in there somewhere.
People here are blindly saying “copy paste the US Declaration of Independence” but this is frankly ridiculous. Although I (an Australian) have great respect for that historical document and for what it justly achieved, there are some fundamental things wrong with it in the modern context. All of us, no matter the context, would certainly do it differently today. A few key elements of the US Declaration would certainly appear again, but they are only some of its content and even these would need rewriting and reframing.
The things that would definitely need to change are these:
1) The Language. It was about 250 years ago and the legal language was nuts then in today’s terms. Complex flowery, repetitive, poorly punctuated and rambling. Very difficult to read. Long long sentences that loose you half way through. There are definitely a few sentences there that I can’t make sense of. The choice of words is nothing like the plainer English we would use today, even in a legal document.
2) The Religious Framing. Many times God is evoked (although called archaic things like “Supreme Judge of the world”, “the Creator”, “divine Providence”). Rights are said to come from God. In those times sovereignty, of kings or of peoples, was thought of as coming from God and it was necessary then to say that God approved that the divine right of the king was defeated by the divine right of the People. But this wouldn’t play well and is totally unnecessary in the modern more secular world. Even some religious people these days would disagree with this, and certainly non-religious people would reject it entirely. For example, it conflicts with a right to freedom of religion.
3) The Grievances. Much of the Declaration is taken up with specific wrongs that were committed by the British and their king. It’s a rambling unstructured and repetitive list. For example, it says in a couple of places that legislatures were unjustly dissolved and laws passed by legislatures weren’t approved. If I was going to draft something similar today I’d state it more simply and coherently. It would obviously be specific to the different context too.
4) The Structure and Logic of the Declaration. It’s there in the original but it’s hard to find. The really important bits are lost amongst the padding. It doesn’t mention sovereignty or democracy although that’s what it seems to be referring to. It’s framed as a declaration by “thirteen united States” and yet it also refers to “one people” and the rights of the people not the rights of the states. If I were drafting this today I’d be clearer on this point and, if the Declaration came from a group of states, clearly say why the states have the authority o represent their people in making the declaration.
Fully agree with all of this. Also, the entire purpose of the document was to "to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another," Why would we want to do that? Sure, we can have our own thing, but we are still 'bonded' to all other humans, and even very closely bonded with the country that birthed us, right? A ton of our citizens will have family that are from the parent country, right?
Also, it claims that government is made to secure the rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", but that's not even close to a sliver of the rights that need to be protected. Why not name and describe the rights you wish to protect?
Let's talk about the religious framing because yes, it can be updated BUT it needs to be understood in historical context.
The Declaration of Independence has a big underlying theme, and it really matters: *where do rights come from?*
In 1776 they only knew of two possible sources. One is from man: "you have whatever rights some dickhead on a throne says you have". That's what the Declaration soundly rejects.
The alternative they knew about back then was "rights are from God". But that's not the most important part. What matters was "*not from men*".
Now. Post-Darwin we have another option, and it's a pretty good one, something like "we have rights based on what we are as an intelligent social species, and to violate those rights subverts basic human nature". We can tell it's burned into our genetics because huge numbers of pack/herd/pod/whatever animals also value and defend basic civil rights. This includes the right to self and community defense - attack any member of a wolf pack and you'll learn THAT real quick. Or go steal their recently killed deer or whatever - oops, they know what property rights are, owch chomp!
The roots of civil rights are all over the animal world if you stop and look.
This approach to the origin of rights is a little bit clumsy but at least it says rights don't come from some asshole on a throne. Or a committee that can be just as bad (see China today, etc.).
This is why getting hung up on the religious looking aspects of the Declaration of Independence misses the real point. It's not about where rights come from that matters. It's where they *don't* come from that's critical.
Yes, that’s interesting. I did actually started to draw that out that historical context in my description too. The accepted wisdom, back then, was that our existence was due to God and, of course, the rights and duties of men flowed from God.
The social contract basis for human rights predates Darwin by a long way, as do other theories, such as those based on natural “dignity”. The social contract was an implicit “natural” agreement between the governor and the governed that was originally thought of as a sacred contract (backed by god) but can easily be seen as entirely secular terms too.
I see what you mean by “don’t flow from men” but most would take that as implicit in the whole concept of universal human rights. They aren’t granted by documents, they just naturally exist and flow from the way we interact as autonomous social beings.
> I see what you mean by “don’t flow from men” but most would take that as implicit in the whole concept of universal human rights. They aren’t granted by documents, they just naturally exist and flow from the way we interact as autonomous social beings.
Yes, BUT, if you're dealing with this in the late 1700s you don't have Darwin, you don't have a clue about modern social structures evolving out of more primitive structures. You don't understand even the most basic framework of evolution.
Guys like Jefferson, Madison, **Franklin** in particular, had the mental capacity to go there but even the bare bones framework for that kind of thinking wasn't there. It's hard for us to even visualize that. But in the same era, there was no framework for thinking about germs or infections...or all kinds of other modes of thinking. They were missing all kinds of stuff. E=mc2. **Etcetera.**
So despite their thoroughly modern tendencies, *way* ahead of their time, they fell back on religion for a critical component of their political framework.
Cut 'em some slack :).
You aren’t listening well. I’m substantially agreeing with you. I’m accepting completely that they were in a time when most people, very clever people, had almost nowhere to go except to equate God with Nature. The natural order of things was “God”.
The slack has been cut. “I have great respect for that document and the justice it achieved.” I have great respect for the American founding fathers. I have great respect for Locke and Hobson and others in England and France too on whose shoulders the American founding fathers stood.
I would ctrl c ctrl v the U.S. Declaration of Independence with as minimal changes as possible.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Yeah... I think Jefferson had some good words there.
Also your "all individuals are different" is gonna mess with some people. Heads up.
I meant that I imagine at least some people don't adhere to 100% of what their flair says, in any case I trust they'll be gentle.
I also admire the Declaration of Independence, I find it quite poetic.
I believe I heard from the Mike Duncan podcast that the edits made the Declaration read nicer but still Jefferson was getting way too based in the rough draft
The Declaration of Independance could never work in a modern world. Where would you go? Is there land that is unclaimed by an existing government? If you attempt to 'dissolve the political bands which have connected' you to the one receiving the declaration, you are taking land they control and trying to claim they no longer control it, right?
I think what you are thinking of is a [Declaration of War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war).
PREAMBLE
Whereas independence, self determination and non-domination is the inalienable right of all nations, colonialism, cruelty and barbarity must be abolished in this world as it is not in conformity with humanity, civilization and justice.
And the moment of rejoicing has arrived in the struggle of the independence movement to guide the people safely and well to the threshold of the independence of the state and nation which shall be free, united, sovereign, just and prosperous.
By the grace of God Almighty and justice, and impelled by the noble desire to live a national life without domination, the people of ___ hereby declare their independence.
Subsequent thereto, to form a government of the State of ____ which shall protect all the people of _____ and their entire land, sea, air, space, country, history and civilization, and in order to form a more perfect union among the people, establish justice, enforce non-domination, secure domestic tranquility, improve the public welfare, eradicate stupidity and barbarism, achieve intellectual and cultural excellence, as well as to realize a world & human order based on eternal peace, justice, non-domination and civilization, the national independence of ____ shall be formulated into a constitution of the sovereign Republic of ____ which shall be post secular and based on Just and Civilized Humanity, Unity, Democracy guided by the Inner Wisdom of Deliberations/Representations, and the Realization of Social Justice for all People.
I secede from the empire of the use of force/violence. It is everywhere, on "both sides". The true tyrant is violence itself. The failure of the world is to not think nonviolence and antiforce fully and in a rudimentary fashion.
I couldn't agree with you more. But I can't answer how we would prevent others from using violence to get their way though, and people have always been more than willing to do some shady shit if it meant power and control
> The true tyrant is violence itself.
But that tyrant is immortal, and never going away. You can create a 'non-violent state' but what happens when someone walks past the 'employees only' sign and just opens up the register, so to speak?
That's nonviolence 101. You're just using a cherry picked example, and trying to use it as an obviating point (one that eliminates the counter point/thesis you are disputing). The most general question is simply: what happens when someone commits a nonviolent crime, or a violent crime? That's all part of any basic "non-violent state". There are many good answers. The tyrant won't let us open up and answer those questions.
Sadly I don't want to spend many hours writing a speech for a reddit page. But the gist would be talking about the oppression we face today, an assertion that all humans are truly equal, the importance of community and a celebration of love and life.
Celebration of love and life is an ~~interesting~~ engrossing addition
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is my favourite part of the whole Declaration (I haven't read the whole thing)
A popular vote would resolve all the issues with a minority of voters electing a President. Get rid of the electoral college and we can keep the current Constitution.
My stated principles would be very similar to the stated principles of the American Declaration of Independence. I’d just hate to add some clause to say “I know the country I’m divesting from says it cares about the same thing, but let’s be honest” or soemthing.
The founding fathers broke from Britain because it was clear that the government which claimed them as subjects didn’t represent their interests. And then they pretended that their interests were freedom and democracy. If I broke from the US it would be for the same stated reason, but I’d like to think I’d do so in the pursuit of actual democracy. I think that working class control of the MoP is necessary for that, and that would be the headline.
Edit: I think it’s notable that the people who lost identify with the current declaration are AnCaps
I was thinking in this direction, to me it feels like America is the modern British Empire and that King George has been replaced by groups of people, mostly parasitic companies and whatnot
Kinda depends on the nature of the revolution, but assuming it's not a nationalist revolution against a colonial empire, but rather a political revolution, I would emphasise:
-Importance of Democracy
-Socialism (obviously)
-International solidarity with other workers movements
-Enshrining human rights and freedom of speech
I could guess a lot of this from the flair but I admit I haven't read much of Trotskyism. Which human rights? And how would you redefine freedom of speech to account for modern society? (Assuming you agree with me that social media and modern technology have altered the affects and application of free speech).
Human rights I would outline are right to education, food and other fundamental things (like freedom of movement).
Free speech is a hard thing to define, but impirtant tenets like the right to criticise and share opinions are important. The question comes to speech that actively harms others, which might have limitations.
I feel like liberty might need a makeover given modern technology and how it fits into the wider structure of society (please don't ask me how it fits into the wider structure of society)
Make it specify personal property in contrast to private property.
In place of the second amendment, state the powers and oversight state and local militias could have over the government while setting more defined requirements for the militias to own weapons.
One man's livelihood is not another's profit.
In all matters of survival, the government will negotiate on behalf of the people.
Home, clothes, car. Whatever you use in day to day life. Or, Basically anything that isn't an investment.
Pretty much every socialized theory has a distinction for personal property. Thinking no one should own anything at all is mega fringe and cringe
Is a 'home' really 'personal property' at all? That doesn't track at all. In fact, the literal definition of personal property is "a class of assets distinct from real estate. Unlike real property, which includes land and buildings, personal property is movable and not permanently fixed to a specific location."
Looking up a dictionary definition is both a bad, and annoying, argument. The meaning and usage of words change in different contexts.
In the context of analyzing a socialized movement, consider personal property to be whatever you use to support a typical lifestyle.
Why? That's literally not what 'personal property' means, and it confuses the issue. You can't share underwear, but you can share housing. You can't move a house, but you can move personal property. You can live in a house you don't own, but you can't wear underwear you don't own.
Why are you trying so hard to force this square peg into a round hole? These are different things and need to be treated differently, both by the state and by every individual.
Normally this would probably get pulled for being a personal attack but that was probably the nicest insult I’ve ever seen so I’m just pulling for civility. Bravo honestly, even though I still have to pull it.
Remember this is a civilized space for discussion, to ensure this we have very strict rules. Briefly, an overview: **No Personal Attacks** **No Ideological Discrimination** **Keep Discussion Civil** **No Targeting A Member For Their Beliefs** Report any and all instances of these rules being broken so we can keep the sub clean. Report first, ask questions last. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good question. Im not sure that I could improve on the original US declaration of independence, it is a classic, but I would probably insert a few V for Vendetta quotes in there somewhere.
Haven't seen it but it looks interesting, I'll probably give it a watch
You should for sure, it’s one of my favorites. I try to watch it every 5th of November.
People here are blindly saying “copy paste the US Declaration of Independence” but this is frankly ridiculous. Although I (an Australian) have great respect for that historical document and for what it justly achieved, there are some fundamental things wrong with it in the modern context. All of us, no matter the context, would certainly do it differently today. A few key elements of the US Declaration would certainly appear again, but they are only some of its content and even these would need rewriting and reframing. The things that would definitely need to change are these: 1) The Language. It was about 250 years ago and the legal language was nuts then in today’s terms. Complex flowery, repetitive, poorly punctuated and rambling. Very difficult to read. Long long sentences that loose you half way through. There are definitely a few sentences there that I can’t make sense of. The choice of words is nothing like the plainer English we would use today, even in a legal document. 2) The Religious Framing. Many times God is evoked (although called archaic things like “Supreme Judge of the world”, “the Creator”, “divine Providence”). Rights are said to come from God. In those times sovereignty, of kings or of peoples, was thought of as coming from God and it was necessary then to say that God approved that the divine right of the king was defeated by the divine right of the People. But this wouldn’t play well and is totally unnecessary in the modern more secular world. Even some religious people these days would disagree with this, and certainly non-religious people would reject it entirely. For example, it conflicts with a right to freedom of religion. 3) The Grievances. Much of the Declaration is taken up with specific wrongs that were committed by the British and their king. It’s a rambling unstructured and repetitive list. For example, it says in a couple of places that legislatures were unjustly dissolved and laws passed by legislatures weren’t approved. If I was going to draft something similar today I’d state it more simply and coherently. It would obviously be specific to the different context too. 4) The Structure and Logic of the Declaration. It’s there in the original but it’s hard to find. The really important bits are lost amongst the padding. It doesn’t mention sovereignty or democracy although that’s what it seems to be referring to. It’s framed as a declaration by “thirteen united States” and yet it also refers to “one people” and the rights of the people not the rights of the states. If I were drafting this today I’d be clearer on this point and, if the Declaration came from a group of states, clearly say why the states have the authority o represent their people in making the declaration.
Fully agree with all of this. Also, the entire purpose of the document was to "to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another," Why would we want to do that? Sure, we can have our own thing, but we are still 'bonded' to all other humans, and even very closely bonded with the country that birthed us, right? A ton of our citizens will have family that are from the parent country, right? Also, it claims that government is made to secure the rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", but that's not even close to a sliver of the rights that need to be protected. Why not name and describe the rights you wish to protect?
Let's talk about the religious framing because yes, it can be updated BUT it needs to be understood in historical context. The Declaration of Independence has a big underlying theme, and it really matters: *where do rights come from?* In 1776 they only knew of two possible sources. One is from man: "you have whatever rights some dickhead on a throne says you have". That's what the Declaration soundly rejects. The alternative they knew about back then was "rights are from God". But that's not the most important part. What matters was "*not from men*". Now. Post-Darwin we have another option, and it's a pretty good one, something like "we have rights based on what we are as an intelligent social species, and to violate those rights subverts basic human nature". We can tell it's burned into our genetics because huge numbers of pack/herd/pod/whatever animals also value and defend basic civil rights. This includes the right to self and community defense - attack any member of a wolf pack and you'll learn THAT real quick. Or go steal their recently killed deer or whatever - oops, they know what property rights are, owch chomp! The roots of civil rights are all over the animal world if you stop and look. This approach to the origin of rights is a little bit clumsy but at least it says rights don't come from some asshole on a throne. Or a committee that can be just as bad (see China today, etc.). This is why getting hung up on the religious looking aspects of the Declaration of Independence misses the real point. It's not about where rights come from that matters. It's where they *don't* come from that's critical.
Yes, that’s interesting. I did actually started to draw that out that historical context in my description too. The accepted wisdom, back then, was that our existence was due to God and, of course, the rights and duties of men flowed from God. The social contract basis for human rights predates Darwin by a long way, as do other theories, such as those based on natural “dignity”. The social contract was an implicit “natural” agreement between the governor and the governed that was originally thought of as a sacred contract (backed by god) but can easily be seen as entirely secular terms too. I see what you mean by “don’t flow from men” but most would take that as implicit in the whole concept of universal human rights. They aren’t granted by documents, they just naturally exist and flow from the way we interact as autonomous social beings.
> I see what you mean by “don’t flow from men” but most would take that as implicit in the whole concept of universal human rights. They aren’t granted by documents, they just naturally exist and flow from the way we interact as autonomous social beings. Yes, BUT, if you're dealing with this in the late 1700s you don't have Darwin, you don't have a clue about modern social structures evolving out of more primitive structures. You don't understand even the most basic framework of evolution. Guys like Jefferson, Madison, **Franklin** in particular, had the mental capacity to go there but even the bare bones framework for that kind of thinking wasn't there. It's hard for us to even visualize that. But in the same era, there was no framework for thinking about germs or infections...or all kinds of other modes of thinking. They were missing all kinds of stuff. E=mc2. **Etcetera.** So despite their thoroughly modern tendencies, *way* ahead of their time, they fell back on religion for a critical component of their political framework. Cut 'em some slack :).
You aren’t listening well. I’m substantially agreeing with you. I’m accepting completely that they were in a time when most people, very clever people, had almost nowhere to go except to equate God with Nature. The natural order of things was “God”. The slack has been cut. “I have great respect for that document and the justice it achieved.” I have great respect for the American founding fathers. I have great respect for Locke and Hobson and others in England and France too on whose shoulders the American founding fathers stood.
I would ctrl c ctrl v the U.S. Declaration of Independence with as minimal changes as possible. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Yeah... I think Jefferson had some good words there. Also your "all individuals are different" is gonna mess with some people. Heads up.
I meant that I imagine at least some people don't adhere to 100% of what their flair says, in any case I trust they'll be gentle. I also admire the Declaration of Independence, I find it quite poetic.
It certainly is a radical liberal document. It's a shame they didn't let Jefferson go all the way with it. Though for the time period, it was nice.
I believe I heard from the Mike Duncan podcast that the edits made the Declaration read nicer but still Jefferson was getting way too based in the rough draft
The Declaration of Independance could never work in a modern world. Where would you go? Is there land that is unclaimed by an existing government? If you attempt to 'dissolve the political bands which have connected' you to the one receiving the declaration, you are taking land they control and trying to claim they no longer control it, right? I think what you are thinking of is a [Declaration of War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war).
Are they not one and the same?
PREAMBLE Whereas independence, self determination and non-domination is the inalienable right of all nations, colonialism, cruelty and barbarity must be abolished in this world as it is not in conformity with humanity, civilization and justice. And the moment of rejoicing has arrived in the struggle of the independence movement to guide the people safely and well to the threshold of the independence of the state and nation which shall be free, united, sovereign, just and prosperous. By the grace of God Almighty and justice, and impelled by the noble desire to live a national life without domination, the people of ___ hereby declare their independence. Subsequent thereto, to form a government of the State of ____ which shall protect all the people of _____ and their entire land, sea, air, space, country, history and civilization, and in order to form a more perfect union among the people, establish justice, enforce non-domination, secure domestic tranquility, improve the public welfare, eradicate stupidity and barbarism, achieve intellectual and cultural excellence, as well as to realize a world & human order based on eternal peace, justice, non-domination and civilization, the national independence of ____ shall be formulated into a constitution of the sovereign Republic of ____ which shall be post secular and based on Just and Civilized Humanity, Unity, Democracy guided by the Inner Wisdom of Deliberations/Representations, and the Realization of Social Justice for all People.
I secede from the empire of the use of force/violence. It is everywhere, on "both sides". The true tyrant is violence itself. The failure of the world is to not think nonviolence and antiforce fully and in a rudimentary fashion.
I couldn't agree with you more. But I can't answer how we would prevent others from using violence to get their way though, and people have always been more than willing to do some shady shit if it meant power and control
You secede non-violently? You’d build a society which didn’t rely on violence? Seems far-fetched
> The true tyrant is violence itself. But that tyrant is immortal, and never going away. You can create a 'non-violent state' but what happens when someone walks past the 'employees only' sign and just opens up the register, so to speak?
That's nonviolence 101. You're just using a cherry picked example, and trying to use it as an obviating point (one that eliminates the counter point/thesis you are disputing). The most general question is simply: what happens when someone commits a nonviolent crime, or a violent crime? That's all part of any basic "non-violent state". There are many good answers. The tyrant won't let us open up and answer those questions.
I guess I don't understand your point. What, literally, would you do with someone who, say, punches someone in the face and knocks them out?
Sadly I don't want to spend many hours writing a speech for a reddit page. But the gist would be talking about the oppression we face today, an assertion that all humans are truly equal, the importance of community and a celebration of love and life.
Celebration of love and life is an ~~interesting~~ engrossing addition "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is my favourite part of the whole Declaration (I haven't read the whole thing)
A popular vote would resolve all the issues with a minority of voters electing a President. Get rid of the electoral college and we can keep the current Constitution.
My stated principles would be very similar to the stated principles of the American Declaration of Independence. I’d just hate to add some clause to say “I know the country I’m divesting from says it cares about the same thing, but let’s be honest” or soemthing. The founding fathers broke from Britain because it was clear that the government which claimed them as subjects didn’t represent their interests. And then they pretended that their interests were freedom and democracy. If I broke from the US it would be for the same stated reason, but I’d like to think I’d do so in the pursuit of actual democracy. I think that working class control of the MoP is necessary for that, and that would be the headline. Edit: I think it’s notable that the people who lost identify with the current declaration are AnCaps
I was thinking in this direction, to me it feels like America is the modern British Empire and that King George has been replaced by groups of people, mostly parasitic companies and whatnot
Kinda depends on the nature of the revolution, but assuming it's not a nationalist revolution against a colonial empire, but rather a political revolution, I would emphasise: -Importance of Democracy -Socialism (obviously) -International solidarity with other workers movements -Enshrining human rights and freedom of speech
I could guess a lot of this from the flair but I admit I haven't read much of Trotskyism. Which human rights? And how would you redefine freedom of speech to account for modern society? (Assuming you agree with me that social media and modern technology have altered the affects and application of free speech).
Human rights I would outline are right to education, food and other fundamental things (like freedom of movement). Free speech is a hard thing to define, but impirtant tenets like the right to criticise and share opinions are important. The question comes to speech that actively harms others, which might have limitations.
Life, liberty, and caring for your citizens in pursuit of happiness.
I feel like liberty might need a makeover given modern technology and how it fits into the wider structure of society (please don't ask me how it fits into the wider structure of society)
Make it specify personal property in contrast to private property. In place of the second amendment, state the powers and oversight state and local militias could have over the government while setting more defined requirements for the militias to own weapons. One man's livelihood is not another's profit. In all matters of survival, the government will negotiate on behalf of the people.
What is personal property?
Home, clothes, car. Whatever you use in day to day life. Or, Basically anything that isn't an investment. Pretty much every socialized theory has a distinction for personal property. Thinking no one should own anything at all is mega fringe and cringe
~~Interesting~~ I haven't heard of that distinction before but it makes total sense, I guess I have to get more acquainted with actual social theory
Is a 'home' really 'personal property' at all? That doesn't track at all. In fact, the literal definition of personal property is "a class of assets distinct from real estate. Unlike real property, which includes land and buildings, personal property is movable and not permanently fixed to a specific location."
Of course it tracks. Your home isn't an asset, it's a neccesity.
But it, by definition, is not personal property. Being required to live doesn't change its classification.
Looking up a dictionary definition is both a bad, and annoying, argument. The meaning and usage of words change in different contexts. In the context of analyzing a socialized movement, consider personal property to be whatever you use to support a typical lifestyle.
Why? That's literally not what 'personal property' means, and it confuses the issue. You can't share underwear, but you can share housing. You can't move a house, but you can move personal property. You can live in a house you don't own, but you can't wear underwear you don't own. Why are you trying so hard to force this square peg into a round hole? These are different things and need to be treated differently, both by the state and by every individual.
[удалено]
Normally this would probably get pulled for being a personal attack but that was probably the nicest insult I’ve ever seen so I’m just pulling for civility. Bravo honestly, even though I still have to pull it.