Well, let me put it like this: If Bernie threatened to steal my property, I'd shoot anyone who came to collect.
> But if what I said in the last post is all there is to it
The problem is, the precedent is set, the value has been shot, and the right to the ownership of property is now thrown in the bin.
So, suddenly, what's the justification for the government not taking my, say, large but lived in house, because another tower or some small city had a disaster?
Why wouldn't the government seize that property? The whole house isn't being used. The people need a home. The standard's been set, so the collective is above the individual when it comes down to rights. So, what moral reason do they have not to seize your property?
>Sounds sorta like the slippery slope argument tbh
Problem is, what people commonly assume to be a "slippery slope" fallacy, isn't. Connecting two items that do not follow, have no connecting principles or issues, or generally any significant relation, is indeed a shit argument.
Connecting a consistent action using the same argument as the initial item, however, is a perfectly reasonable case to make. I can say, for example, "If we let the government regulate speech, they will regulate speech", right? The reason being they're the same items. That's not a slippery slope, obviously. What I am doing here is simply saying; "If we allow the government to seize property in the name of the greater good, the government will seize property in the name of the greater good".
Near as I can tell, there's no reason for the government not to use the same argument as the initial case to justify the seizure of other property. In fact, this seems to set the moral precedent for them to do so. The individual's property right now comes below the collective good.
I have yet to see any good ideas come from collectivists, let alone socialists.
Corbyn seems to be advocating for the removal of western values of individualism, in favour of a failed collectivistic ideal that has resulted in numerous failures, many of which turned out to be quite murderous.
Near as I can tell, it's the same situation. Because, it isn't just Corbyn you are giving the power to. It's the entire government. It's the next people who get power. Corbyn is just stage one. You've got a precedent set, and a value system turned on its head.
Besides that, if you can't trust a politician, why the ever living fuck would you suggest it is a good idea to let them override your basic human rights?
Why would you ever give them that power?
You're now telling me, rather than simply prevent untrustworthy people from violating your rights, we should trust untrustworthy people with said rights, because evidently it's a "risk you take in general".