Rewriting U.S Bill of Rights

Communism is not a bureaucratic ideology. People wouldn't be forced into gray suits, and made listen to the same music, or work the same hours. But a private Island, or skyscraper is obviously too much, you would be able to own more than the person living next to you. But not to such dramatic levels that we see today.

OH BOY! A property debate!

/pass

Ah my Personal favorite.

Here you go again, losing any argumentative substance in vagueries. What separates an island or a skyscraper from a studio apartment? Neither are business assets. They both conform to your definition of 'personal property.'

You don't need some big ideological discussion to know that a Skyscraper, or a Private island are, and always will be out of the reach of well over 99.99% of the planets population. As I said, you would be able to own more than the person living next to you. But owning something which the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of humans will probably never step foot on is simply unfair. Again, Socialists don't believe in Bureaucracy - It is an ethical, and moral judgement.

Communists also don't believe in objective morality because they are atheists. Ethics is too subjective to be considered a real argument in this situation.

Aside what Mayor said, where do you draw the line? Who makes that distinction? Why is it made there?

And Marx did not advocate personal property. I assume you looked it up after you said it, which is why you edited it of your post. As I said, communism is fundamentally opposed to the concept of property. Ownership allows an owner to leverage what they have against others, creating inequality.

Not all communist are atheist.

No reason?

In the context of Marxism. Its kinda a prerequisite.

I don't believe I edited that out of my post. Let me check.
Edit: Did you edit my fucking post? Can a third party (Not kali, or mayor) check on this?

I didn't edit your post. You think I would remove the part of your argument that is on its face false?

@FeyBart
Well first off, a civil trial is not what you think it is. The 2nd Amendment does more than guarantee us the right to arms. And lastly, unitary governments suck, period.

EDIT: @Ler
And since it wasn't me, that means it was you, which means you KNOW it wasn't me and are still accusing me of it. Not that this is at all new for you.

So a mansion is not personal property? But an ordinary house is? LMFAO.

Well some are unfair, like in the 6th amendment ( I think ) There is a thing called 'Eminent Domain'

The goverment can take your house or any other private property and give you money for it BUT it has to be used for a better cause like public schools or a hospital but now they are doing it just to get more money. How?

If you have 1 big house with 4 people living it in they can destroy it but to build a Apartment or Condominum so they can get more money from taxes. Instead of charging 3-4 people on tax they now can tax 20+ people. Of course I do not have the best logic.

None. I might amend the Third to let soldiers quarter in your house at a time of war but even then it's kind of ehhhh.

I don't think that the founding fathers wanted that the constitution remains the same for centuries...
And according to 17th amendment of the constitution each state is represented by two senators in the senate... And each senator has one vote...
So a Californian senator (California has about 37 million inhabitants) has the same amount of votes as a senator from Wyoming (which has about a half million inhabitants)...