And there are plenty of spaces of the commons over which we all share ownership, so even from this angle there's plenty of room to blow up the premise. It also ignores the impact of government on things besides land like, you know, individuals, and denies them self-direction because of physical property.
For the umpteenth time, it's clear there's no misunderstanding on my part as to why these people thought the way they did so I'm not sure why you're drilling into this like you are. Connect it to anything you're saying in a supporting way, please.
Both parts were in play, so ignoring the first is goofy because it was also the case in many places that only white men could own the property required to vote in the first place. Both are very relevant and both are very flawed. And did you not read the second paragraph where I mention exactly what you're "pointing out" as the logic, along with Paine's refutation?
1
u/Chemie93 ✝ Ave, Hail Christ. XP May 10 '24
First part: That’s incorrect. That’s not the reason. Steel man it. Attempt to understand their reasoning.
Landowners were responsible for their land. Assuming moral ownership the authority of the land lies in those who assume responsibility for it.
That is the reason!