Tries to explain that the State already owns everything
So, on twitter, Matt Yglessias, a supposed journalist/pundit, had this to say about the President's "I believe in redistribution" remarks:
@mattyglesias - The concept of "redistribution" falsely implies that the existence of property is prior to the existence of the state. #mythofownership
Okay, so parsing this barely literate piece of crap, the best I can come up with is this: Matt Yglessias believes that complaints about redistribution are flawed because they take as a premise the idea that property (I'm going to be kind and suppose he means "private ownership of property"- Twitter is only 140 characters, after all) did not exist before government existed.
This passes for an explanation of SCOAMT's comment: that Redistribution is the natural state of things, since the State inherently owns all property.
Nice of them to admit that, I guess.
I know it won't get through Mr. Yglessias's plutonium-dense skull, but maybe I can reach a few people here, so I'll explain exactly why he's wrong.
Private property is one of the Natural Rights of Man. That is, if there were no government, I would still have the ability (and, therefore, the right) to amass for myself property of various kinds. I could make/purchase/steal a home. I could make/purchase/steal money. As long as I could hold it, I would have a right to it.
As friend-of-the-blog, and one-time AoSHQ Moronette (we miss you) Dagny once stated (this may be a paraphrase): "we enacted a government so we didn't have to spend all our time using our spear to protect our women and our meat, not so they could ban our spear, take our meat, and tell us how to take care of our women." That is, man invented government to take that "steal" portion of the "make/purchase/steal" option off the table. Man enacted government, giving away some of our freedom (the freedom to coerce others, mainly) in return for the security that anyone trying to coerce us would be punished. We did not enact government to take our stuff and give it to someone else. Or, as Matt Yglessias would have you believe, so that we could have stuff in the first place.
Indeed, what he says is the acme of neo-feudal thought. I can no longer call it Marxist, because they're no longer even pretending that Government is a "necessary evil;" they've come right out and admitted that they believe Government is morally superior to individuals. Which Marx did as well, but he hid it better.
It was the feudal mindset that said all property- all property- belonged to the crown, and was granted via fiefdoms and leases as temporary private property. The land a Duke or Baron or Knight "owned" was not his, but his lord's. And, unless that lord was the King, it didn't even belong to the lord, but rather his lord- right back to the Crown. The prices the serfs and peasants paid to grind their grain, or cross a bridge, or weave their wool was not a tax, it was payment for property that was rightly the lord's.
This is the mindset of Obama and his minions. And they believe they will be the new lords, and you will be the new peasants and serfs.