Rewriting U.S Bill of Rights

Marxism gives a deference between the two, while any sort of definition finder has said they are the same.

All of them, take away all of them. I'll teach these whiny collage kids what a police state looks like if it's the last thing I do.

Nah man privatize everything we must do it to all, to Social security, to Prison, to everything all Privatize. Yeah!

Not even Marxists can define personal property. You cannot separate it from property. It is a term invented by the red menace to lull people into thinking that property would still exist in a communist society. In fact, it can be neither defined nor justified according to Marxist ideology. If my personal property were to extend to my home, then there is nothing to stop a man from inhabiting his ancestral mansion while Pinko Joe slums it up in one of those quickcrete domiciles that GLORIOUS COMMUNISM erects in a period of hours.

And Ler, while you may be one of our biggest proponents of dystopian societies, you have no understanding of what doublespeak is. You refuse to answer the question because you cannot answer the question.

So.. Why so much mad?

Just keep avoiding any kind of response. You're sure to draw their attention away from the gaping hole in your rhetoric that way.

Oh he is going to come back with a force a billion suns with this one

"You can clearly see that why so much mad shows that you have no way to respond because you know that you are wrong, communism fails Muahahahhaha"


Edit: Fucking called it, score one for me.

It's pretty simple Kal.
Businesses, corporations, profit-driven enterprises, or basically any organization which aims to make a profit for the benefit of a few people through wage slavery/exploitation/underpaid labor = Private enterprise. Any items produced for, or gained at the benefit of wage slavery/exploitation/underpaid labor also count as 'Private property'

Things like a home, a television, a car, a book or a fridge are personal property. Edit: Unless they were gained at the expense of exploitation - A mansion, or a palace would fall under that.

Question, If a business is run out of a home is it private or personal?
If a person home inside a private property is it personal or private cause then everyone can just have someone live in the business, thus making the difference irrelevant and ruin your argument.

Or If a business buys a piece of property, builds homes on it that it owns is it personal or private? mind you the owner is still private.

Private property does not have to be a physical thing. For instance, a corporation is private property, even though it is not a physical entity. So, assuming it is an average, non luxurious house, it would be personal property. The business itself would qualify as private property.

All 'personal property' qualifies as private property according to this definition, excepting things that are hand-crafted by their owners.

As I've already stated, property either exists or it doesn't. What do you say to the man who owns 15 Lamborghinis, a yacht, a private island, a plane, and a number of mansions? The abolition of property according to the drivel that is Marxist rhetoric is necessary because property is leveraged to create inequality. 'Personal' or private, property is directly opposed to the fundamental principle of communism. As well, you cannot define where personal property ends and where private property begins.

Definition for private property:

Web definitions: personal property: movable property

You're going by capitalist definitions. This is a literary fault, not an ideological one.
If you want to help me come up with a new term, go ahead.

Explain where the difference comes in. That's what's been asked of you from the start. Don't hide behind vagueries and expect your hollow buzzword to be accepted as anything more than such.

EDIT: Again, in case Ler makes an edit, here's the original post:

This is going to boil down to perception of property. Marxism claims for a difference between the two, capitalism says they are the same, the definition books i have say they are the same.

It's perception really (Though it seems as though Marxism is the unique in this case)

Edit: I really need to stop taking Kali side even though its the more logical one.

Dude, it's pretty fucking simple.

Private property = A business/Enterprise/Corporation/Means of exploiting workers for profit/any items used in a corporation, or to help in the exploitation of workers.

Personal property = Ones personal/family belongings.

Marxism does not make that distinction. Marxism seeks to abolish all property on the basis that property can be leveraged to create inequality. If someone has ownership of something, then they are capable of leveraging that ownership and 'exploiting' someone else.

EDIT: @Ler
Again (beyond what I already stated above), what about the man who owns everything? Does my personal property extend to the island my family owns? Does it extend to the skyscraper that we've been leasing to various businesses in the past?

Wait is not abolish property exploiting in its own right?

Though that Communism can be summed up by this phrase "Abolish all Private property"

Ignore Kali. His entire understanding of communism comes from 50's propaganda cartoons.

The funny part is i'm not really a communist, (More a Socialist) however yeah he does have a very biased opinion on communism.