Property is Liberty, and Regulation Is Theft

[NYcarbineer]

1. Here, once again, that apocryphal tale of boiling the frog: put it in cold water, and raise the temperature so slowly that it fails to recognize the threat: boiled frog.

That's what 'regulation' is....the threat is the destruction of the right to private property.



2. Why is 'private property's so important?
Before the Founders settled on 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' ....

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in theUnited States Declaration of Independence.[1]The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect. ....In 1689, Locke argued in hisTwo Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate"
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. While our founding documents memorialize our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Virginia Declaration preceded it by several months. In same, George Mason had written “…the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.…” Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

1. The emphasis on property came from philosopher John Locke, who believed that all men had the natural rights to acquire, protect, and dispose of property.
2. Jefferson preferred the shift from material property and toward the pursuit of happiness: by such, morality became uppermost.

4. Private property is the physical dimension of capitalism, the free market.

"A fundamental principle of our society is property rights. In nations were property rights have not been formally established, the costs of legally validating ownership of a home, a farm, or a business may be prohibitively expensive relative to the average income level, a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity. Without property rights, one with entrepreneurial talents loses the access to other people’s money: homes or other assets not recognized by a legal system cannot be used as collateral."
Sowell, “Economic Facts & Fallacies,” chapter seven.


a. Even OWS, who oppose private property can learn: “Who’d have thought that a crowd of people demanding the seizure of wealth from banks, corporations, and the wealthy might also have a few thieves? I’m shocked,shocked to find theft occurring in a group that has hijacked private property it refuses to leave. I can’t imagine that a crowd that demands free higher education and the forgiveness of tens of thousands in student debt would also think of someone’s Mac or an iPhone as equally as communal as a college education…. Law and order! Get tough on crime! Defend private property!” Celebrated redistributionists discover healthy respect for private property - Hot Air



5. Even Liberal political philosopher John Rawls agreed, as he offered the idea that the two basic principles necessary for a just society:

a. Political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest.

b. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, “A Theory of Justice,” 1971, p.303): they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). A Theory of Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So....we've established the essential nature of private property in a free society. Compare same to a feudal or communist one.

Which would you choose?

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Regulation is not Theft. That's one of the most idiotic statements you've ever made, and considering how high that bar is,

that is quite an accomplishment.

1. Here, once again, that apocryphal tale of boiling the frog: put it in cold water, and raise the temperature so slowly that it fails to recognize the threat: boiled frog.

That's what 'regulation' is....the threat is the destruction of the right to private property.



2. Why is 'private property's so important?
Before the Founders settled on 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' ....

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in theUnited States Declaration of Independence.[1]The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect. ....In 1689, Locke argued in hisTwo Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate"
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. While our founding documents memorialize our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Virginia Declaration preceded it by several months. In same, George Mason had written “…the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.…” Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

1. The emphasis on property came from philosopher John Locke, who believed that all men had the natural rights to acquire, protect, and dispose of property.
2. Jefferson preferred the shift from material property and toward the pursuit of happiness: by such, morality became uppermost.

4. Private property is the physical dimension of capitalism, the free market.

"A fundamental principle of our society is property rights. In nations were property rights have not been formally established, the costs of legally validating ownership of a home, a farm, or a business may be prohibitively expensive relative to the average income level, a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity. Without property rights, one with entrepreneurial talents loses the access to other people’s money: homes or other assets not recognized by a legal system cannot be used as collateral."
Sowell, “Economic Facts & Fallacies,” chapter seven.


a. Even OWS, who oppose private property can learn: “Who’d have thought that a crowd of people demanding the seizure of wealth from banks, corporations, and the wealthy might also have a few thieves? I’m shocked,shocked to find theft occurring in a group that has hijacked private property it refuses to leave. I can’t imagine that a crowd that demands free higher education and the forgiveness of tens of thousands in student debt would also think of someone’s Mac or an iPhone as equally as communal as a college education…. Law and order! Get tough on crime! Defend private property!” Celebrated redistributionists discover healthy respect for private property - Hot Air



5. Even Liberal political philosopher John Rawls agreed, as he offered the idea that the two basic principles necessary for a just society:

a. Political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest.

b. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, “A Theory of Justice,” 1971, p.303): they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). A Theory of Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So....we've established the essential nature of private property in a free society. Compare same to a feudal or communist one.

Which would you choose?

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Prove that's a belief exclusively held by liberals and then we'll proceed.

Why does it matter which group it is held by

Is it more right because you believe in it and more wrong if someone else does

Theft isn't right no matter who is doing the stealing

In the case of this eminent domain bullshit it's both parties

What's being stolen when the government passes regulations making it illegal for an industry to dump toxic waste into a river?

That is not eminent domain

Read the thread title. That is not 'eminent domain'. That is an idiotic generalization that is indisputably horseshit,

and you won't acknowledge it. That makes you as stupid as the OP.

eminent domain has been a large part of the discussion

dodge failed

As I said, you won't disagree with the OP's idiocy. That makes you an idiot.

 

[Skull Pilot]

1. Here, once again, that apocryphal tale of boiling the frog: put it in cold water, and raise the temperature so slowly that it fails to recognize the threat: boiled frog.

That's what 'regulation' is....the threat is the destruction of the right to private property.



2. Why is 'private property's so important?
Before the Founders settled on 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' ....

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in theUnited States Declaration of Independence.[1]The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect. ....In 1689, Locke argued in hisTwo Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate"
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. While our founding documents memorialize our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Virginia Declaration preceded it by several months. In same, George Mason had written “…the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.…” Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

1. The emphasis on property came from philosopher John Locke, who believed that all men had the natural rights to acquire, protect, and dispose of property.
2. Jefferson preferred the shift from material property and toward the pursuit of happiness: by such, morality became uppermost.

4. Private property is the physical dimension of capitalism, the free market.

"A fundamental principle of our society is property rights. In nations were property rights have not been formally established, the costs of legally validating ownership of a home, a farm, or a business may be prohibitively expensive relative to the average income level, a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity. Without property rights, one with entrepreneurial talents loses the access to other people’s money: homes or other assets not recognized by a legal system cannot be used as collateral."
Sowell, “Economic Facts & Fallacies,” chapter seven.


a. Even OWS, who oppose private property can learn: “Who’d have thought that a crowd of people demanding the seizure of wealth from banks, corporations, and the wealthy might also have a few thieves? I’m shocked,shocked to find theft occurring in a group that has hijacked private property it refuses to leave. I can’t imagine that a crowd that demands free higher education and the forgiveness of tens of thousands in student debt would also think of someone’s Mac or an iPhone as equally as communal as a college education…. Law and order! Get tough on crime! Defend private property!” Celebrated redistributionists discover healthy respect for private property - Hot Air



5. Even Liberal political philosopher John Rawls agreed, as he offered the idea that the two basic principles necessary for a just society:

a. Political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest.

b. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, “A Theory of Justice,” 1971, p.303): they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). A Theory of Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So....we've established the essential nature of private property in a free society. Compare same to a feudal or communist one.

Which would you choose?

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Regulation is not Theft. That's one of the most idiotic statements you've ever made, and considering how high that bar is,

that is quite an accomplishment.

1. Here, once again, that apocryphal tale of boiling the frog: put it in cold water, and raise the temperature so slowly that it fails to recognize the threat: boiled frog.

That's what 'regulation' is....the threat is the destruction of the right to private property.



2. Why is 'private property's so important?
Before the Founders settled on 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' ....

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in theUnited States Declaration of Independence.[1]The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect. ....In 1689, Locke argued in hisTwo Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate"
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. While our founding documents memorialize our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Virginia Declaration preceded it by several months. In same, George Mason had written “…the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.…” Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

1. The emphasis on property came from philosopher John Locke, who believed that all men had the natural rights to acquire, protect, and dispose of property.
2. Jefferson preferred the shift from material property and toward the pursuit of happiness: by such, morality became uppermost.

4. Private property is the physical dimension of capitalism, the free market.

"A fundamental principle of our society is property rights. In nations were property rights have not been formally established, the costs of legally validating ownership of a home, a farm, or a business may be prohibitively expensive relative to the average income level, a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity. Without property rights, one with entrepreneurial talents loses the access to other people’s money: homes or other assets not recognized by a legal system cannot be used as collateral."
Sowell, “Economic Facts & Fallacies,” chapter seven.


a. Even OWS, who oppose private property can learn: “Who’d have thought that a crowd of people demanding the seizure of wealth from banks, corporations, and the wealthy might also have a few thieves? I’m shocked,shocked to find theft occurring in a group that has hijacked private property it refuses to leave. I can’t imagine that a crowd that demands free higher education and the forgiveness of tens of thousands in student debt would also think of someone’s Mac or an iPhone as equally as communal as a college education…. Law and order! Get tough on crime! Defend private property!” Celebrated redistributionists discover healthy respect for private property - Hot Air



5. Even Liberal political philosopher John Rawls agreed, as he offered the idea that the two basic principles necessary for a just society:

a. Political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest.

b. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, “A Theory of Justice,” 1971, p.303): they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). A Theory of Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So....we've established the essential nature of private property in a free society. Compare same to a feudal or communist one.

Which would you choose?

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Why does it matter which group it is held by

Is it more right because you believe in it and more wrong if someone else does

Theft isn't right no matter who is doing the stealing

In the case of this eminent domain bullshit it's both parties

What's being stolen when the government passes regulations making it illegal for an industry to dump toxic waste into a river?

That is not eminent domain

Read the thread title. That is not 'eminent domain'. That is an idiotic generalization that is indisputably horseshit,

and you won't acknowledge it. That makes you as stupid as the OP.

eminent domain has been a large part of the discussion

dodge failed

As I said, you won't disagree with the OP's idiocy. That makes you an idiot.

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

 

[Centinel]

If you want to play shithouse lawyer, schoolboy, the least you could do would be to learn that the term is

'eminent domain',

not 'imminent domain'. For fuck's sake...

Do you think it's just for one person (or group) to take the property of another against her will?

"just" as in judicious, correct, righteous, does not apply when discussing the aims, aspirations, and methods of Liberals, Progressives, Democrats.

This applies:
"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter

When you hold the high ground on principles, winning should be everything.

Principle?

Do you really think it's just for one person (or group) to take the property of another against her will?

Prove that's a belief exclusively held by liberals and then we'll proceed.

Why would attempt I prove a claim I never made?

Do you really think it's just for one person (or group) to take the property of another against her will?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Here, once again, that apocryphal tale of boiling the frog: put it in cold water, and raise the temperature so slowly that it fails to recognize the threat: boiled frog.

That's what 'regulation' is....the threat is the destruction of the right to private property.



2. Why is 'private property's so important?
Before the Founders settled on 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' ....

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in theUnited States Declaration of Independence.[1]The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect. ....In 1689, Locke argued in hisTwo Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate"
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. While our founding documents memorialize our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Virginia Declaration preceded it by several months. In same, George Mason had written “…the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.…” Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

1. The emphasis on property came from philosopher John Locke, who believed that all men had the natural rights to acquire, protect, and dispose of property.
2. Jefferson preferred the shift from material property and toward the pursuit of happiness: by such, morality became uppermost.

4. Private property is the physical dimension of capitalism, the free market.

"A fundamental principle of our society is property rights. In nations were property rights have not been formally established, the costs of legally validating ownership of a home, a farm, or a business may be prohibitively expensive relative to the average income level, a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity. Without property rights, one with entrepreneurial talents loses the access to other people’s money: homes or other assets not recognized by a legal system cannot be used as collateral."
Sowell, “Economic Facts & Fallacies,” chapter seven.


a. Even OWS, who oppose private property can learn: “Who’d have thought that a crowd of people demanding the seizure of wealth from banks, corporations, and the wealthy might also have a few thieves? I’m shocked,shocked to find theft occurring in a group that has hijacked private property it refuses to leave. I can’t imagine that a crowd that demands free higher education and the forgiveness of tens of thousands in student debt would also think of someone’s Mac or an iPhone as equally as communal as a college education…. Law and order! Get tough on crime! Defend private property!” Celebrated redistributionists discover healthy respect for private property - Hot Air



5. Even Liberal political philosopher John Rawls agreed, as he offered the idea that the two basic principles necessary for a just society:

a. Political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest.

b. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, “A Theory of Justice,” 1971, p.303): they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). A Theory of Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So....we've established the essential nature of private property in a free society. Compare same to a feudal or communist one.

Which would you choose?

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Regulation is not Theft. That's one of the most idiotic statements you've ever made, and considering how high that bar is,

that is quite an accomplishment.

1. Here, once again, that apocryphal tale of boiling the frog: put it in cold water, and raise the temperature so slowly that it fails to recognize the threat: boiled frog.

That's what 'regulation' is....the threat is the destruction of the right to private property.



2. Why is 'private property's so important?
Before the Founders settled on 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' ....

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in theUnited States Declaration of Independence.[1]The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect. ....In 1689, Locke argued in hisTwo Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate"
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. While our founding documents memorialize our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Virginia Declaration preceded it by several months. In same, George Mason had written “…the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.…” Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

1. The emphasis on property came from philosopher John Locke, who believed that all men had the natural rights to acquire, protect, and dispose of property.
2. Jefferson preferred the shift from material property and toward the pursuit of happiness: by such, morality became uppermost.

4. Private property is the physical dimension of capitalism, the free market.

"A fundamental principle of our society is property rights. In nations were property rights have not been formally established, the costs of legally validating ownership of a home, a farm, or a business may be prohibitively expensive relative to the average income level, a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity. Without property rights, one with entrepreneurial talents loses the access to other people’s money: homes or other assets not recognized by a legal system cannot be used as collateral."
Sowell, “Economic Facts & Fallacies,” chapter seven.


a. Even OWS, who oppose private property can learn: “Who’d have thought that a crowd of people demanding the seizure of wealth from banks, corporations, and the wealthy might also have a few thieves? I’m shocked,shocked to find theft occurring in a group that has hijacked private property it refuses to leave. I can’t imagine that a crowd that demands free higher education and the forgiveness of tens of thousands in student debt would also think of someone’s Mac or an iPhone as equally as communal as a college education…. Law and order! Get tough on crime! Defend private property!” Celebrated redistributionists discover healthy respect for private property - Hot Air



5. Even Liberal political philosopher John Rawls agreed, as he offered the idea that the two basic principles necessary for a just society:

a. Political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest.

b. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, “A Theory of Justice,” 1971, p.303): they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). A Theory of Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So....we've established the essential nature of private property in a free society. Compare same to a feudal or communist one.

Which would you choose?

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

What's being stolen when the government passes regulations making it illegal for an industry to dump toxic waste into a river?

That is not eminent domain

Read the thread title. That is not 'eminent domain'. That is an idiotic generalization that is indisputably horseshit,

and you won't acknowledge it. That makes you as stupid as the OP.

eminent domain has been a large part of the discussion

dodge failed

As I said, you won't disagree with the OP's idiocy. That makes you an idiot.

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

 

[Skull Pilot]

1. Here, once again, that apocryphal tale of boiling the frog: put it in cold water, and raise the temperature so slowly that it fails to recognize the threat: boiled frog.

That's what 'regulation' is....the threat is the destruction of the right to private property.



2. Why is 'private property's so important?
Before the Founders settled on 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' ....

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in theUnited States Declaration of Independence.[1]The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect. ....In 1689, Locke argued in hisTwo Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate"
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. While our founding documents memorialize our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Virginia Declaration preceded it by several months. In same, George Mason had written “…the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.…” Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

1. The emphasis on property came from philosopher John Locke, who believed that all men had the natural rights to acquire, protect, and dispose of property.
2. Jefferson preferred the shift from material property and toward the pursuit of happiness: by such, morality became uppermost.

4. Private property is the physical dimension of capitalism, the free market.

"A fundamental principle of our society is property rights. In nations were property rights have not been formally established, the costs of legally validating ownership of a home, a farm, or a business may be prohibitively expensive relative to the average income level, a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity. Without property rights, one with entrepreneurial talents loses the access to other people’s money: homes or other assets not recognized by a legal system cannot be used as collateral."
Sowell, “Economic Facts & Fallacies,” chapter seven.


a. Even OWS, who oppose private property can learn: “Who’d have thought that a crowd of people demanding the seizure of wealth from banks, corporations, and the wealthy might also have a few thieves? I’m shocked,shocked to find theft occurring in a group that has hijacked private property it refuses to leave. I can’t imagine that a crowd that demands free higher education and the forgiveness of tens of thousands in student debt would also think of someone’s Mac or an iPhone as equally as communal as a college education…. Law and order! Get tough on crime! Defend private property!” Celebrated redistributionists discover healthy respect for private property - Hot Air



5. Even Liberal political philosopher John Rawls agreed, as he offered the idea that the two basic principles necessary for a just society:

a. Political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest.

b. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, “A Theory of Justice,” 1971, p.303): they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). A Theory of Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So....we've established the essential nature of private property in a free society. Compare same to a feudal or communist one.

Which would you choose?

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Regulation is not Theft. That's one of the most idiotic statements you've ever made, and considering how high that bar is,

that is quite an accomplishment.

1. Here, once again, that apocryphal tale of boiling the frog: put it in cold water, and raise the temperature so slowly that it fails to recognize the threat: boiled frog.

That's what 'regulation' is....the threat is the destruction of the right to private property.



2. Why is 'private property's so important?
Before the Founders settled on 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' ....

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in theUnited States Declaration of Independence.[1]The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect. ....In 1689, Locke argued in hisTwo Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate"
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. While our founding documents memorialize our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Virginia Declaration preceded it by several months. In same, George Mason had written “…the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.…” Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

1. The emphasis on property came from philosopher John Locke, who believed that all men had the natural rights to acquire, protect, and dispose of property.
2. Jefferson preferred the shift from material property and toward the pursuit of happiness: by such, morality became uppermost.

4. Private property is the physical dimension of capitalism, the free market.

"A fundamental principle of our society is property rights. In nations were property rights have not been formally established, the costs of legally validating ownership of a home, a farm, or a business may be prohibitively expensive relative to the average income level, a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity. Without property rights, one with entrepreneurial talents loses the access to other people’s money: homes or other assets not recognized by a legal system cannot be used as collateral."
Sowell, “Economic Facts & Fallacies,” chapter seven.


a. Even OWS, who oppose private property can learn: “Who’d have thought that a crowd of people demanding the seizure of wealth from banks, corporations, and the wealthy might also have a few thieves? I’m shocked,shocked to find theft occurring in a group that has hijacked private property it refuses to leave. I can’t imagine that a crowd that demands free higher education and the forgiveness of tens of thousands in student debt would also think of someone’s Mac or an iPhone as equally as communal as a college education…. Law and order! Get tough on crime! Defend private property!” Celebrated redistributionists discover healthy respect for private property - Hot Air



5. Even Liberal political philosopher John Rawls agreed, as he offered the idea that the two basic principles necessary for a just society:

a. Political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest.

b. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, “A Theory of Justice,” 1971, p.303): they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). A Theory of Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So....we've established the essential nature of private property in a free society. Compare same to a feudal or communist one.

Which would you choose?

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

That is not eminent domain

Read the thread title. That is not 'eminent domain'. That is an idiotic generalization that is indisputably horseshit,

and you won't acknowledge it. That makes you as stupid as the OP.

eminent domain has been a large part of the discussion

dodge failed

As I said, you won't disagree with the OP's idiocy. That makes you an idiot.

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

 

[Mac1958]

Property by definition is regulated by ownership and boundaries. Property is not freedom. Freedom is choice and exercising that choice. Your thread reeks of early 1900's anarchism.

The party is now pretty clearly at the mercy of its absolutists & purists.

If they're to be consistent, their argument must be that a 1% income tax is theft; that the single smallest regulation is an attack on "freedom and liberty", two platitudes currently consuming the party, courtesy of conservative media.

Purity/absolutism is a slippery slope indeed, and when you commit yourself to it, you slide straight into irrelevance.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Regulation is not Theft. That's one of the most idiotic statements you've ever made, and considering how high that bar is,

that is quite an accomplishment.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Read the thread title. That is not 'eminent domain'. That is an idiotic generalization that is indisputably horseshit,

and you won't acknowledge it. That makes you as stupid as the OP.

eminent domain has been a large part of the discussion

dodge failed

As I said, you won't disagree with the OP's idiocy. That makes you an idiot.

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

Then why do you support the Keystone Pipeline?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Regulation is not Theft. That's one of the most idiotic statements you've ever made, and considering how high that bar is,

that is quite an accomplishment.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

eminent domain has been a large part of the discussion

dodge failed

As I said, you won't disagree with the OP's idiocy. That makes you an idiot.

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

Then why do you support the Keystone Pipeline?

Private company buying land not the governemnt

 

[NYcarbineer]

Regulation is not Theft. That's one of the most idiotic statements you've ever made, and considering how high that bar is,

that is quite an accomplishment.
As I said, you won't disagree with the OP's idiocy. That makes you an idiot.

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

Then why do you support the Keystone Pipeline?

Private company buying land not the governemnt

Against the will of the landowners? Forced by the government?

 

[Timmy]

Regulation is not Theft. That's one of the most idiotic statements you've ever made, and considering how high that bar is,

that is quite an accomplishment.
As I said, you won't disagree with the OP's idiocy. That makes you an idiot.

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

Then why do you support the Keystone Pipeline?

Private company buying land not the governemnt

First off eminent domain is constitutional and the government is required to pay fair market value for what they take. It has to be for the public good.


As for the XL pipeline. Don't be foolish. You can only build that thing if the government takes land for the private company.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Here, once again, that apocryphal tale of boiling the frog: put it in cold water, and raise the temperature so slowly that it fails to recognize the threat: boiled frog.

That's what 'regulation' is....the threat is the destruction of the right to private property.



2. Why is 'private property's so important?
Before the Founders settled on 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' ....

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in theUnited States Declaration of Independence.[1]The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect. ....In 1689, Locke argued in hisTwo Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate"
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. While our founding documents memorialize our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Virginia Declaration preceded it by several months. In same, George Mason had written “…the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.…” Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

1. The emphasis on property came from philosopher John Locke, who believed that all men had the natural rights to acquire, protect, and dispose of property.
2. Jefferson preferred the shift from material property and toward the pursuit of happiness: by such, morality became uppermost.

4. Private property is the physical dimension of capitalism, the free market.

"A fundamental principle of our society is property rights. In nations were property rights have not been formally established, the costs of legally validating ownership of a home, a farm, or a business may be prohibitively expensive relative to the average income level, a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity. Without property rights, one with entrepreneurial talents loses the access to other people’s money: homes or other assets not recognized by a legal system cannot be used as collateral."
Sowell, “Economic Facts & Fallacies,” chapter seven.


a. Even OWS, who oppose private property can learn: “Who’d have thought that a crowd of people demanding the seizure of wealth from banks, corporations, and the wealthy might also have a few thieves? I’m shocked,shocked to find theft occurring in a group that has hijacked private property it refuses to leave. I can’t imagine that a crowd that demands free higher education and the forgiveness of tens of thousands in student debt would also think of someone’s Mac or an iPhone as equally as communal as a college education…. Law and order! Get tough on crime! Defend private property!” Celebrated redistributionists discover healthy respect for private property - Hot Air



5. Even Liberal political philosopher John Rawls agreed, as he offered the idea that the two basic principles necessary for a just society:

a. Political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest.

b. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, “A Theory of Justice,” 1971, p.303): they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). A Theory of Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So....we've established the essential nature of private property in a free society. Compare same to a feudal or communist one.

Which would you choose?

I want to watch you take your family on a road trip without speed limits in a car build without safety regulations after eating at a restaurant that's never been inspected while wearing clothes that have no flammability rating. Hilarious!

Why is it you lame-brained Liberals have to fabricate immaterial conjecture beyond the import of the thread to which you are supposedly responding???

The theft....er, regulations, at issue are those that de facto remove the private property rights of citizens.

Called, for short, despotism.

An example?
Sure....

1. “…when land is public, or if it can be made quasi-public with so many regulations attached that most property rights are removed, people can’t afford to fight, having lost the better part of their wealth. So ideally for the movement, regulations should be almost infinite in reach and so imprecise as to be interpreted in a dozen ways.
2. All that‘s needed to force these regulations is sufficient documentation of collapse, supported by books, movies, documentaries, museum exhibits, cartoons, newspapers and magazine stories, the devotion of fervid columnists, et cetera, ad infinitum, to convince the public that “something must be done.” This “feeling” is backed by slightly more substantive hundred-page full-color glossy PDFs aimed at policy makers and politicians.” Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p. 170.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

Then why do you support the Keystone Pipeline?

Private company buying land not the governemnt

Against the will of the landowners? Forced by the government?

ARe they? being forced by the government? Do you know this?

Is keystone paying generous leases?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Regulation is not Theft. That's one of the most idiotic statements you've ever made, and considering how high that bar is,

that is quite an accomplishment.
As I said, you won't disagree with the OP's idiocy. That makes you an idiot.

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

Then why do you support the Keystone Pipeline?

Private company buying land not the governemnt

You wish to argue that no eminent domain assertions have been or would be involved with the Keystone Pipeline?

Let's hear you say that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

Then why do you support the Keystone Pipeline?

Private company buying land not the governemnt

First off eminent domain is constitutional and the government is required to pay fair market value for what they take. It has to be for the public good.


As for the XL pipeline. Don't be foolish. You can only build that thing if the government takes land for the private company.

No it doesn't have to be for the public good

because eminent domain is being used to take private property and hand it over to private developers so they can develop it for s profit

And funny how oil and gas companies pay land owners generous leases for land without the government stealing the land first

And let me ask you if you owned a house left to you by your parent and would never sell it at any price is there a "fair " market value?

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

Then why do you support the Keystone Pipeline?

Private company buying land not the governemnt

You wish to argue that no eminent domain assertions have been or would be involved with the Keystone Pipeline?

Let's hear you say that.

I don't know if there have been do you?

 

[Camp]

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Regulation is not Theft. That's one of the most idiotic statements you've ever made, and considering how high that bar is,

that is quite an accomplishment.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Read the thread title. That is not 'eminent domain'. That is an idiotic generalization that is indisputably horseshit,

and you won't acknowledge it. That makes you as stupid as the OP.

eminent domain has been a large part of the discussion

dodge failed

As I said, you won't disagree with the OP's idiocy. That makes you an idiot.

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

The Constitution does not call it theft. The Constitution proclaims eminent domain as a lawful function of government.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Regulation is not Theft. That's one of the most idiotic statements you've ever made, and considering how high that bar is,

that is quite an accomplishment.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

eminent domain has been a large part of the discussion

dodge failed

As I said, you won't disagree with the OP's idiocy. That makes you an idiot.

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

The Constitution does not call it theft. The Constitution proclaims eminent domain as a lawful function of government.

So because of that I can't disagree?

Sorry I'm not a sheep

 

[NYcarbineer]

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

Then why do you support the Keystone Pipeline?

Private company buying land not the governemnt

Against the will of the landowners? Forced by the government?

ARe they? being forced by the government? Do you know this?

Is keystone paying generous leases?

I want to hear you deny that eminent domain is or would be used to build the Keystone Pipeline that YOU support,

despite your claim that all eminent domain is THEFT.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

Regulation is not Theft. That's one of the most idiotic statements you've ever made, and considering how high that bar is,

that is quite an accomplishment.

Why are you unable to specify any part with which you disagree, C_Chamber_Pot?


When you're grow a spine, try to take me on and watch what happens.

eminent domain has been a large part of the discussion

dodge failed

As I said, you won't disagree with the OP's idiocy. That makes you an idiot.

And you won't answer a simple question about eminent domain

Eminent domain is sometimes justifiable. And it's constitutional.

It is theft theft is never justifiable

The Constitution does not call it theft. The Constitution proclaims eminent domain as a lawful function of government.

He says it's theft and NEVER justifiable but I can prove he supports the Keystone Pipeline.

One more phoney RWnut.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is theft theft is never justifiable

Then why do you support the Keystone Pipeline?

Private company buying land not the governemnt

Against the will of the landowners? Forced by the government?

ARe they? being forced by the government? Do you know this?

Is keystone paying generous leases?

I want to hear you deny that eminent domain is or would be used to build the Keystone Pipeline that YOU support,

despite your claim that all eminent domain is THEFT.

I don't know if it would do you?
It's not being built so we might as well talk about beanstalks

But I do know that many people are getting very well paid by oil companies for land leases