Property is Liberty, and Regulation Is Theft

[NYcarbineer]

One thing liberal is the (erroneous) use of the term fascist.

If the shoe fits, you'd best wear it.

You might take notes on the following quiz....

Here is a little quiz that will show just how wrong you are:


Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism

.

Once again, this is where PC calls Joe Biden a Nazi, JFK a Communist, and RFK a Fascist.

How insane can you get?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The extremism is the fact that you think that people that live in their community don't get involved in land laws..or land use..You also have the inability to decipher that what you are complaining about is done by the will of the people in a community or for a community to stay static or being used to spoil the land...
Yes the tree huggers are annoying and take the idea of protecting nature seriously..People that buy the land to exploit the resources are the opposite side...Yet the processes of the system in the USA is that you can use that land as long as the community allows you to do as such..
It is a system which is not going to make all people happy.. People that exploit the land are some of the worse abusers of taking away property from other land owners to use as they desire..
Nature lovers are only trying to conserve....Yet they infringe on the rights of commercial; land owners...
It is left up to the power of the groups representing their interest and the winners are sometimes the imminent domain people, and sometimes the community as a whole...Whether it is an issue of denial of rights, well that swings both ways.....No system is perfect, nor will it ever be....so the courts decide...that is the whey American society works..

A lot of effort there!

Good for you!

Sadly....now I'm gonna have to destroy it.


10. " ENVIRONMENT LAWS FACE A STIFF TEST FROM LANDOWNERS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19—Angry about regulations that control the use of their land, mining and timber companies, developers, farmers and other rural landowners have organized a movement that represents the strongest challenge to date to the nation's principal environmental laws.


In the most successful tactic they have discovered so far, the [private property] movement's lawyers have been filing lawsuits for the last two years in a little-known Federal court in Washington, the United States Claims Court.


Arguing that the rapid increase of environmental regulations in the last 20 years has restricted their right to use their own property, the landowners say such restrictions are tantamount to a "taking" of land. They argue that just like landowners whose property is seized for roads, bridges, parks or other public purposes, they are entitled to just compensation as provided by the Fifth Amendment. Backing in Congress


"Congress never envisioned that the Endangered Species Act would be used by the preservationists to eliminate jobs and people's homes, and push people around the way it has," ....

"The Government issues more and more regulations, and we're losing local control over our land."

.... environmental leaders say the lawsuits could cripple the Government's ability to enforce its basic environmental laws by making them too expensive to enforce." ENVIRONMENT LAWS FACE A STIFF TEST FROM LANDOWNERS


How ya' like that, boyyyyeeeeeee????



Here the admission by this Eco-Nazi:

a. "We can't protect our nation's environment if we are going to give in to private property rights."
Warren T. Brookes, "War on Property Rights," Washington Times.

Any day now this article will have an impact and be relevant. Just give it a little more time. It only needs another few months to be a quarter century old and behind times.

Rectitude has no time limit.

Why would a right go out of fashion?

Fascists like you might find that the era of 'freedom of speech' is over.

I don't.


Fascists,....sometimes known as Liberals.....made the very same argument about the Constitution, as FDR did, and Wm. Brennan in endorsing the "living Constitution," a way to destroy the Constitution.

Obama appointed an unmerited jurist, Kagan, to the Supreme Court....a woman who believes in government outlawing speech it doesn't agree with.


"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."

Goldberg is an asshole spawned by what became one of the most hated women in America. He is a low rent propagandist commentator of ill repute.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

Save your sanctimonious sewage for the street people you rant at every day as you march down the sidewalk flapping your arms and gums like a mental patient,

thinking the sludge you spew out is genius.

 

[Camp]

The extremism is the fact that you think that people that live in their community don't get involved in land laws..or land use..You also have the inability to decipher that what you are complaining about is done by the will of the people in a community or for a community to stay static or being used to spoil the land...
Yes the tree huggers are annoying and take the idea of protecting nature seriously..People that buy the land to exploit the resources are the opposite side...Yet the processes of the system in the USA is that you can use that land as long as the community allows you to do as such..
It is a system which is not going to make all people happy.. People that exploit the land are some of the worse abusers of taking away property from other land owners to use as they desire..
Nature lovers are only trying to conserve....Yet they infringe on the rights of commercial; land owners...
It is left up to the power of the groups representing their interest and the winners are sometimes the imminent domain people, and sometimes the community as a whole...Whether it is an issue of denial of rights, well that swings both ways.....No system is perfect, nor will it ever be....so the courts decide...that is the whey American society works..

A lot of effort there!

Good for you!

Sadly....now I'm gonna have to destroy it.


10. " ENVIRONMENT LAWS FACE A STIFF TEST FROM LANDOWNERS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19—Angry about regulations that control the use of their land, mining and timber companies, developers, farmers and other rural landowners have organized a movement that represents the strongest challenge to date to the nation's principal environmental laws.


In the most successful tactic they have discovered so far, the [private property] movement's lawyers have been filing lawsuits for the last two years in a little-known Federal court in Washington, the United States Claims Court.


Arguing that the rapid increase of environmental regulations in the last 20 years has restricted their right to use their own property, the landowners say such restrictions are tantamount to a "taking" of land. They argue that just like landowners whose property is seized for roads, bridges, parks or other public purposes, they are entitled to just compensation as provided by the Fifth Amendment. Backing in Congress


"Congress never envisioned that the Endangered Species Act would be used by the preservationists to eliminate jobs and people's homes, and push people around the way it has," ....

"The Government issues more and more regulations, and we're losing local control over our land."

.... environmental leaders say the lawsuits could cripple the Government's ability to enforce its basic environmental laws by making them too expensive to enforce." ENVIRONMENT LAWS FACE A STIFF TEST FROM LANDOWNERS


How ya' like that, boyyyyeeeeeee????



Here the admission by this Eco-Nazi:

a. "We can't protect our nation's environment if we are going to give in to private property rights."
Warren T. Brookes, "War on Property Rights," Washington Times.

Any day now this article will have an impact and be relevant. Just give it a little more time. It only needs another few months to be a quarter century old and behind times.

Rectitude has no time limit.

Why would a right go out of fashion?

Fascists like you might find that the era of 'freedom of speech' is over.

I don't.


Fascists,....sometimes known as Liberals.....made the very same argument about the Constitution, as FDR did, and Wm. Brennan in endorsing the "living Constitution," a way to destroy the Constitution.

Obama appointed an unmerited jurist, Kagan, to the Supreme Court....a woman who believes in government outlawing speech it doesn't agree with.


"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."

Goldberg is an asshole spawned by what became one of the most hated women in America. He is a low rent propagandist commentator of ill repute.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

Asshole is the legal and accurate term for that guy who the great traitor/betrayer dumped on America. It is therefore not vulgar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A lot of effort there!

Good for you!

Sadly....now I'm gonna have to destroy it.


10. " ENVIRONMENT LAWS FACE A STIFF TEST FROM LANDOWNERS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19—Angry about regulations that control the use of their land, mining and timber companies, developers, farmers and other rural landowners have organized a movement that represents the strongest challenge to date to the nation's principal environmental laws.


In the most successful tactic they have discovered so far, the [private property] movement's lawyers have been filing lawsuits for the last two years in a little-known Federal court in Washington, the United States Claims Court.


Arguing that the rapid increase of environmental regulations in the last 20 years has restricted their right to use their own property, the landowners say such restrictions are tantamount to a "taking" of land. They argue that just like landowners whose property is seized for roads, bridges, parks or other public purposes, they are entitled to just compensation as provided by the Fifth Amendment. Backing in Congress


"Congress never envisioned that the Endangered Species Act would be used by the preservationists to eliminate jobs and people's homes, and push people around the way it has," ....

"The Government issues more and more regulations, and we're losing local control over our land."

.... environmental leaders say the lawsuits could cripple the Government's ability to enforce its basic environmental laws by making them too expensive to enforce." ENVIRONMENT LAWS FACE A STIFF TEST FROM LANDOWNERS


How ya' like that, boyyyyeeeeeee????



Here the admission by this Eco-Nazi:

a. "We can't protect our nation's environment if we are going to give in to private property rights."
Warren T. Brookes, "War on Property Rights," Washington Times.

Any day now this article will have an impact and be relevant. Just give it a little more time. It only needs another few months to be a quarter century old and behind times.

Rectitude has no time limit.

Why would a right go out of fashion?

Fascists like you might find that the era of 'freedom of speech' is over.

I don't.


Fascists,....sometimes known as Liberals.....made the very same argument about the Constitution, as FDR did, and Wm. Brennan in endorsing the "living Constitution," a way to destroy the Constitution.

Obama appointed an unmerited jurist, Kagan, to the Supreme Court....a woman who believes in government outlawing speech it doesn't agree with.


"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."

Goldberg is an asshole spawned by what became one of the most hated women in America. He is a low rent propagandist commentator of ill repute.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

Asshole is the legal and accurate term for that guy who the great traitor/betrayer dumped on America. It is therefore not vulgar.

1. You are not only the low-life anti-American, as I stated earlier.
But you are a vulgar low-life anti-American.

2. And, you are a blow hard who has not read the scholarly work by Goldberg.

3. "Although Goldberg does permit himself a few moments of over-the-top liberal bashing,his book is for the most part a work of serious scholarship that attempts to identify important intellectual connections between the American Progressives and European Fascists of the early twentieth century and a number of trends in modern U.S. politics, many but not all of which are associated with contemporary American liberalism.

For the most part,Goldberg succeeds in this endeavor,calling our attention to the ways in which the Progressives, the Fascists, and much of liberalism share a fundamental distrust of markets, unintended social order, and other core ideas of classical liberalism.

Goldberg’s strengths arehis destruction of the argument that fascism is “right-wing”and the way he draws powerful parallels between the line from American Progressivism to the New Deal and the ideas behind European fascism."
https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_03_7_horwitz.pdf




You are a disgusting little twerp, and I thoroughly enjoy eviscerating your posts on a daily basis.

 

[boilermaker55]

When you poison the air and water that is theft.

 

[Centinel]

You mean regs like; If you have animals you must fence them in or you can legally lose them if they run free on another persons property? Or Benton county Ark. where the GOP is strongly entrenched and the regs there make you use a dog leash to walk your dogs, even in the rural areas??
You do know that people that own property also desire most of the property regs?

"...people that own property also desire most of the property regs?"

Now for reality:

9. Professor Wallace Kaufman, environmental activist and former president of several environmental groups, admits: "Environmentalists overwhelmingly back regulations and discount the costs. When people object, environmentalists too easily assume that they are driven by greed and callousness....the Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation admit no virtue or honor among property rights activists.

Environmentalists like to say that the choice is between self-interest and public-interest, but if I want my roadside to look natural to please my eye, or a wilderness where I can see grizzlies, isn't that also self-interest?"
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 118-119



For Liberals, the hoi polloi of the environmental movement, opponents are never 'wrong,' they are evil, malevolent, of the lowest endeavors.



Mark well what Kaufman says:

"There is no evidence that property rights activists love nature less than other Americans. And they may be fighting for a tradition that is even more basic to the American psyche and system of government. Environmentalists who plan to pit environmental regulations against property rights may lose more than they gain."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 121.


Folks who love their rights to their own property certainly don't yearn for bureaucrats and other leftists telling them what what is best for them.

Stop lying.

I can tell you live in the big city...You have no idea how rural folks live and operate..

First of all, based on the depth of my research, I am an expert on each and every subject I choose to post about.
The spankings I've administered to you and your ilk should apprise you of same.




But....don't just rely on me.....

I just provided an expert who kicked your post over the goalposts.
This guy:
"Science writer Kaufman, who has served as president of two state-level environmental groups, purports that the environmental movement, like any large movement, has become a large machine, a large system of power with its own agenda, which includes controlling versions of the truth. The author identifies with other "recovering" environmentalists who report that internal politics has given those in the movement an irrational view of the world."
No Turning Back: Dismantling the Fantasies of Environmental Thinking: Wallace Kaufman: 9780595000999: Amazon.com: Books

This is the second time I'm having to say this: stop lying.

Being an expert still does not take the bad taste of extremism away..

If your claim is that demanding the rights to property you own is 'extremism,'....you are definitely in the running for the "Unintentional Humor" award for today.



Speak up.

In the main, I agree with you on the relationship between liberty and property rights. But I think it's important to distinguish be between liberty and license. Liberty is being able to do what you wish with your body and property but not other people's bodies or property. Only with that caveat do we have liberty and not license.

 

[boilermaker55]

You have never eviscerated anyone in your life. Only in your feeble little mind.

Any day now this article will have an impact and be relevant. Just give it a little more time. It only needs another few months to be a quarter century old and behind times.

Rectitude has no time limit.

Why would a right go out of fashion?

Fascists like you might find that the era of 'freedom of speech' is over.

I don't.


Fascists,....sometimes known as Liberals.....made the very same argument about the Constitution, as FDR did, and Wm. Brennan in endorsing the "living Constitution," a way to destroy the Constitution.

Obama appointed an unmerited jurist, Kagan, to the Supreme Court....a woman who believes in government outlawing speech it doesn't agree with.


"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."

Goldberg is an asshole spawned by what became one of the most hated women in America. He is a low rent propagandist commentator of ill repute.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

Asshole is the legal and accurate term for that guy who the great traitor/betrayer dumped on America. It is therefore not vulgar.

1. You are not only the low-life anti-American, as I stated earlier.
But you are a vulgar low-life anti-American.

2. And, you are a blow hard who has not read the scholarly work by Goldberg.

3. "Although Goldberg does permit himself a few moments of over-the-top liberal bashing,his book is for the most part a work of serious scholarship that attempts to identify important intellectual connections between the American Progressives and European Fascists of the early twentieth century and a number of trends in modern U.S. politics, many but not all of which are associated with contemporary American liberalism.

For the most part,Goldberg succeeds in this endeavor,calling our attention to the ways in which the Progressives, the Fascists, and much of liberalism share a fundamental distrust of markets, unintended social order, and other core ideas of classical liberalism.

Goldberg’s strengths arehis destruction of the argument that fascism is “right-wing”and the way he draws powerful parallels between the line from American Progressivism to the New Deal and the ideas behind European fascism."
https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_03_7_horwitz.pdf




You are a disgusting little twerp, and I thoroughly enjoy eviscerating your posts on a daily basis.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...people that own property also desire most of the property regs?"

Now for reality:

9. Professor Wallace Kaufman, environmental activist and former president of several environmental groups, admits: "Environmentalists overwhelmingly back regulations and discount the costs. When people object, environmentalists too easily assume that they are driven by greed and callousness....the Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation admit no virtue or honor among property rights activists.

Environmentalists like to say that the choice is between self-interest and public-interest, but if I want my roadside to look natural to please my eye, or a wilderness where I can see grizzlies, isn't that also self-interest?"
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 118-119



For Liberals, the hoi polloi of the environmental movement, opponents are never 'wrong,' they are evil, malevolent, of the lowest endeavors.



Mark well what Kaufman says:

"There is no evidence that property rights activists love nature less than other Americans. And they may be fighting for a tradition that is even more basic to the American psyche and system of government. Environmentalists who plan to pit environmental regulations against property rights may lose more than they gain."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 121.


Folks who love their rights to their own property certainly don't yearn for bureaucrats and other leftists telling them what what is best for them.

Stop lying.

I can tell you live in the big city...You have no idea how rural folks live and operate..

First of all, based on the depth of my research, I am an expert on each and every subject I choose to post about.
The spankings I've administered to you and your ilk should apprise you of same.




But....don't just rely on me.....

I just provided an expert who kicked your post over the goalposts.
This guy:
"Science writer Kaufman, who has served as president of two state-level environmental groups, purports that the environmental movement, like any large movement, has become a large machine, a large system of power with its own agenda, which includes controlling versions of the truth. The author identifies with other "recovering" environmentalists who report that internal politics has given those in the movement an irrational view of the world."
No Turning Back: Dismantling the Fantasies of Environmental Thinking: Wallace Kaufman: 9780595000999: Amazon.com: Books

This is the second time I'm having to say this: stop lying.

Being an expert still does not take the bad taste of extremism away..

If your claim is that demanding the rights to property you own is 'extremism,'....you are definitely in the running for the "Unintentional Humor" award for today.



Speak up.

In the main, I agree with you on the relationship between liberty and property rights. But I think it's important to distinguish be between liberty and license. Liberty is being able to do what you wish with your body and property but not other people's bodies or property. Only with that caveat do we have liberty and not license.

There is no suggestion, implication, or hint, in this thread, that there is any right to other people's bodies or property.
None whatsoever.


Private ownership has proven to be far more advantageous than that by bureaucrats, and big government.

1. The tyranny of the environmental movement is based on coercion, regulation so punitive that entire counties have been bankrupted, property confiscation, the loss of homes,
2. What and what? It’s all about creating the holy grail of “a sustainable America” without due consideration to the exigencies. Like all bad ideas, sustainability is based on bad science.
3. Conservation biology, as a new iteration of biology, was brought into existence at the University of Southern California in the 1970’s, and has come to steer land use everywhere. The results are a disaster! Conserved ranges are desertifying, conserved forests dying, and watersheds being so badly managed that that magnificent triumph of civil engineering- the dams, waterworks, and irrigation of the American rivers system- is being overwhelmed. From the Serengeti to New Mexico’s boot heel, wherever people have been cleared from the land, biodiversity collapses. It is axiomatic. Nickson, "Eco-Fascists"
4. Professor Holly Fretwell actually went out and studied the result of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. She found forests conserved in service of the spotted owl are dead or dying; closed forests were overstocked and pest ridden; 500 weak and spindly trees grow where 60-80 healthy ones used to flourish. Do We Get What We Pay For? | PERC – The Property and Environment Research Center

5. Range scientist Allan Savory has written about millions of acres, formerly grasslands, have become deserts because wildlife has been shut out. “Only livestock now, and to a lesser extent remaining remnants of former wild herbivores in the presence of pack-hunting predators, combined with fire suppression can permanently reverse desertification…” http://savoryinstitute.squarespace....ication-explained-simply-by-allan-savory.html



"Ownership is not only a right, it is a duty.Ownership obligates Use your property as if it had been entrusted to you by the people." Oswald Spengler

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have never eviscerated anyone in your life. Only in your feeble little mind.

Rectitude has no time limit.

Why would a right go out of fashion?

Fascists like you might find that the era of 'freedom of speech' is over.

I don't.


Fascists,....sometimes known as Liberals.....made the very same argument about the Constitution, as FDR did, and Wm. Brennan in endorsing the "living Constitution," a way to destroy the Constitution.

Obama appointed an unmerited jurist, Kagan, to the Supreme Court....a woman who believes in government outlawing speech it doesn't agree with.


"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."

Goldberg is an asshole spawned by what became one of the most hated women in America. He is a low rent propagandist commentator of ill repute.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

Asshole is the legal and accurate term for that guy who the great traitor/betrayer dumped on America. It is therefore not vulgar.

1. You are not only the low-life anti-American, as I stated earlier.
But you are a vulgar low-life anti-American.

2. And, you are a blow hard who has not read the scholarly work by Goldberg.

3. "Although Goldberg does permit himself a few moments of over-the-top liberal bashing,his book is for the most part a work of serious scholarship that attempts to identify important intellectual connections between the American Progressives and European Fascists of the early twentieth century and a number of trends in modern U.S. politics, many but not all of which are associated with contemporary American liberalism.

For the most part,Goldberg succeeds in this endeavor,calling our attention to the ways in which the Progressives, the Fascists, and much of liberalism share a fundamental distrust of markets, unintended social order, and other core ideas of classical liberalism.

Goldberg’s strengths arehis destruction of the argument that fascism is “right-wing”and the way he draws powerful parallels between the line from American Progressivism to the New Deal and the ideas behind European fascism."
https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_03_7_horwitz.pdf




You are a disgusting little twerp, and I thoroughly enjoy eviscerating your posts on a daily basis.

I'm perfectly happy to allow the readers to make that analysis.

You may return to the 24-hour, All Cartoon Network now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When you poison the air and water that is theft.

I would like to comment on....correct, a mistaken view in your sig.

This:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."



This is far more accurate as any experience in business will attest:

The service that is an inherent part of capitalism is more in accord with Judeo-Christian values than is socialism/Liberalism.

A simple comparison will prove my assertions: Wal-Mart is successful because it provides service to the masses.

The Motor Vehicle Department is quite the opposite.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. ....a dunce posted this, earlier "....old and behind times...." in a thread about the right to private property.


While the thread began by finding respect for private property in the origins of the United States, the same can be found far earlier.


"The Romans were the first to preserve a code of law recognizing private property rights. ....they recognized that property means noting without protection against government encroachment. Under Roman law, the government could not take property without paying a sum determined by special judges.


With the Magna Carta...the barons extracted a stronger version of property rights....One of the chief grievances against the king was "arbitrary infringement of personal liberty and rights of property."
Kaufman, Op. Cit., 125-126


Article 39 of the Magna Carta: "No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised [property taken] or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimized, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Magna Carta - Constitutional Rights Foundation

• And....Article 28 set the rule of payment for property taken: " No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take the corn or other chattels of any one except he straightway give money for them, or can be allowed a respite in that regard by the will of the seller." MAGNA CARTA & CONFORMATIO CARTARUM Interpretation

12. Compare the above ideas with these dictates:

" Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. "
The Communist Manifesto

 

[Camp]

You have never eviscerated anyone in your life. Only in your feeble little mind.

Rectitude has no time limit.

Why would a right go out of fashion?

Fascists like you might find that the era of 'freedom of speech' is over.

I don't.


Fascists,....sometimes known as Liberals.....made the very same argument about the Constitution, as FDR did, and Wm. Brennan in endorsing the "living Constitution," a way to destroy the Constitution.

Obama appointed an unmerited jurist, Kagan, to the Supreme Court....a woman who believes in government outlawing speech it doesn't agree with.


"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."

Goldberg is an asshole spawned by what became one of the most hated women in America. He is a low rent propagandist commentator of ill repute.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

Asshole is the legal and accurate term for that guy who the great traitor/betrayer dumped on America. It is therefore not vulgar.

1. You are not only the low-life anti-American, as I stated earlier.
But you are a vulgar low-life anti-American.

2. And, you are a blow hard who has not read the scholarly work by Goldberg.

3. "Although Goldberg does permit himself a few moments of over-the-top liberal bashing,his book is for the most part a work of serious scholarship that attempts to identify important intellectual connections between the American Progressives and European Fascists of the early twentieth century and a number of trends in modern U.S. politics, many but not all of which are associated with contemporary American liberalism.

For the most part,Goldberg succeeds in this endeavor,calling our attention to the ways in which the Progressives, the Fascists, and much of liberalism share a fundamental distrust of markets, unintended social order, and other core ideas of classical liberalism.

Goldberg’s strengths arehis destruction of the argument that fascism is “right-wing”and the way he draws powerful parallels between the line from American Progressivism to the New Deal and the ideas behind European fascism."
https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_03_7_horwitz.pdf




You are a disgusting little twerp, and I thoroughly enjoy eviscerating your posts on a daily basis.

Her attempted insults aren't taken seriously. It is her routine response anytime she is challenged or questioned. Her default so to speak. No matter how much rational, logic, common sense, academic, intellectual or provable points backed up by reliable links are used, PC will fall back to her default of insulting. PC pretends to be scholarly, but scholars are not stubborn and predisposed to predetermined results. Scholars by definition are open to learning and discovering.

Note how the scholar PC quotes, Professor Steven Horwitz, does not refer to Jonah Goldberg as a fellow scholar, but rather calls his work "for the most part a work of serious scholarship". A polite way of saying the book and writings are not genuine scholarly work due to the other, unmentioned parts included in his book. The fact he precedes that quote by admitting Goldberg includes "over the top liberal bashing" shows his effort to be polite and give a favorable book review, but needs to distance himself from giving a full endorsement. Horwitz, after all, while an adherent of the Austrian school of economics and dedicated to conservative principals, must protect and maintain his reputation as a genuine scholar. For this reason, the works of a Goldberg never get a real scholarly endorsement, but rather a polite review and suggestion of the work being interesting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1

" Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. "
The Communist Manifesto

Who are the Liberals who advocate the above? Name some.

 

[Camp]

11. ....a dunce posted this, earlier "....old and behind times...." in a thread about the right to private property.


While the thread began by finding respect for private property in the origins of the United States, the same can be found far earlier.


"The Romans were the first to preserve a code of law recognizing private property rights. ....they recognized that property means noting without protection against government encroachment. Under Roman law, the government could not take property without paying a sum determined by special judges.


With the Magna Carta...the barons extracted a stronger version of property rights....One of the chief grievances against the king was "arbitrary infringement of personal liberty and rights of property."
Kaufman, Op. Cit., 125-126


Article 39 of the Magna Carta: "No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised [property taken] or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimized, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Magna Carta - Constitutional Rights Foundation

• And....Article 28 set the rule of payment for property taken: " No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take the corn or other chattels of any one except he straightway give money for them, or can be allowed a respite in that regard by the will of the seller." MAGNA CARTA & CONFORMATIO CARTARUM Interpretation

12. Compare the above ideas with these dictates:

" Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. "
The Communist Manifesto

Wrong, the beginnings of the United States was the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Independence rejected the premise you laid forth in your OP with the writing of Locke. Jefferson specifically rejected Locke's full quote when he replaces Locke's reference to property i.e., estate, with the pursuit of happiness, rejecting materialism and property as a prerequisite for liberty.

Everything you refer to that is Magna Carta or pre-Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence is questionable and hence, null and void because if it was not included in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. It was rejected and not wanted in the newly formed United States.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. ....a dunce posted this, earlier "....old and behind times...." in a thread about the right to private property.


While the thread began by finding respect for private property in the origins of the United States, the same can be found far earlier.


"The Romans were the first to preserve a code of law recognizing private property rights. ....they recognized that property means noting without protection against government encroachment. Under Roman law, the government could not take property without paying a sum determined by special judges.


With the Magna Carta...the barons extracted a stronger version of property rights....One of the chief grievances against the king was "arbitrary infringement of personal liberty and rights of property."
Kaufman, Op. Cit., 125-126


Article 39 of the Magna Carta: "No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised [property taken] or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimized, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Magna Carta - Constitutional Rights Foundation

• And....Article 28 set the rule of payment for property taken: " No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take the corn or other chattels of any one except he straightway give money for them, or can be allowed a respite in that regard by the will of the seller." MAGNA CARTA & CONFORMATIO CARTARUM Interpretation

12. Compare the above ideas with these dictates:

" Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. "
The Communist Manifesto

Wrong, the beginnings of the United States was the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Independence rejected the premise you laid forth in your OP with the writing of Locke. Jefferson specifically rejected Locke's full quote when he replaces Locke's reference to property i.e., estate, with the pursuit of happiness, rejecting materialism and property as a prerequisite for liberty.

Everything you refer to that is Magna Carta or pre-Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence is questionable and hence, null and void because if it was not included in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. It was rejected and not wanted in the newly formed United States.

Yet, everything I post is linked,and documented.

You....hot air.

Insults?
I am very careful about the vituperation I insert into every post....I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand my opinion of you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. No only is the abolition of private property an element of communist,

" Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.,"


And of Liberalism/environmentalism....

. "We can't protect our nation's environment if we are going to give in toprivate property rights."
Warren T. Brookes, "War on Property Rights," Washington Times.


...but guess where else that view is central?



c. In "Omnipotent Government: The Rise of Total State and Total War," by Ludwig von Mises," we find the following paragraph:

Under the Nazis, " No German capitalist or entrepreneur (shop manager) or any one else is free to spend money on his consumption than the government considers adequate to his rank and position in the service of the nation. The surplus must be deposited with the banks or invested in domestic bonds or in the stock of German corporations wholly controlled by the government."

".... (one cannot spend any more of his own money) than the government considers adequate..."

So....one may have legitimately earned assets.....but it isup to the government to determine if, or how, or when one may spend that and what one may spend it on.
What could be more....."Nazi"????



Communism, environmentalism, Liberalism, and Nazism all pay homage to Hegel:

The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



Property is Liberty, and Regulation Is Theft

Remember that when you vote.

 

[hazlnut]

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?

The thread is as stupid as ass on it's face.

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.

But your not educated enough to know about that...

 

[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?

Ah yes owning property, that thing the Founders said could be a requirement for having the right to vote.

 

[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?

The thread is as stupid as ass on it's face.

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.

But your not educated enough to know about that...

"But your (sic) not educated enough to know about that..."

"your"???????

When you complain about another's education, it behooves you to do so in correct English.




Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare your education with mine.



Did you have a good time at the 'Robert Fiance Beauty Schools; Cosmetology, Esthetics, Nail Technology' ?

 

[Camp]

It is very telling when a person has an obsessive need to insult others, even a whole faction and community of people they do not know. Now, we are to believe that anyone who has attended a particular school for a specialized skill that offers almost guaranteed employment with decent wages and the possibility of lucrative tips after graduating from a relatively short course of study, is automatically less intelligent than PoliticalChic.