Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Property is liberty? Both are words, meaning concepts. 'Property' refers to material reality. Liberty refers purely to concept. Equating the two represents the ultimate level of materialism.
IF the title of the OP, "Property is Liberty, and Regulation is Theft" is to be considered and argued as truth and a pillar of 'Conservatism', then the conservatives supporting that proposition would have to be directly condemning at least one portion of the Constitution as thievery and unlawful theft.
Note the precise wording of Article I, § 8, Cls 3 which states one of the enumerated powers of Congress:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
The Founders determined that power to regulate commerce uniformly a very necessary power to curb the former excesses of the several States under the Articles of Confederation imposing immoderate and punitive sanctions, tariffs and excises, on the commerce of other States. That obviously made trade more expensive for all concerned, which impacted everyone negatively, and created barriers.
Therefore, if the offered proposition of the OP's title is true then the Founders were in error to some measurable degree in their construction of the Constitution. However, if the Founders were correct in bestowing that power upon Congress to regulate commerce to avoid those petty and very costly equivalents of 'theft' by the several States, the idea that moderate regulation may just be necessary can be sustained within certain logical and proper bounds.
Just one man's opinion on the general proposition of sweeping declarations lacking considerations of the scope of the totality of impacts. The mileage for others may vary, of course!
It is not a need or want for you and I am not your only obsession. You need, repeat, need this way of responding to all the posters who expose your foolishness. You are unable to learn and progress intellectually and so you depend on your false bravado to maintain your ego. Your insults are meaningless. Who cares about them. Not the people you hurl them at. They are only meant to make you feel something. Some kind of false sense of accomplishment after being spanked about your silly concepts and book reviews that you present as your own theses.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.
I don't NEED to insult you....I like doing it!
Consider me the personification of Karma.
And....speaking of 'intelligence'....
Based on your skills, I would put you in charge of the valet parking at the hospital emergency room.....
....actually, you're best equipped to sit in front of a thatched hut, poking a stick into the dirt.
Being an expert still does not take the bad taste of extremism away..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.
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.
It is not a need or want for you and I am not your only obsession. You need, repeat, need this way of responding to all the posters who expose your foolishness. You are unable to learn and progress intellectually and so you depend on your false bravado to maintain your ego. Your insults are meaningless. Who cares about them. Not the people you hurl them at. They are only meant to make you feel something. Some kind of false sense of accomplishment after being spanked about your silly concepts and book reviews that you present as your own theses.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.
I don't NEED to insult you....I like doing it!
Consider me the personification of Karma.
And....speaking of 'intelligence'....
Based on your skills, I would put you in charge of the valet parking at the hospital emergency room.....
....actually, you're best equipped to sit in front of a thatched hut, poking a stick into the dirt.
I was tempted to help you out on this one but thought not knowing enough to bring up Kelo vs. New London on this topic truly showed your lack of knowledge and understanding of a part of the topic you are trying to expound. That you could go all day discussing this topic, including eminent domain and not reference Kelo vs. New London shows you are merely doing the cut and paste thing and lack any genuine expertise on the subject.
Being an expert still does not take the bad taste of extremism away..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.
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.
I hope you didn't think I was saying that there was such a hint in this thread. I was just throwing out some thoughts on the subject of liberty and property rights.
There seem two be two classes of individuals who feel they have the right to violate other people's bodies or property. First, there are the common criminals, who assault, batter, defraud, trespass against, and otherwise violate the bodies and possessions of their fellow man. And then there are state functionaries who threaten violence against the bodies and possession of their fellow man. Not in response to violent acts, but simply as a means to coerce desired behaviors or to extract property from them.
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.
I hope you didn't think I was saying that there was such a hint in this thread. I was just throwing out some thoughts on the subject of liberty and property rights.
There seem two be two classes of individuals who feel they have the right to violate other people's bodies or property. First, there are the common criminals, who assault, batter, defraud, trespass against, and otherwise violate the bodies and possessions of their fellow man. And then there are state functionaries who threaten violence against the bodies and possession of their fellow man. Not in response to violent acts, but simply as a means to coerce desired behaviors or to extract property from them.
Gotcha', Centinel....
I simply wanted to make a clear distinction and remind readers that the fault is, and always has been, with the Leftists.
Glad you included 'violence' and 'coercion,' as the are the hallmarks of every one of 'em.....socialists, fascists, Liberals, Progressives, Nazis and communists.
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.
I hope you didn't think I was saying that there was such a hint in this thread. I was just throwing out some thoughts on the subject of liberty and property rights.
There seem two be two classes of individuals who feel they have the right to violate other people's bodies or property. First, there are the common criminals, who assault, batter, defraud, trespass against, and otherwise violate the bodies and possessions of their fellow man. And then there are state functionaries who threaten violence against the bodies and possession of their fellow man. Not in response to violent acts, but simply as a means to coerce desired behaviors or to extract property from them.
Gotcha', Centinel....
I simply wanted to make a clear distinction and remind readers that the fault is, and always has been, with the Leftists.
Glad you included 'violence' and 'coercion,' as the are the hallmarks of every one of 'em.....socialists, fascists, Liberals, Progressives, Nazis and communists.
Clearly their policies are based upon violence and coercion against people who haven't violated the property rights of anyone. Completely unjust.
I was tempted to help you out on this one but thought not knowing enough to bring up Kelo vs. New London on this topic truly showed your lack of knowledge and understanding of a part of the topic you are trying to expound. That you could go all day discussing this topic, including eminent domain and not reference Kelo vs. New London shows you are merely doing the cut and paste thing and lack any genuine expertise on the subject.
I was tempted to help you out on this one but thought not knowing enough to bring up Kelo vs. New London on this topic truly showed your lack of knowledge and understanding of a part of the topic you are trying to expound. That you could go all day discussing this topic, including eminent domain and not reference Kelo vs. New London shows you are merely doing the cut and paste thing and lack any genuine expertise on the subject.
Any good liberal like yourself would be familiar with the Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans 517 US 620 (1996), when a Colorado law preventing protected status for homosexual and bisexual couples was struck down. But the precedent was set, that an action by government must serve a legitimate state interest.
Another case was United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) which stuck down Virginia Military Institute's admissions policy regarding women. It said that the purpose for government's enaction of policy or any action "must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation."
Kelo did not establish any kind of reinterpretation of the 5th Amendment. Most of the time, eminent domain is exercised by state and local governments, not by the federal government. In this case, New London attempted to re-purpose the lot in order to boost the city's economy.
Your interpretation of Kelo is flawed, as is your understanding of imminent domain. Prior to Kelo, only 7 states had laws prohibiting the use of imminent domain for economic development, however, after Kelo, 44 states have enacted similar laws, essentially nullifying the ruling.
Your argument is invalid.
I did not present an argument for or against Kelo vs. New London or give an interpretation. I simply put the case out as a factor that should be included in any discussion about eminent domain. That was my only point. I did not interpret it, so how is my point about it invalid. I made no point nor did I attempt to make a point about the case.I was tempted to help you out on this one but thought not knowing enough to bring up Kelo vs. New London on this topic truly showed your lack of knowledge and understanding of a part of the topic you are trying to expound. That you could go all day discussing this topic, including eminent domain and not reference Kelo vs. New London shows you are merely doing the cut and paste thing and lack any genuine expertise on the subject.
Any good liberal like yourself would be familiar with the Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans 517 US 620 (1996), when a Colorado law preventing protected status for homosexual and bisexual couples was struck down. But the precedent was set, that an action by government must serve a legitimate state interest.
Another case was United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) which stuck down Virginia Military Institute's admissions policy regarding women. It said that the purpose for government's enaction of policy or any action "must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation."
Kelo did not establish any kind of reinterpretation of the 5th Amendment. Most of the time, eminent domain is exercised by state and local governments, not by the federal government. In this case, New London attempted to re-purpose the lot in order to boost the city's economy.
Your interpretation of Kelo is flawed, as is your understanding of imminent domain. Prior to Kelo, only 7 states had laws prohibiting the use of imminent domain for economic development, however, after Kelo, 44 states have enacted similar laws, essentially nullifying the ruling.
Your argument is invalid.
I was tempted to help you out on this one but thought not knowing enough to bring up Kelo vs. New London on this topic truly showed your lack of knowledge and understanding of a part of the topic you are trying to expound. That you could go all day discussing this topic, including eminent domain and not reference Kelo vs. New London shows you are merely doing the cut and paste thing and lack any genuine expertise on the subject.
Any good liberal like yourself would be familiar with the Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans 517 US 620 (1996), when a Colorado law preventing protected status for homosexual and bisexual couples was struck down. But the precedent was set, that an action by government must serve a legitimate state interest.
Another case was United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) which stuck down Virginia Military Institute's admissions policy regarding women. It said that the purpose for government's enaction of policy or any action "must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation."
Kelo did not establish any kind of reinterpretation of the 5th Amendment. Most of the time, eminent domain is exercised by state and local governments, not by the federal government. In this case, New London attempted to re-purpose the lot in order to boost the city's economy.
Your interpretation of Kelo is flawed, as is your understanding of imminent domain. Prior to Kelo, only 7 states had laws prohibiting the use of imminent domain for economic development, however, after Kelo, 44 states have enacted similar laws, essentially nullifying the ruling.
Your argument is invalid.
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...
I simply put the case out as a factor that should be included in any discussion about eminent domain.
The OP stated clearly that, "...Regulation is Theft". That was the point addressed; the enumerated authority to regulate commerce contrasted to the suggestion that regulations are all a form of theft. Amendment V does not concern regulation directly and violations of individual rights were not being discussed to purposefully narrow the scope to avoid sharpshooting idiotic ramblings from the usual suspects. You are way out in left field with your critique and off the topic covered.IF the title of the OP, "Property is Liberty, and Regulation is Theft" is to be considered and argued as truth and a pillar of 'Conservatism', then the conservatives supporting that proposition would have to be directly condemning at least one portion of the Constitution as thievery and unlawful theft.
Note the precise wording of Article I, § 8, Cls 3 which states one of the enumerated powers of Congress:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
The Founders determined that power to regulate commerce uniformly a very necessary power to curb the former excesses of the several States under the Articles of Confederation imposing immoderate and punitive sanctions, tariffs and excises, on the commerce of other States. That obviously made trade more expensive for all concerned, which impacted everyone negatively, and created barriers.
Therefore, if the offered proposition of the OP's title is true then the Founders were in error to some measurable degree in their construction of the Constitution. However, if the Founders were correct in bestowing that power upon Congress to regulate commerce to avoid those petty and very costly equivalents of 'theft' by the several States, the idea that moderate regulation may just be necessary can be sustained within certain logical and proper bounds.
Just one man's opinion on the general proposition of sweeping declarations lacking considerations of the scope of the totality of impacts. The mileage for others may vary, of course!
No. In your attempt to sound well reasoned, you neglected the 5th Amendment entirely.
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
As far as "regulation" is concerned, the key is "moderate" not "excessive" regulation. You know, the excess which would directly violate the 5th Amendment.
Everything is 'theft' to the RWnuts. It's hilarious.
When the government can take the land you own or the house you live in at any time what do you call it?
I was tempted to help you out on this one but thought not knowing enough to bring up Kelo vs. New London on this topic truly showed your lack of knowledge and understanding of a part of the topic you are trying to expound. That you could go all day discussing this topic, including eminent domain and not reference Kelo vs. New London shows you are merely doing the cut and paste thing and lack any genuine expertise on the subject.
Any good liberal like yourself would be familiar with the Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans 517 US 620 (1996), when a Colorado law preventing protected status for homosexual and bisexual couples was struck down. But the precedent was set, that an action by government must serve a legitimate state interest.
Another case was United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) which stuck down Virginia Military Institute's admissions policy regarding women. It said that the purpose for government's enaction of policy or any action "must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation."
Kelo did not establish any kind of reinterpretation of the 5th Amendment. Most of the time, eminent domain is exercised by state and local governments, not by the federal government. In this case, New London attempted to re-purpose the lot in order to boost the city's economy.
Your interpretation of Kelo is flawed, as is your understanding of imminent domain. Prior to Kelo, only 7 states had laws prohibiting the use of imminent domain for economic development, however, after Kelo, 44 states have enacted similar laws, essentially nullifying the ruling.
Your argument is invalid.
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?
