Property is Liberty, and Regulation Is Theft

[there4eyeM]

Vince Lombardi was a 'lib'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If it wasn't for our government trying to sell so much be to get accepted, this issue would not be a problem.

Look, you do not own what you pay taxes on. It is called a lease and the government is the lease holder. If yo break the lease, you lose rights to the property!

Property rights? Of land? Of a car? Of a home? You live in Wyoming?

This post is truly insane.
Unless you mean

If it wasn't for our government trying to sell so much be to get accepted, this issue would not be a problem.

Look, you do not own what you pay taxes on. It is called a lease and the government is the lease holder. If yo break the lease, you lose rights to the property!

Property rights? Of land? Of a car? Of a home? You live in Wyoming?

"....you do not own what you pay taxes on."
Unless you mean this post as satire....you should either be in a strait jacket, or given a medal by Stalin's politburo.


Or....your name is Happy Chandler....

...as represented in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From a speech delivered on the Senate floor, May 14, 1943 Happy Chandler’s dangerous statism



What has happened to America????????




Just so you'll have a clue about something in your post...
This is Wyoming

This is the Wyoming state flag....I fly in in front of my home....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Vince Lombardi was a 'lib'?

Did you study the quiz I provided?

Then, get back to work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

"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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Trumpism.

Trump????

How about Democrat elected officials.....

And, some education for you, too.....


The dictator-wannabe Franklin Roosevelt had followers like this:

The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From a speech delivered on the Senate floor
May 14, 1943 Happy Chandler’s dangerous statism

 

[Camp]

I simply put the case out as a factor that should be included in any discussion about eminent domain.

When all but six states bar imminent domain for the purpose covered in Kelo, Kelo can be easily removed from consideration in any discussion about imminent domain.

No, it can't. It is the last SCOTUS ruling on the word you are still misspelling and pronouncing from the way you spell your version of eminent domain. The SCOTUS ruling still stands. No matter how many state legislatures passed laws to neutralize the court ruling, it still stands as the Constitutional ruling on eminent domain.

 

[Centinel]

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?

"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?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

"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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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 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

 

[NYcarbineer]

If regulation is theft, then theft is a necessary function of a democratic society with a democratic government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 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?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 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

The original smear above is directed at liberals.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"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 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

 

[Skull Pilot]

"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 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

The original smear above is directed at liberals.

So what?

That doesn't invalidate my question which you won't answer

 

[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?

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 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.

 

[rdean]

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!

 

[Skull Pilot]

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 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

 

[Camp]

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?

Trumpism.

Trump????

How about Democrat elected officials.....

And, some education for you, too.....


The dictator-wannabe Franklin Roosevelt had followers like this:

The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From a speech delivered on the Senate floor
May 14, 1943 Happy Chandler’s dangerous statism

Note the date, the middle of WWII. The administration is forced to plead for funding even as the war raged. The war in the Pacific was raging and Australia was being bombed by the Japanese. US ships were being sunk in the Atlantic and the US had entered the bombing campaign in Europe with huge casualties and aircraft losses. Victory against the Axis was very uncertain. Just a note to put some perspective on the situation when Chandler was addressing the Senate.