Our Founding Fathers codified a profound respect for the common law notion of private property as between the gov't and citizens as well as among citizens themselves.
The Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment are two obvious examples of this codification. To quote: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The "depriver" and "taker" in this context is gov't; the "deprivee" are citizens and domiciliaries of the United States. The policy underlying these two clauses addresses the root cause of the American Revolution where individuals with no accountability (British governors and tax collectors), often in an ad hoc and arbitrary manner, deprived colonists of their property. There are some individuals (including members of the federal judiciary) today who seem to believe private property is an instrument of oppression and that we should "spread the wealth", and thus want to promote policies that undermine or diminish private property rights in the name of "fairness" and "equality." In reality, the true motive is class envy, demagogery, and disingenuous will-to-power. Shame on them.
You're not serious, are you? I mean, you are not seriously defending the misuse of corporate finances? Qu'ils mangent de la brioche? That kind of cavalier, Cheney-speak will indeed lead to revolution.
Please specify what you a referring to with regard to "misuse of corporate finances". I happen to think spending money on a fancy corporate jet is excellent idea. We WANT people to spend money, DON'T WE? or I suppose only Union Bosses and Abortion Clinics should have a right to spend my tax money. I don't assert tax money should go to ANY corporations for "bail out", and I affirm that corporate officers should have CARTE BLACNHE in the way they handle corporate finances and being responsible only to the following:
1. their board of directors
2. their creditors
3. their common stockholders (and preferred stockholders where applicable).
You know 0 about economics or corporate law in the United States. This country will indeed have a revolution if it regresses into a European style socialism.
Let them eat brioche indeed!
How can you regress to that which you have never had?
I speak with regard to economic models generally--it is a regression. Please mark the now near bankrupt UK as exhibit 1.
Exactly WHAT are you talking about, Nick? Doesn't seem to say a lot.
Property taxes or something?
I am completely for owning private property. Am also about making sure all people have a bare minimum to live as a matter of human rights. The two things can exist side by side.
Let's start here.
1. Please clarify what constitutes a "bare minimum to live." My bare minimum and your bare minimum are likely to differ.
2. Please tell me where you derive your version of "human rights" and how, as between two conflicting versions of human rights, we are to adjudicate the inconsistencies...
Otherwise, I move to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Dangerous as stands--it is so all over the place...
It was intentionally open-ended to stimulate conversation. And apparently I have succeeded once again.
I'd have you note--not an ego move, either--but only because of me...
But do appreciate that you are, uh, controversial, . Actually, seriously, you must have done something like this in the classroom--I'm sure good for high school kids (usually).
Most as you are, in this case, it seems otherwise to me.
You post 29 hours ago. Then nothing. Then 4 hours ago, Lita kick-started it.
No Lita, he is talking about wealth spread. Like taking from rich and giving to poor
And I agree with Nick that you guys screwed it big time, hence the problems you have now. Not only you though, Europe is in the same shit, even may be more. Gotten ready to be beaten to death by you and Ralph
thanx for your comment about me...
glad to know that somebody is really concern about me...
would love to receive any compements from you...good or bad...
because i dont go with look or anything...human shoud be nice from heart...
doesnt matter a man or woman......
thanx nickny...you are really wonderful person...
I just don't know specifically WHAT you/he are talking about? Imagine that is done through taxation, yeah?
Move to or buy in MO or NM or NE or IA. Relatively low taxes to very low property taxes there. For what it is worth, where you both live, it is somewhat over-regulated and highly taxed. Oddly (or not so) so is AZ...
And yep, Ralph is the Warren Buffett, of Hubpages.
Oh! Is that it, perhaps? Well, he has problems with the taxing of the wealthy, too. And does support $3,000 shower curtains as well, yes.
You need to lecture him, Teresa. I think he has a certain respect for professors, , even if they are on the progressive side.
Thankfully I'm retired; even so, since Nick has couched his (unclear) assertion within the historical context of the American Revolution, he must necessarily understand why defending "private property" got at the expense of others is short-sighted. Furthermore, since he also understands that possession is nine-tenths of the law, he will be able to use argument after argument to defend his position and feel that he is in the right.
SPENDING STIMULATES THE ECONOMY. I suppose we should spend money on wasteful, inefficient gov't projects instead....that would be ok because the gov't bureacracies and union members who benefit are non-partisan and contribute nothing to the democrat machine. I suppose Mr. Buffet in no way profits from his gov't connections, as well.
The guy will attempt to defend anything, even when it is not in his personal business interests necessarily, . All that philosophy like helium to lasso false prurient interests of various varieties.
Not sure, but I believe NickNY is talking about the rash abuses of the Right of Eminent Domain. In most countries the government just says F you and takes the property here in the US they are supposed to give fair compensation.
Well a lot of our Corporate Buddies and their employess I.E our Politicians and Judges are coming up with some really creative ways to grab private property and use the cheap aquisition of said property for massive and artificial taxpayer funded profits.
Some Examples. Any of the stadiums built recently most famously would by George and the Rangers deal where he used the government to condemn property of what many of would consider to be very wealthy people. Anyway, the judge ruled in GW's favor.
When Chrysler rebuilt their Jeep plant in Toledo, that ended with the Supreme court telling private citizens they had no right to redress and threw the case out giving a victory to DaimlerChrysler.
They lost their business a mechanic's garage, it is now a patch of lovely grass at the very edge of the plant.
Anyway, it happens all the time the press never covers it. And the one that pisses me off the most is my own property well property that should have been mine.
Anyway it is now the property of the Corps of Engineers and lake Eufaula sits on top of it, and we got paid less than the going price for Alaska back in the day.
Key words and tricky phrases for someone is about to get jacked by the Gov.
If we don't build those jobs will go somewhere else
Any BDC (Business Development Corporation) doing anything in your neighborhood
Dam or Public works project.
Power plant and lines
Public Schools are awesome tools to screw poor people from their houses.
All the good white bred voters think schools are great Ideas but won't sell their property for a price the Government will pay so poor people look out. They know they won't win the fight so they often sell out well below fair market value. Exception some Rich guy owns a piece of polluted swamp land in which case the Government price is 3 times market value ergo school gets built on pile of shit.
Ah, yes, TMG--my partner was talking about that. How government ostensibly could take anyone's property if they deemed fit.
It seems as you cite it (and I believe it to be), it may be an abuse caused by Bush's extremely, uh, broad 'will to power' policies in interpreting the 5th amendment. Of course, Nick will turn it around and say the problem lies with liberal supreme court justices.
When it comes to the Government liberal and conservatives agree, taking large campaign contributions and returning the favor is the only way to go. So you can't blame the judges anymore or less than the congress, or Bush. They all do it and have the audacitly to brag about it at parties. You just wished an angry postman would come out of nowwhere when your amongst them.
What is your feeling about Obama and his new administration, TMG?
I won't say what I think just yet, but I will share a piece of my day with you.
I am in Albuquerque visiting a certain Government Facility. I was talking with a program director on behalf of my company. Anyway this person says to me, what can we do to upgrade, I here it from Mr. Richardson that Christmas will be coming very soon in this stimulus package.
Now this can be looked at in two ways, good because these facilities have money to spend and research will happen, and good, that companies like mine will lap up the spill off and hopefully give people like me a raise and hire possible more people who will spend it all on small business in their local community.
Or bad, because anyway you slice it the profit isn't real since it is just taxpayer money that was borrowed. Making the Gov employees and myself just high class welfare cases.
The only thing I can say personally is if the National labs take this money and create some really good and usefull technology and our corporations use facilities here to fabricate and bring this new stuff to market then it will be good. If they wholesale ship it oversees then this stimulus will be the most spectacular Credit Card party I have ever seen.
VERY INCORRECT. It's the infamous Kelo v. Cityo of New London case. The majority on this decision included ALL THE MOST LIBERAL members of the judiciary. In high school, we should have learned that the Executive Branch DOES NOT interpret the Constitution--the Supreme Court Does. Please review Article 2 and 3 of the Constitution.
Bush and Cheney have such a long list of things that would just make you puke, but Clinton's was just as long. I was too young to have any Dealing with Bush I. But, I do know when the Rangers stadium deal was going down, that it was said that the only way he pulled it off was nobody wanted to fight him with daddy in office. The only family that did fight was the Mathis family of Curtis-Mathis TV's. Anyway, they got their day in court, they lost their property, but did get a lot more money than everyone else because they just didn't rollover.
Okay. Can see that. I don't think anyone necessarily wants a 'stimulus package' period, but we are in a bit of a mess.
And which way do you think it will go concerning these national labs?
I believe many things can be construed both ways in general in life; sometimes the character of a person is more telling than anything else. For me, and I have said this before--Obama has been the only president in my lifetime that I have respected. I liked Clinton, ie, but never respected him for a number of reasons (not just the intern thing).
You are not sure of Obama, or not sure of Obama's ability/policy?
Obama has to be a sharp person and a good people reader to get where he is. Most politicians are. So nothing against his intellect per se. It's just he is only the President, he can't do anything until a bill is put on his desk to sign.
There is the problem, all of the people involved in that process are meeting as we speak with lobbyist from all different sides of the issue. With so many lobbyist and so many issues those guys pretty much only entertain the highest bidders. Their careers are their business, so like anyone else they do what works best for them.
They will get a bill in front of Obama that will do what all bills do, it will put the force of government behind the money folks and that won't fix anything. He can't veto it, because he has to do something. So it will be loaded with pork. He himself bears watching as the single largest collector of Campaign contributions in the history of our country.
People don't like to spend millions and be ignored.
I agree with much of this. I have felt for sometime the office of presidency is more figurehead than anything else. The powers that be and why they are there grow ever more complicated. That being said, I feel in watching Obama's political career, that he uses/will use what power he does in a very decisive way--and not one which will suit his own interests only, but what he holds as fundamental truths. Some of the right money folks (and I believe there are a few) are behind him.
The thing with Obama and the choice to use the private contributions campaigning is that McCain was going to bundle all his wealth in a way to stab Obama in the back through a clever use of a loophole. Obama went out and won (and then some) a popularity contest.
I'm finding all budgets are loaded with 'pork' and only as good as those adminstrating them. You see this in organizations--and it is true that sometimes it is a miracle that anything works out. Often, I beleive it is actually the efforts of those 'not in charge,' believe it or not, that make any difference.
Very well said with regard to contributions to Obama's campaign.
Wow. I missed a lot today...the moment I let my guard down and do a little reading for class, my thread has gets swamped. I suppose I'll start in chronological order...
I think the following should be included in the stimulus packages for there to be a TRUE stimulus:
1. interest on car financing and personal mortgages should be a tax write off.
2. some investment in infrastructure may be in order, but it should be spent where there is truly a need.
3. heavy investment in alternative energy--for the sake of reducing our dependence on hostile nations for oil.
4. tax cuts and tax benefits reward employers for creating jobs.
These are just some ideas. I'm curious what others might add to this list.
IT IS STRIKING how no one appears to know specifically what's in the House's version of this Bill.
29 hours ago people were recovering from Super Bowl hangovers. Now that Lita is sober[?], we have commenced.
I don't drink much at all Nick--little wine with dinner. You must be talking about yourself, of course! Better watch it...that weight from being an alchie creeps on as you are approaching 30!
Would you prefer Hubbers ignore your posts? It can be arranged.
I think we should let hubbers speak for themselves...ipsi loquentur.
They are the ones that let it be known that I indeed 'created' you, lol. Because I didn't ignore your 'trollish' activity. Just speak to Misha, for gosh sakes!
I see by your silence you are an alchie.... Daft, snotty, Latin alchie
Meum silentium significavit quod dormiveram. Londiniumpuella tam a me fascinatur ut assidue me commoneat, sed fortasse Nickus scientiam Latinae perfruor vult. Non sibi solet placere vulgaris, "polloi" ut Platon diceret, sed placere sibi. Vero sua attentione me blandiatur, sed si Latina tibi displacet, licet tibi scribere in altero "thread."
Online translators make me giggle. Here's how Nick's block of text translates:
lol I would love to know how the online translator got "fine flower" out of anything I said. The fact that it was unable translate "Latina" (Latin) and "scribere" (to write) should be adequate evidence of the unreliability of online translators--though I cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no additional editing for comic effect. But I can admit there was some humor in this.
Yeah, got that much! And I'm sure he thinks he's doing it because he thinks we all enjoy it, lol. Couldn't translate much of the part about 'attention,' but I'd allow at a deeper level one is blander and more vulgar here than another and no amount of Latin acquisition will help that.
Alpha Rule 101.1: When a girl says something "annoys" her--take it as an invitation to bring it up a notch until you are at the point of being slapped.
Let's see if we can get all our names in Latin? I love LondiniumPuella; Scriptor non-invitata; Nickus -- fine. But I guess Teresa and Lita will have to stay as they are. Merda.
Yes, "Merda" is a good translation for these names. lol
You are dealing with someone trained to be a "reader in bad faith." You can be sure that the slightest ambiguity willl be read--to use a term of art--contra proferentem ("against the drafter). I only jest here.
The game is the one I chose to play--sore losers can play elsewhere.
Rule 101.2: What on its face appears "illogical" when dealing with the female specie may, when put to trial, function at a deeper level than "logic."
Ok, I have to read for NY Practice for the next five hours. Play nicely while I'm gone.
by Sooner28 5 years ago
Libertarians either claim we have an "absolute" right to private property (if they are of the anarchist variety), or that we nearly have one (those who believe the government should only fund military, police, and courts to protect private property). Thus, coercive taxes are a...
by Marlene Bertrand 2 years ago
Do American citizens give up their civil rights when they join the military?My husband told me that when he joined the military, they told him he was the property of the United States. That got me to wondering if that meant he lost his civil rights while he was serving in the military.
by SparklingJewel 10 years ago
As author Jeffrey Bell says about Gov. Palin: "The simple fact of her being a pro-life married mother of five with a thriving political career was - before anything else about her was known - enough for the left and its outliers to target her for destruction. She could not be allowed to...
by Doodlehead 6 years ago
According to Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul has plans to lead the Liberty Caucus Republicanswhen he resigns in December. Lew says Dr. Paul has kept his typical low profileuntil he is out of Congress. What do you think he has planned?
by cjhunsinger 4 years ago
Does a 'minimum wage' conflict with the principle of private property and 'free enterprise'?Should a person be paid for their labors according to their effort and the market or by a government mandate?
by Jack Lee 12 months ago
It seems to me, the ACLU is missing in action...They claim to be the defender of freedom and individual rights and work against abuses of power by our government...sounds good until you examine just what they do.They target religious institutions and defend criminals...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|