About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 9:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alright! Where's my gun?

This is the point where the Supreme Court has lost ALL its authority in my eyes. I'm not sure when enough is enough but I know I'd getting damn close.

Post 1

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 9:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
An absolute outrage. It confirms explicitly what has been implicit for a long time.

Post 2

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 9:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cities have been seizing homes for awhile for "public" projects. The fact that it is now federally sanction is just sickening.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 9:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

John Newnham said:  “Cities have been seizing homes for awhile for "public" projects. The fact that it is now federally sanction is just sickening.”

 

Yes, but just how sick does it really make you?  Sick enough to actually DO something about it, or just talk about it?

 

- B.

 

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.”  -- Niemöller

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL:  brilovett, MSN:  blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo:  bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Post 4

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 10:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Christ! , what's next?

Supreme Court decisions should now come with a disclaimer: The Constitution was not necessarily consulted when writing this decision...

Jim


Post 5

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 10:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Note the distinction in the article. Property may be seized for PRIVATE use and development if that development equals a benefit for the "community" (i.e. more tax revenue.)

Ethan


Post 6

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 10:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brian-

OK, what do you suggest people do? The best I can think of - and it's got a lot of flaws - is to chip in for better arms for the victims willing to defend their homes in spite of the unjust law. eg. resident Bill Von Winkle, the one who said "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word." He might as well at least have a good assault rifle when he makes his valiant but doomed last stand.


Post 7

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This judgment yields an insidious cultural side effect.  It furthers the leftist proposition that capitalism amounts to a collusion between government and the wealthy to oppress the poor.  Home ownership and property rights have long offered protections for poor and rich alike.  In that respect, true capitalism benefits the poor even more than the rich when compared to all other social systems.

This decision completely inverts that protection.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 6/23, 10:32am)


Post 8

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The people at bureaucrash.com are going to protest at the Supreme Court next week, I'm going to do my damnest to be there if I can. I spoke to one of my friends at protest warriors and they were considering it even though thats not what they usually do. Another friend of mine at the Leadership Institute said at lot of them were also going.

Under the table, their boss is asking around of Ms. Kelo needs any 'help' when the bulldozers come. These are just rumors but there could very well be armed men guarding her house by next week, if she agrees. I know a lot of ya'll don't like the right wing but you won't find stronger supporters of property rights who will do something anywhere.

Post 9

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 11:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Valid question there Brian. What are the alternatives/options? Political activism is the obvious one. If I were one of the people affected directly I wonder what I could do to make the site unusable? What kind of stand would I be willing to take? Would I be willing to risk jailtime or would I just give in? I don't know. I used to think it wouldnt happen to me, but my neighbor lost part of his land to a public road last week. Or would I become untaxable, without visible means, or visible property?

John

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Aaron said:  “OK, what do you suggest people do? The best I can think of - and it's got a lot of flaws - is to chip in for better arms for the victims willing to defend their homes in spite of the unjust law. eg. resident Bill Von Winkle, the one who said "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word." He might as well at least have a good assault rifle when he makes his valiant but doomed last stand.”

 

Though I don’t support violent action (at least not yet, as I still believe we live in a benevolent world), I have a hard time discouraging your novel idea of starting a fund to arm these victims.  (I doubt any of you have the courage to do something like that.)  I also wouldn’t stand in their way to prevent them from murdering their assaulters, as their assaulters certainly have earned that fate.  However, though Rand had Ragnar Danneskjold, she also had John Galt.  What did Galt do?  He stopped the motor of the world.  How did he do it?  By removing his sanction and taking DIRECT ACTION.

 

I’ll bet that most all of you, every day, sanction our government in one way or another (e.g., voluntarily paying income taxes, purchasing (and watching) dumbing-down propaganda from the major media outlets, doing nothing).  (Most of the Socialists on this list do that directly to support the government, while the rest of you likely don’t think enough to consider it at all.)  What do I suggest?  ACTIVELY remove your sanction.  How do you remove your sanction?  There are plenty of courageous individuals around the country (e.g., see my list of heroes I consider “Courageously Supporting Liberty”) taking DIRECT ACTION against the government.  (I wrote a related post on this over 2 years ago.)

 

For example, I couldn’t spell law before I filed for divorce.  Now, without any legal training (to corrupt my thinking), I’m finalizing my reply brief for the Illinois appellate court.  (I figured, if an attorney could learn how to do this, how hard could it really be?)  In all my researching of history, U.S. Supreme Court cases, legal processes, and laws, I came across Irwin Schiff.  That took me down a path researching all of the tax laws and learning that the income tax was voluntary.  (Now I pay money to those who are exposing the tax fraud, not to mention I no longer “volunteer.”)

 

Point being, there are PLENTY of courageous leaders out there that you can learn from.  But, you must do the work.  You must get your head out of the sand.  You must make the effort.  You must take the risks.  You must re-evaluate your priorities.  You must re-evaluate your principles.  Do you have the courage?

 

Your enemy is, and always has been, the government.  Don’t sanction them by doing nothing – ATTACK.

 

- B.

 

To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle.  -- Confucius

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL:  brilovett, MSN:  blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo:  bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

That was Patrick Henry, ya'll know how that speech ends.

I've made up my mind, I am going to DC and soon. I'm also going to keep an eye on my local Police Jury and city government to see if they try to pull some shit like that. They know me well already, and if they try that they will know me a whole lot better.

Post 12

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 9:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Despicable

Post 13

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I talk to a lot of people, every day, often just to catch their reactions to what is going on in the world.  In some ways I am these peoples only connection to current events.

Today when I made my rounds this story was the first thing I explained.  But where as I often get a shocked reaction to the stories i tell about say... private citizens standing on the boarder to alert police to illegal crossings...  this time the reactions that I got were simply indifferent blank stares.  As though they already knew this news and didn't seem to care to hear it again.

As I inquired to their reactions I got most people merely pointed out that this was nothing new.  The people of my area have already given up on fighting for their right to own property.  (This is visable in the tax rates of our area.)  They accept the authority of the state to give and take property as it sees fit.

Today was a really frustrating day.

~E.


Post 14

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 2:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, it is a travesty, but it is not the first, nor will it be the last. 

Lest we run to Washington D.C. shouting for revolution in the streets and reason in the classrooms, let me say that when something equally stupid happened  here outside Ann Arbor, the people just voted the idiots out of office and canceled their big plans. 


Post 15

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 2:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Eminent domain. The constitution ~never~ protected property rights, it protected eminent domain, ie., compensation for takings, which means the local authority has always had full power to tell man- and home-owners to just bugger off and take their medicine.

The only thing that stopped it happening was a lingering regard for property rights, and that's long, long, looong gone.

It's a black day.

You probably used to look at pictures of Robert Mugabe's bulldozers clearing the 'illegal homes' of Harare residents to "get rid of trash"--you probably looked and gave silent thanks that you lived in a country where such things couldn't happen.

You were fooling yourself.

Post 16

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 2:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

John Newnham said:  “Valid question there Brian. What are the alternatives/options? Political activism is the obvious one. If I were one of the people affected directly I wonder what I could do to make the site unusable? What kind of stand would I be willing to take? Would I be willing to risk jailtime or would I just give in? I don't know. I used to think it wouldnt happen to me, but my neighbor lost part of his land to a public road last week. Or would I become untaxable, without visible means, or visible property?”

 

John, you ARE one of the people affected directly.  Don’t you see it?  Go back and read the quote in post #3.

 

- B.

 

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  -- Voltaire

 

P.S. - Ask yourself WHY Voltaire makes that statement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL:  brilovett, MSN:  blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo:  bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Post 17

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 2:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Peter Cresswell said:  “Eminent domain. The constitution ~never~ protected property rights, it protected eminent domain, ie., compensation for takings, which means the local authority has always had full power to tell man- and home-owners to just bugger off and take their medicine.”

 

Oh, really?  I think James Madison (you know, the “Father of the Constitution”) had a difference of opinion:  “Government,” James Madison wrote, “is instituted no less for protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.”  Federalist No. 54.  Then again, you would probably know better, right?

 

- B.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL:  brilovett, MSN:  blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo:  bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Post 18

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 2:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Those bull dozers are already pointed at the people of my neighborhood.  In the name of trash removal.

~E.


Post 19

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brian, the Founding Fathers themselves unquestionably understood the importance of property rights, but perhaps because they didn't imagine their importance would ever be challenged they failed to translate their understanding of property rights into meaningful constitutional protection for them.

That's the tragedy. As I said, "The only thing that stopped [this tragedy] happening was a lingering regard for property rights, and that's long, long, looong gone." And as Robert B.said, "It confirms explicitly what has been implicit for a long time."

That's the battle in which to engage IMHO: an active campaign promoting the crucial life- and liberty-protecting importance of property rights, with this present outrage as your 'hook.'It's not like you don't have penty of ammunition.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.