| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Deuteros" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2005 08:52:54 PM |
| Object: |
New Constitutional Amendments |
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
(Government won't be able to take your property because the property
is "accused" of a crime)
- No government taxation of property:
No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
- Military reform:
No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
without a Congressional Declaration of War.
Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
invasion by an outside force.
At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose any
foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to the
people, as individuals.
- Congressional reform:
The individual states may impeach their respective Senators and
Representatives they send to Congress.
Compensation of Congressmen will be determined by his or her
respective state of origin.
Government agents, foreign or domestic, will not have immunity from
prosecution.
- Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the "necessary
and proper" clauses.
- Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in Article
1 Section 8.
- Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices and
control the militia.
- Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
only. (passing out food, water, etc)
These are just suggestions of course. The goal is to cut back the bloated
mess our government has become today to a simple government that respects
individual rights and perhaps even fears the people it governs.
.
|
|
| User: "Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 03:37:18 PM |
|
|
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:43a62086$0$97164$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
(Government won't be able to take your property because the property
is "accused" of a crime)
- No government taxation of property:
No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
- Military reform:
No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
without a Congressional Declaration of War.
Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
invasion by an outside force.
At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose any
foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to the
people, as individuals.
- Congressional reform:
The individual states may impeach their respective Senators and
Representatives they send to Congress.
Compensation of Congressmen will be determined by his or her
respective state of origin.
Government agents, foreign or domestic, will not have immunity from
prosecution.
- Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the "necessary
and proper" clauses.
- Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in Article
1 Section 8.
- Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices and
control the militia.
- Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
only. (passing out food, water, etc)
These are just suggestions of course. The goal is to cut back the bloated
mess our government has become today to a simple government that respects
individual rights and perhaps even fears the people it governs.
Why bother with all that? Just cancel the whole darn thing. Then there
would be no government at all!
Scott
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 12:42:56 PM |
|
|
"The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon. "
But that changes the whole meaning. The original just says that the
Federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to
form a state militia.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "
------------------------------------------------
If they didn't hate America, they wouldn't be Republicans.
defendUSA.blogspot.com
www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fluidly Unsure" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 07:09:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon. "
But that changes the whole meaning.
Wasn't that the intention of the OP?
The original just says that the
Federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to
form a state militia.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "
Which is being interpredited in ways that go against what I beleive was the
original intent.
A good overview is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commas_in_the_Second_Amendment
(Wikipedia is not the best or the final source of information, but it is a
starting point)
It makes sense to clear the questions and specify what those terms mean and how
they should be carried out. Maybe we've been debating this issue too long.
------------------------------------------------
If they didn't hate America, they wouldn't be Republicans.
defendUSA.blogspot.com
www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers
--
Liquid
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 01:52:18 PM |
|
|
As a populist I not so much against lifting restrictions on
individualist ownership of fully automatic .50 cal. machine guns and
other weapons as I am against the lazy pseudo citizen inactivist who
sits around doing nothing, using his gun as a pacifier, fantasizing
about shooting the taxman.
The extent of his political participation is to sit around oiling his
gun wimpering, "if I git pushed too far . . ."
Someone THAT out of touch with reality shouldn't be allowed to have a
soup spoon as a weapon.
The Feds can and will and should blow those morons to smithereens.
Line 'em up and take care of the morons all at once.
Give 'em the Darwin Award posthumously.
Bret Cahill
Liberdope:
"And when liberdopia breaks out everything is done by consent because
there are no nonconsenters in liberdopia."
Normal Person:
"What about those without any dough? Do they get to influence the
direction of society?"
Liberdope:
"Liberdopes believe one dollar = one vote. If you don't have any
money, then you don't have any say about anything once liberdopia
breaks out."
Normal Person:
"Why haven't liberdopes been successful in influencing society toward
liberdopia?"
Liberdope:
"We don't have any money."
Normal Person (laughing):
"That's the best one I've heard all morning! Your problem isn't
getting TO liberdopia. Your problem is getting OUT of liberdopia."
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 02:21:06 PM |
|
|
In article <1135021937.995276.112690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
The Feds can and will and should blow those morons to smithereens.
Line 'em up and take care of the morons all at once.
Bret Cahill
You find threatening terrorism fun?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 04:24:21 AM |
|
|
Life is about choices. People who wave their AK-47s at the feds and
get blown to bits obviously made a bad choice.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
18 Dec 2005 11:33:27 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
(Government won't be able to take your property because the property
is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
- No government taxation of property:
No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
So you want anarchy.
What a moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 08:14:57 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate,
it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If
government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such
improvements would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time.
Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without it.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately
take or control an individual's property without that individual's
consent (Government won't be able to take your property because the
property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business owners in
particular, would see the value of having roads. Ray seems unaware that an
essential of business is getting your product to the consumer. Consumers, for
some reason, desire to have the products of the market available to them. It
would make sense and be in their best interests to have roads leading to and
from the markets and the producers. If a property owner didn't wish to have a
road across his property, no one would force him to have one. However,
getting his groceries and other goods onto his property would be difficult
for him without having a road adjacent to his property.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 11:58:54 AM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate,
it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If
government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such
improvements would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time.
Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately
take or control an individual's property without that individual's
consent (Government won't be able to take your property because the
property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business owners in
particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 05:34:17 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for liberty
in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without
it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately
take or control an individual's property without that
individual's consent (Government won't be able to take your
property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more willing
to sell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 05:45:50 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for liberty
in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without
it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
Way over your head.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately
take or control an individual's property without that
individual's consent (Government won't be able to take your
property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
You are an idiot.
Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more willing
to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
lots of leverage to demand a high price.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 06:30:01 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7462e$0$58120$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators
cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At
any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for
liberty in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without
it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
Way over your head.
I guess you don't have a point then.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may
legitimately take or control an individual's property without
that individual's consent (Government won't be able to take
your property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
You are an idiot.
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that their
neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't you
get a higher price? Besides, the strategic holdout, after all, wants to
sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price if he knows
that you will respond by building around him.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This prevents
any single owner from trying to charge more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 08:11:42 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7462e$0$58120$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators
cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At
any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for
liberty in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without
it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
Way over your head.
I guess you don't have a point then.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may
legitimately take or control an individual's property without
that individual's consent (Government won't be able to take
your property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
You are an idiot.
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that their
neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't you
get a higher price?
"Developer"?!? Sorry dude. That's taxpayers. You.
Besides, the strategic holdout, after all, wants to
sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price if he knows
that you will respond by building around him.
Can't build around. Freeways aren't amenable to little jogs around
small parcels of land.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 08:41:03 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7685e$0$58034$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7462e$0$58120$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that
they already ignore every day of the week. Since when have
Senators cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother
changing it? At any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the
Constitution could be improved. If government officials ever
followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements would
translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years
without it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
Way over your head.
I guess you don't have a point then.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may
legitimately take or control an individual's property without
that individual's consent (Government won't be able to take
your property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
You are an idiot.
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
their neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't you
get a higher price?
"Developer"?!? Sorry dude. That's taxpayers. You.
Besides, the strategic holdout, after all, wants to
sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price if he
knows that you will respond by building around him.
Can't build around. Freeways aren't amenable to little jogs around
small parcels of land.
Do roads never curve where you live?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 09:02:44 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7685e$0$58034$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7462e$0$58120$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that
they already ignore every day of the week. Since when have
Senators cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother
changing it? At any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the
Constitution could be improved. If government officials ever
followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements would
translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years
without it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
Way over your head.
I guess you don't have a point then.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may
legitimately take or control an individual's property without
that individual's consent (Government won't be able to take
your property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
You are an idiot.
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
their neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't you
get a higher price?
"Developer"?!? Sorry dude. That's taxpayers. You.
Besides, the strategic holdout, after all, wants to
sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price if he
knows that you will respond by building around him.
Can't build around. Freeways aren't amenable to little jogs around
small parcels of land.
Do roads never curve where you live?
You are an idiot. You apparently are too stupid to know the
difference between a "road" and an 8-lane freeway.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 09:25:13 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a77454$0$58068$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7685e$0$58034$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7462e$0$58120$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that
they already ignore every day of the week. Since when have
Senators cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother
changing it? At any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the
Constitution could be improved. If government officials ever
followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements would
translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting
or forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any
weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years
without it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
Way over your head.
I guess you don't have a point then.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may
legitimately take or control an individual's property
without that individual's consent (Government won't be able
to take your property because the property is "accused" of
a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and
business owners in particular, would see the value of having
roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for
a really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an
entire highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
You are an idiot.
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
their neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you
have lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't
you get a higher price?
"Developer"?!? Sorry dude. That's taxpayers. You.
Besides, the strategic holdout, after all, wants to
sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price if he
knows that you will respond by building around him.
Can't build around. Freeways aren't amenable to little jogs around
small parcels of land.
Do roads never curve where you live?
You are an idiot. You apparently are too stupid to know the
difference between a "road" and an 8-lane freeway.
Do 8 lane freeways not curve where you live?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 09:42:03 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a77454$0$58068$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7685e$0$58034$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7462e$0$58120$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that
they already ignore every day of the week. Since when have
Senators cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother
changing it? At any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the
Constitution could be improved. If government officials ever
followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements would
translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting
or forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any
weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years
without it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
Way over your head.
I guess you don't have a point then.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may
legitimately take or control an individual's property
without that individual's consent (Government won't be able
to take your property because the property is "accused" of
a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and
business owners in particular, would see the value of having
roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for
a really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an
entire highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
You are an idiot.
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
their neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you
have lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't
you get a higher price?
"Developer"?!? Sorry dude. That's taxpayers. You.
Besides, the strategic holdout, after all, wants to
sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price if he
knows that you will respond by building around him.
Can't build around. Freeways aren't amenable to little jogs around
small parcels of land.
Do roads never curve where you live?
You are an idiot. You apparently are too stupid to know the
difference between a "road" and an 8-lane freeway.
Do 8 lane freeways not curve where you live?
Not around small parcels of land, no.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 02:21:47 AM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7462e$0$58120$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators
cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At
any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for
liberty in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without
it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
Way over your head.
I guess you don't have a point then.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may
legitimately take or control an individual's property without
that individual's consent (Government won't be able to take
your property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
You are an idiot.
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that their
neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't you
get a higher price? Besides, the strategic holdout, after all, wants to
sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price if he knows
that you will respond by building around him.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This prevents
any single owner from trying to charge more.
On the contrary: it allows all of them to charge more, because that way
they're all the critical last one. (Just to make it easier, each can
hold out at most for the marginal revenue to the buyer from the sell.
For each of them, the marginal revenue is equal to the revenue from the
entire, say, highway, since they're all the "bottleneck".)
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 08:07:40 AM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a7bf1b$0$10083$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7462e$0$58120$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that
they already ignore every day of the week. Since when have
Senators cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother
changing it? At any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the
Constitution could be improved. If government officials ever
followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements would
translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years
without it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
Way over your head.
I guess you don't have a point then.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may
legitimately take or control an individual's property without
that individual's consent (Government won't be able to take
your property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
You are an idiot.
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
their neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't
you get a higher price? Besides, the strategic holdout, after all,
wants to sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price
if he knows that you will respond by building around him.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This
prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
On the contrary: it allows all of them to charge more, because that way
they're all the critical last one. (Just to make it easier, each can
hold out at most for the marginal revenue to the buyer from the sell.
For each of them, the marginal revenue is equal to the revenue from the
entire, say, highway, since they're all the "bottleneck".)
Really? So why isn't this a problem for private developers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 12:24:24 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
their neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't
you get a higher price? Besides, the strategic holdout, after all,
wants to sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price
if he knows that you will respond by building around him.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This
prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
On the contrary: it allows all of them to charge more, because that way
they're all the critical last one. (Just to make it easier, each can
hold out at most for the marginal revenue to the buyer from the sell.
For each of them, the marginal revenue is equal to the revenue from the
entire, say, highway, since they're all the "bottleneck".)
Really? So why isn't this a problem for private developers?
It is, and private developers don't build one the scale of freeways.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 04:08:27 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43a84c58$0$58086
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
their neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't
you get a higher price? Besides, the strategic holdout, after all,
wants to sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price
if he knows that you will respond by building around him.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This
prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
On the contrary: it allows all of them to charge more, because that way
they're all the critical last one. (Just to make it easier, each can
hold out at most for the marginal revenue to the buyer from the sell.
For each of them, the marginal revenue is equal to the revenue from the
entire, say, highway, since they're all the "bottleneck".)
Really? So why isn't this a problem for private developers?
It is, and private developers don't build one the scale of freeways.
Freeways aren't built all at once.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 03:49:54 AM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43a84c58$0$58086
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
their neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't
you get a higher price? Besides, the strategic holdout, after all,
wants to sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price
if he knows that you will respond by building around him.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This
prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
On the contrary: it allows all of them to charge more, because that way
they're all the critical last one. (Just to make it easier, each can
hold out at most for the marginal revenue to the buyer from the sell.
For each of them, the marginal revenue is equal to the revenue from the
entire, say, highway, since they're all the "bottleneck".)
Really? So why isn't this a problem for private developers?
It is, and private developers don't build one the scale of freeways.
Freeways aren't built all at once.
No. Of course freeways usually stop about half way. That makes perfect
sense.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 08:24:59 AM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a92541$0$10091$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43a84c58$0$58086
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
their neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you
have lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't
you get a higher price? Besides, the strategic holdout, after all,
wants to sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical
price if he knows that you will respond by building around him.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is
by contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold.
This prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
On the contrary: it allows all of them to charge more, because that
way they're all the critical last one. (Just to make it easier, each
can hold out at most for the marginal revenue to the buyer from the
sell. For each of them, the marginal revenue is equal to the revenue
from the entire, say, highway, since they're all the "bottleneck".)
Really? So why isn't this a problem for private developers?
It is, and private developers don't build one the scale of freeways.
Freeways aren't built all at once.
No. Of course freeways usually stop about half way. That makes perfect
sense.
The interstate near my house was built in sections over a period of several
decades.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 01:54:08 PM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a7bf1b$0$10083$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7462e$0$58120$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that
they already ignore every day of the week. Since when have
Senators cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother
changing it? At any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the
Constitution could be improved. If government officials ever
followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements would
translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years
without it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
Way over your head.
I guess you don't have a point then.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may
legitimately take or control an individual's property without
that individual's consent (Government won't be able to take
your property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
You are an idiot.
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
their neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't
you get a higher price? Besides, the strategic holdout, after all,
wants to sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price
if he knows that you will respond by building around him.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This
prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
On the contrary: it allows all of them to charge more, because that way
they're all the critical last one. (Just to make it easier, each can
hold out at most for the marginal revenue to the buyer from the sell.
For each of them, the marginal revenue is equal to the revenue from the
entire, say, highway, since they're all the "bottleneck".)
Really? So why isn't this a problem for private developers?
Because they only develop things where they don't depend on any one
piece of land. Say they want to build houses. If the current owner won't
sell at a "reasonable" price, they'll just build the houses somewhere else.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 06:36:48 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a7bf1b$0$10083$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a7462e$0$58120$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that
they already ignore every day of the week. Since when have
Senators cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother
changing it? At any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the
Constitution could be improved. If government officials ever
followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements would
translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment: The federal governmnent shall
not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years
without it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
Way over your head.
I guess you don't have a point then.
- No government confiscation of property: No individual,
majority, society, or government may
legitimately take or control an individual's property without
that individual's consent (Government won't be able to take
your property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
You are an idiot.
Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
their neighbors are more willing to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you
have lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't
you get a higher price? Besides, the strategic holdout, after all,
wants to sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price
if he knows that you will respond by building around him.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is
by contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This
prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
On the contrary: it allows all of them to charge more, because that
way they're all the critical last one. (Just to make it easier, each
can hold out at most for the marginal revenue to the buyer from the
sell. For each of them, the marginal revenue is equal to the revenue
from the entire, say, highway, since they're all the "bottleneck".)
Really? So why isn't this a problem for private developers?
Because they only develop things where they don't depend on any one
piece of land. Say they want to build houses. If the current owner won't
sell at a "reasonable" price, they'll just build the houses somewhere else.
Martin Holterman
In today's world one couldn't get away with Charles Crocker's "spite
fence" :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 02:19:06 AM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for liberty
in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without
it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately
take or control an individual's property without that
individual's consent (Government won't be able to take your
property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more willing
to sell.
I'm glad you've finally solved the collective bargaining and NIMBY
problems. Why didn't we think of that before?
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 08:09:28 AM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a7be7a$0$10083$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for
liberty in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without
it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately
take or control an individual's property without that
individual's consent (Government won't be able to take your
property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
willing to sell.
I'm glad you've finally solved the collective bargaining and NIMBY
problems. Why didn't we think of that before?
That's how it works in the real world (aka private sector). Why do you want
the government to have a special pass?
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
