| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Melissa" |
| Date: |
23 Jun 2005 03:18:17 PM |
| Object: |
Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
From http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/
The Supreme Court ruled today that there's essentially no more
such thing as private property in the United States.
Private property means that the property owner actually owns it
and has the say on whether they keep it or sell it.
The Supreme Rulers said that the collective can condemn and sieze
your property on any whim, to build a shopping center or even to
build other more expensive homes like they did in CT, and not
even pay you fair market value.
Fox News just interviewed one of the victims of this tyranny. He
lives in a 10 bedroom sea-front charming old home in CT on a half
acre of land, and the city siezed it for around $56k! ( he
figures the home is actually worth around $500k! ) To build a
gentrified housing project! ( more expensive homes - improved tax
base! )
This is a dark day for liberty, people, and this ruling should be
reversed or legislated against if there's to be any such thing as
private property anymore in this country.
--
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/
The last best hope for liberty, to give the world its first Bill
of Rights: http://www.UPAlliance.org/billofrights.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Universal-Planetary-Alliance/
http://lakewoodcolorado.net/school.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
23 Jun 2005 05:01:16 PM |
|
|
"Melissa" <melissa@Colorado.xxx> wrote in message
news:1119557897.982630c9d0ca2e9f90f1539603fee90f@teranews...
From http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/
The Supreme Court ruled today that there's essentially no more
such thing as private property in the United States.
Private property means that the property owner actually owns it
and has the say on whether they keep it or sell it.
The Supreme Rulers said that the collective can condemn and sieze
your property on any whim, to build a shopping center or even to
build other more expensive homes like they did in CT, and not
even pay you fair market value.
Fox News just interviewed one of the victims of this tyranny. He
lives in a 10 bedroom sea-front charming old home in CT on a half
acre of land, and the city siezed it for around $56k! ( he
figures the home is actually worth around $500k! ) To build a
gentrified housing project! ( more expensive homes - improved tax
base! )
This is a dark day for liberty, people, and this ruling should be
reversed or legislated against if there's to be any such thing as
private property anymore in this country.
This represents the single most damaging SC ruling to individual freedom
in modern times.
--
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/
The last best hope for liberty, to give the world its first Bill
of Rights: http://www.UPAlliance.org/billofrights.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Universal-Planetary-Alliance/
http://lakewoodcolorado.net/school.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Voice of freedom" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
23 Jun 2005 07:41:25 PM |
|
|
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote :
"Melissa" <melissa@Colorado.xxx> wrote in message
news:1119557897.982630c9d0ca2e9f90f1539603fee90f@teranews...
From http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/
The Supreme Court ruled today that there's essentially no
more such thing as private property in the United States.
Private property means that the property owner actually owns
it and has the say on whether they keep it or sell it.
The Supreme Rulers said that the collective can condemn and
sieze your property on any whim, to build a shopping center
or even to build other more expensive homes like they did in
CT, and not even pay you fair market value.
Fox News just interviewed one of the victims of this tyranny.
He lives in a 10 bedroom sea-front charming old home in CT on
a half acre of land, and the city siezed it for around $56k!
( he figures the home is actually worth around $500k! ) To
build a gentrified housing project! ( more expensive homes -
improved tax base! )
This is a dark day for liberty, people, and this ruling
should be reversed or legislated against if there's to be any
such thing as private property anymore in this country.
This represents the single most damaging SC ruling to
individual freedom in modern times.
I'm not sure about that, but certainly one of the top 10.
Their failure to decisively uphold the 2nd Amendment and repeal
21,000 gun laws, isn't doing us much good either.
--
Ms Liberty - Colorado, USA
The Planetary Bill of Rights Project needs major startup funding:
http://upalliance.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 09:00:19 AM |
|
|
Ms Voice of freedom <MsVoiceFreedom@freedom.naa> wrote:
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote :
This represents the single most damaging SC ruling to
individual freedom in modern times.
I'm not sure about that, but certainly one of the top 10.
Their failure to decisively uphold the 2nd Amendment and repeal
21,000 gun laws, isn't doing us much good either.
Oh, I am.
Philosopher John Locke, who had a tremendous amount of influence on the
founding fathers and who may be appropriately called the Philosophical
Father of our nation, believed that freedom was founded in the ability
of a person to own private property.
Without the right to own private property, the right to own a gun is
largely irrelevant - as is every other single right we have.
While this Supreme Court decision did not remove the right entirely, it
did gut it to near complete non-existence, for now one can only pray
that some developer does not want their property.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Voice of freedom" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 03:54:04 PM |
|
|
(Eric) wrote :
Ms Voice of freedom <MsVoiceFreedom@freedom.naa> wrote:
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote :
This represents the single most damaging SC ruling to
individual freedom in modern times.
I'm not sure about that, but certainly one of the top 10.
Their failure to decisively uphold the 2nd Amendment and
repeal 21,000 gun laws, isn't doing us much good either.
Oh, I am.
Philosopher John Locke, who had a tremendous amount of
influence on the founding fathers and who may be appropriately
called the Philosophical Father of our nation, believed that
freedom was founded in the ability of a person to own private
property.
Without the right to own private property, the right to own a
gun is largely irrelevant - as is every other single right we
have.
While this Supreme Court decision did not remove the right
entirely, it did gut it to near complete non-existence, for
now one can only pray that some developer does not want their
property.
But it was partially removed in the past anyway. If they can tax
your property and sieze it for non-payment, then you aren't
really the owner, just the caretaker for the state.
--
Ms Liberty - Colorado, USA
The Planetary Bill of Rights Project needs major startup funding:
http://upalliance.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 08:59:20 PM |
|
|
Ms Voice of freedom wrote:
But it was partially removed in the past anyway. If they can tax
your property and sieze it for non-payment, then you aren't
really the owner, just the caretaker for the state.
Quite true, but this was the kind of blow to our freedom that we may
not recover from. While I have written to all of my local, state and
federal representatives, I have yet to hear from any of them concerning
how they intend to protect private property rights. Furthermore, some
politicians are already salivating over their affirmed power to steal
property from citizens.
Court Ruling on Land Pleases D.C. Officials
SE Properties Sought for Stadium and Mall
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301786.html>
or
http://tinyurl.com/7d2zc
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spectre" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 09:33:01 AM |
|
|
They are using a single line in the fifth amendment to justify their
stance. It clearly says that the land should only be taken for the
public good. It is high debatable whether this is for the public good.
It also somehow seems to measure the public good in dollars and cents
and does not take into account the pain of shoving people off their
land. There is no clear reason why the City of London, a city that
somehow has the Pfizer company in its back pocket, is a better judge of
what is public good than the residence.
Eric wrote:
Ms Voice of freedom <MsVoiceFreedom@freedom.naa> wrote:
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote :
This represents the single most damaging SC ruling to
individual freedom in modern times.
I'm not sure about that, but certainly one of the top 10.
Their failure to decisively uphold the 2nd Amendment and repeal
21,000 gun laws, isn't doing us much good either.
Oh, I am.
Philosopher John Locke, who had a tremendous amount of influence on the
founding fathers and who may be appropriately called the Philosophical
Father of our nation, believed that freedom was founded in the ability
of a person to own private property.
Without the right to own private property, the right to own a gun is
largely irrelevant - as is every other single right we have.
While this Supreme Court decision did not remove the right entirely, it
did gut it to near complete non-existence, for now one can only pray
that some developer does not want their property.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 10:38:35 AM |
|
|
(Spectre) wrote in
news:xQUue.80404$9A2.15236@edtnps89:
They are using a single line in the fifth amendment to justify
their stance. It clearly says that the land should only be taken
for the public good.
Actually, it just says "public use", and it's not restricted to land.
This is one of those cases where taking the literal words of the
Constitution, without refering to any of the supporting debate and
documents, clearly allows the state to take anything from anyone at
any time, so long as they give "just compensation".
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Voice of freedom" |
|
| Title: SIGN THE PETITION ( Was Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
27 Jun 2005 06:57:58 PM |
|
|
http://petitiononline.com/5amend/petition.html
--
Ms Liberty - Colorado, USA
DOESN'T EVERYONE DESERVE A BILL OF RIGHTS?
The last best hope for a liberty.
A subscriber Bill of Individual Rights with the goal of enlisting
the support of hundreds of millions of people all over the world.
http://upalliance.blogspot.com/
http://upalliance.org/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Universal-Planetary-Alliance/
Please pass the word.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "studio" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 01:40:40 PM |
|
|
I would suggest bulldozing some mansions in a very rich community
to build a 21st century state-of-the-art playground and "learning
center" for inner city kids that live in blighted areas. Plus have them
bused in. What better use of land could there be for the public than to
see first hand how the 1%'s live?
Spectre wrote:
They are using a single line in the fifth amendment to justify their
stance. It clearly says that the land should only be taken for the
public good. It is high debatable whether this is for the public good.
It also somehow seems to measure the public good in dollars and cents
and does not take into account the pain of shoving people off their
land. There is no clear reason why the City of London, a city that
somehow has the Pfizer company in its back pocket, is a better judge of
what is public good than the residence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "studio" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
25 Jun 2005 06:15:18 PM |
|
|
Whoops, didn't understand that the property had to bring in MORE tax
revenue.
So.....I would ammend my previous statement into building a Disney-like
theme park in the rich neighborhood.....the inner city kids will pay
bus fair to get there.....albeit, that will also be subsidized so it's
not too expensive.
If Michael Jackson can have a theme park, surely it needs to be done in
other rich neighborhoods.
I vote to start at Kenny Bunkport.....and where ever Ted Kennedy lives.
Surely there not against doing something positive for our children?
studio wrote:
I would suggest bulldozing some mansions in a very rich community
to build a 21st century state-of-the-art playground and "learning
center" for inner city kids that live in blighted areas. Plus have them
bused in. What better use of land could there be for the public than to
see first hand how the 1%'s live?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Voice of freedom" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 03:57:06 PM |
|
|
Spectre <spectre@yahoo.com> wrote :
They are using a single line in the fifth amendment to justify
their stance. It clearly says that the land should only be
taken for the public good. It is high debatable whether this
is for the public good.
That's the problem with our Constitution. The "public good" is
whatever the government says it is. Too many loopholes.
It's like
"the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their
defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" - the
English Bill of Rights of 1689
Whatever the government says it is.
Once it's up to the government, you have no rights, and there are
enough loopholes in the Constitution to where we have no more
freedom and the government is now an out-of-control monster.
"Two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of
authority over one, than one has to exercise the same authority
over two. A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole
world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime; whether
committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one
man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating
his true character), or by millions calling themselves a
government." - Lysander Spooner
--
Ms Liberty - Colorado, USA
The Planetary Bill of Rights Project needs major startup funding:
http://upalliance.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy C. Lemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
23 Jun 2005 05:13:02 PM |
|
|
Apparently you and so many people do not know how this game is played. I am
referring to the guy with the 10 bedroom home. When they paid him for the
home and land it was only worth 56K. I am not saying that he could not sold
it on the open market for 500K or more.
Under the rules of the game once you find the property that you want you
pick one out of the many reasons the property should fall under this ruling.
By doing this you have given reason for the property to be condemned and
thus the property is condemned. The value of condemned property is about a
tenth of the value if it were not condemned.
I have been looking at expanding a business park. I have offered the people
$200K for their property adjacent to the park. They do not want to sale.
They enjoy living there. Now if I was inclined to do so I could have their
property condemned and get it from the city for about $20K. I am not one of
these type of people, in fact I am now going to sale all of my properties. I
am not the King fish in town so I could have someone do what I described to
me and believe me there are more than a few people in Valencia Co, N.M. that
would do this in a heart beat.
Roy
Roy
"Melissa" <melissa@Colorado.xxx> wrote in message
news:1119557897.982630c9d0ca2e9f90f1539603fee90f@teranews...
From http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/
The Supreme Court ruled today that there's essentially no more
such thing as private property in the United States.
Private property means that the property owner actually owns it
and has the say on whether they keep it or sell it.
The Supreme Rulers said that the collective can condemn and sieze
your property on any whim, to build a shopping center or even to
build other more expensive homes like they did in CT, and not
even pay you fair market value.
Fox News just interviewed one of the victims of this tyranny. He
lives in a 10 bedroom sea-front charming old home in CT on a half
acre of land, and the city siezed it for around $56k! ( he
figures the home is actually worth around $500k! ) To build a
gentrified housing project! ( more expensive homes - improved tax
base! )
This is a dark day for liberty, people, and this ruling should be
reversed or legislated against if there's to be any such thing as
private property anymore in this country.
--
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/
The last best hope for liberty, to give the world its first Bill
of Rights: http://www.UPAlliance.org/billofrights.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Universal-Planetary-Alliance/
http://lakewoodcolorado.net/school.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grass roots" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
23 Jun 2005 07:45:46 PM |
|
|
"Roy C. Lemons" <roycl@comcast.net> wrote :
Apparently you and so many people do not know how this game is
played. I am referring to the guy with the 10 bedroom home.
When they paid him for the home and land it was only worth
56K. I am not saying that he could not sold it on the open
market for 500K or more.
Under the rules of the game once you find the property that
you want you pick one out of the many reasons the property
should fall under this ruling. By doing this you have given
reason for the property to be condemned and thus the property
is condemned. The value of condemned property is about a tenth
of the value if it were not condemned.
I have been looking at expanding a business park. I have
offered the people $200K for their property adjacent to the
park. They do not want to sale. They enjoy living there. Now
if I was inclined to do so I could have their property
condemned and get it from the city for about $20K. I am not
one of these type of people, in fact I am now going to sale
all of my properties. I am not the King fish in town so I
could have someone do what I described to me and believe me
there are more than a few people in Valencia Co, N.M. that
would do this in a heart beat.
I'm amazed that some of these victimized people don't go into
city council meetings with half a dozen grenades. It's clearly
tyranny with no legal recourse. What are people supposed to
resort to then?
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them
with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the
separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are creat-
ed equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the gov-
erned.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abol-
ish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happi-
ness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long es-
tablished should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invar-
iably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their
future security."
--
Grassroots
United States of America
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Levinson" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 06:47:47 PM |
|
|
Grass roots wrote:
"Roy C. Lemons" <roycl@comcast.net> wrote :
Apparently you and so many people do not know how this game is
played. I am referring to the guy with the 10 bedroom home.
When they paid him for the home and land it was only worth
56K. I am not saying that he could not sold it on the open
market for 500K or more.
Under the rules of the game once you find the property that
you want you pick one out of the many reasons the property
should fall under this ruling. By doing this you have given
reason for the property to be condemned and thus the property
is condemned. The value of condemned property is about a tenth
of the value if it were not condemned.
I have been looking at expanding a business park. I have
offered the people $200K for their property adjacent to the
park. They do not want to sale. They enjoy living there. Now
if I was inclined to do so I could have their property
condemned and get it from the city for about $20K. I am not
one of these type of people, in fact I am now going to sale
all of my properties. I am not the King fish in town so I
could have someone do what I described to me and believe me
there are more than a few people in Valencia Co, N.M. that
would do this in a heart beat.
I'm amazed that some of these victimized people don't go into
city council meetings with half a dozen grenades. It's clearly
tyranny with no legal recourse. What are people supposed to
resort to then?
Grenades are against the law but I am sure there are legal, nonviolent,
and non-libelous to make it look as though the developer "influenced"
the city council, thus destroying the reputations of everyone involved.
The personal reputations of the city council members can certainly be
put at risk and, as those in small communities often have full-time
jobs, the collateral damage might spill over into their careers as well.
Study Joe McCarthy for ways to ruin someone's reputation without
actually libeling him and then use the same methods on both the city
council and the developer.
And the big box retailers like Target, Wal-Mart, and Costco have
national reputations about which they must worry. As Harry Callahan
said, "A lot of things can happen to dog *****."
--Bill
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/eminent.html Legal and nonviolent
ways to sabotage eminent domain theft
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Voice of freedom" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 10:04:16 PM |
|
|
Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote :
Grass roots wrote:
"Roy C. Lemons" <roycl@comcast.net> wrote :
Apparently you and so many people do not know how this game
is played. I am referring to the guy with the 10 bedroom
home. When they paid him for the home and land it was only
worth 56K. I am not saying that he could not sold it on the
open market for 500K or more.
Under the rules of the game once you find the property that
you want you pick one out of the many reasons the property
should fall under this ruling. By doing this you have given
reason for the property to be condemned and thus the property
is condemned. The value of condemned property is about a
tenth of the value if it were not condemned.
I have been looking at expanding a business park. I have
offered the people $200K for their property adjacent to the
park. They do not want to sale. They enjoy living there. Now
if I was inclined to do so I could have their property
condemned and get it from the city for about $20K. I am not
one of these type of people, in fact I am now going to sale
all of my properties. I am not the King fish in town so I
could have someone do what I described to me and believe me
there are more than a few people in Valencia Co, N.M. that
would do this in a heart beat.
I'm amazed that some of these victimized people don't go into
city council meetings with half a dozen grenades. It's
clearly tyranny with no legal recourse. What are people
supposed to resort to then?
Grenades are against the law but I am sure there are legal,
nonviolent, and non-libelous to make it look as though the
developer "influenced" the city council, thus destroying the
reputations of everyone involved. The personal reputations of
the city council members can certainly be put at risk and, as
those in small communities often have full-time jobs, the
collateral damage might spill over into their careers as well.
Study Joe McCarthy for ways to ruin someone's reputation
without actually libeling him and then use the same methods on
both the city council and the developer.
And the big box retailers like Target, Wal-Mart, and Costco
have national reputations about which they must worry. As
Harry Callahan said, "A lot of things can happen to dog *****."
LOL!
--
Ms Liberty - Colorado, USA
The Planetary Bill of Rights Project needs major startup funding:
http://upalliance.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Schroeder" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
25 Jun 2005 12:13:25 AM |
|
|
Ms Voice of freedom <MsVoiceFreedom@freedom.naa> wrote in message:
news:<1119668656.52e66e88b506da5fcc7621f471caa8bd@teranews>
Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote :
Grass roots wrote:
"Roy C. Lemons" <roycl@comcast.net> wrote :
Apparently you and so many people do not know how this game
is played. I am referring to the guy with the 10 bedroom
home. When they paid him for the home and land it was only
worth 56K. I am not saying that he could not sold it on the
open market for 500K or more.
Under the rules of the game once you find the property that
you want you pick one out of the many reasons the property
should fall under this ruling. By doing this you have given
reason for the property to be condemned and thus the property
is condemned. The value of condemned property is about a
tenth of the value if it were not condemned.
I have been looking at expanding a business park. I have
offered the people $200K for their property adjacent to the
park. They do not want to sale. They enjoy living there. Now
if I was inclined to do so I could have their property
condemned and get it from the city for about $20K. I am not
one of these type of people, in fact I am now going to sale
all of my properties. I am not the King fish in town so I
could have someone do what I described to me and believe me
there are more than a few people in Valencia Co, N.M. that
would do this in a heart beat.
I'm amazed that some of these victimized people don't go into
city council meetings with half a dozen grenades. It's
clearly tyranny with no legal recourse. What are people
supposed to resort to then?
Grenades are against the law but I am sure there are legal,
nonviolent, and non-libelous to make it look as though the
developer "influenced" the city council, thus destroying the
reputations of everyone involved. The personal reputations of
the city council members can certainly be put at risk and, as
those in small communities often have full-time jobs, the
collateral damage might spill over into their careers as well.
Study Joe McCarthy for ways to ruin someone's reputation
without actually libeling him and then use the same methods on
both the city council and the developer.
And the big box retailers like Target, Wal-Mart, and Costco
have national reputations about which they must worry. As
Harry Callahan said, "A lot of things can happen to dog *****."
LOL!
Odd, that Americans see Callahan as a character who is a movie star
"Dirty Harry".
We see another person: When Morley Callahan fought Ernest Hemingway:
.. Callaghan's account of his boxing matches with Hemingway especially raised
eyebrows --including those of Norman Mailer in a 1963 review entitled,
"Punching Papa": "For the first time one has the confidence that an
eyewitness has been able to cut a bonafide trail through the charm, the
mystery, and the curious perversity of Hemingway's personality." Callaghan
and Hemingway had been friends since their newspaper days in Toronto, and
both liked to box. Callaghan was considerably shorter and lighter, but more
experienced, and in an early sparring session he had "worked out a routine,
darting in and out with fast lefts to the head," while Hemingway "waited for
a chance to nail me solidly":
It must have been exasperating to him that my left was always beating
him to the punch. His mouth began to bleed.... His tongue kept curling along
his lip, wiping off blood.... Suddenly he spat at me; he spat a mouthful of
blood; he spat in my face.
When Callaghan stepped back in shock, Hemingway explained, "That's what the
bullfighters do when they're wounded.... It's a way of showing contempt." At
a later session, F. Scott Fitzgerald was volunteered as timekeeper, charged
with regulating one-minute rounds with two-minute rests between. Fitzgerald
became so enthralled with the boxing that he forgot the clock -- until the
out-of-gas Hemingway made a desperate lunge at Callaghan, and got knocked on
his back by a hard cross to the jaw. When Fitzgerald cried out, "Oh, my God!
I let the round go four minutes!" Hemingway spat his bullfighter's contempt
in a new direction: "All right, Scott...if you want to see me getting the
***** kicked out of me, just say so. Only don't say you made a mistake."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Schroeder" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
25 Jun 2005 12:20:04 AM |
|
|
The following is one of the best stories of a boxing match between two
people:
. Callaghan's account of his boxing matches with Hemingway especially raised
eyebrows --including those of Norman Mailer in a 1963 review entitled,
"Punching Papa": "For the first time one has the confidence that an
eyewitness has been able to cut a bonafide trail through the charm, the
mystery, and the curious perversity of Hemingway's personality." Callaghan
and Hemingway had been friends since their newspaper days in Toronto, and
both liked to box. Callaghan was considerably shorter and lighter, but more
experienced, and in an early sparring session he had "worked out a routine,
darting in and out with fast lefts to the head," while Hemingway "waited for
a chance to nail me solidly":
It must have been exasperating to him that my left was always beating
him to the punch. His mouth began to bleed.... His tongue kept curling along
his lip, wiping off blood.... Suddenly he spat at me; he spat a mouthful of
blood; he spat in my face.
When Callaghan stepped back in shock, Hemingway explained, "That's what the
bullfighters do when they're wounded.... It's a way of showing contempt." At
a later session, F. Scott Fitzgerald was volunteered as timekeeper, charged
with regulating one-minute rounds with two-minute rests between. Fitzgerald
became so enthralled with the boxing that he forgot the clock -- until the
out-of-gas Hemingway made a desperate lunge at Callaghan, and got knocked on
his back by a hard cross to the jaw. When Fitzgerald cried out, "Oh, my God!
I let the round go four minutes!" Hemingway spat his bullfighter's contempt
in a new direction: "All right, Scott...if you want to see me getting the
***** kicked out of me, just say so. Only don't say you made a mistake."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "modest" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 07:54:01 PM |
|
|
I see no reason any more to "own" a house in the territories claimed by this
government. I think many people will soon agree with me that it just isn't
worth investing money and sweat into your home if the goons can so easily
take it away.
"Melissa" <melissa@Colorado.xxx> wrote in message
news:1119557897.982630c9d0ca2e9f90f1539603fee90f@teranews...
From http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/
The Supreme Court ruled today that there's essentially no more
such thing as private property in the United States.
Private property means that the property owner actually owns it
and has the say on whether they keep it or sell it.
The Supreme Rulers said that the collective can condemn and sieze
your property on any whim, to build a shopping center or even to
build other more expensive homes like they did in CT, and not
even pay you fair market value.
Fox News just interviewed one of the victims of this tyranny. He
lives in a 10 bedroom sea-front charming old home in CT on a half
acre of land, and the city siezed it for around $56k! ( he
figures the home is actually worth around $500k! ) To build a
gentrified housing project! ( more expensive homes - improved tax
base! )
This is a dark day for liberty, people, and this ruling should be
reversed or legislated against if there's to be any such thing as
private property anymore in this country.
--
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/
The last best hope for liberty, to give the world its first Bill
of Rights: http://www.UPAlliance.org/billofrights.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Universal-Planetary-Alliance/
http://lakewoodcolorado.net/school.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Voice of freedom" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 10:06:32 PM |
|
|
"modest" <modest@newsman.org> wrote :
I see no reason any more to "own" a house in the territories
claimed by this government. I think many people will soon
agree with me that it just isn't worth investing money and
sweat into your home if the goons can so easily take it away.
Well yeah but "owning" has advantages in appreciation normally. And
how many people really ever get their place siezed?
It's far more likely that they'll just tax you on it indefinitely
and own a piece of your life that way.
--
Ms Liberty - Colorado, USA
The Planetary Bill of Rights Project needs major startup funding:
http://upalliance.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TEW" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 08:20:48 PM |
|
|
modest <modest@newsman.org> wrote in message: news:<dI-dncicD8e3NiHfRVn-
2A@comcast.com>
I see no reason any more to "own" a house in the territories claimed by this
government. I think many people will soon agree with me that it just isn't
worth investing money and sweat into your home if the goons can so easily
take it away.
Emminent domain has been an accepted part of living for decades, when the
Feds, State, County or Munincipality wants to take what it wants from you to
build a highway, railroad or any other publicly owned and significant works
project, they can do so under most circumstances.
The issue is over the fact that private developers can now work with the
municipality to do it. That's worrisome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Voice of freedom" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 10:07:41 PM |
|
|
TEW <tew@cox.com> wrote :
modest <modest@newsman.org> wrote in message:
news:<dI-dncicD8e3NiHfRVn- 2A@comcast.com>
I see no reason any more to "own" a house in the territories
claimed by this government. I think many people will soon
agree with me that it just isn't worth investing money and
sweat into your home if the goons can so easily take it away.
Emminent domain has been an accepted part of living for
decades, when the Feds, State, County or Munincipality wants
to take what it wants from you to build a highway, railroad or
any other publicly owned and significant works project, they
can do so under most circumstances.
The issue is over the fact that private developers can now
work with the municipality to do it. That's worrisome.
Yeah, I wonder if it will get to the point where developers or
corporations can sieze your home and then sell it for a profit?
--
Ms Liberty - Colorado, USA
The Planetary Bill of Rights Project needs major startup funding:
http://upalliance.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Schroeder" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 10:32:09 PM |
|
|
Ms Voice of freedom <MsVoiceFreedom@freedom.naa> wrote in message:
news:<1119668864.d850169ec4e4011f24462caf77638ba2@teranews>
TEW <tew@cox.com> wrote :
modest <modest@newsman.org> wrote in message:
news:<dI-dncicD8e3NiHfRVn- 2A@comcast.com>
I see no reason any more to "own" a house in the territories
claimed by this government. I think many people will soon
agree with me that it just isn't worth investing money and
sweat into your home if the goons can so easily take it away.
Emminent domain has been an accepted part of living for
decades, when the Feds, State, County or Munincipality wants
to take what it wants from you to build a highway, railroad or
any other publicly owned and significant works project, they
can do so under most circumstances.
The issue is over the fact that private developers can now
work with the municipality to do it. That's worrisome.
Yeah, I wonder if it will get to the point where developers or
corporations can sieze your home and then sell it for a profit?
I live in downtown Toronto, the city recently used "Emminent domain" to wipe
out a pile of really crappy buildings which were an eyesore, but built a
"Town Square" with the Canadian Music Hall of Fame, an outdoor music stage
and a museum in their place. The owners of the "eyesore" got upper market
value for their shacks. I have no problem with that.
We still don't have a law which says Wal Mart can do it. It's got to belong
to the public, not Tim Horton's, McDonalds' or Tim Hortons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Schroeder" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 10:33:23 PM |
|
|
Dave Schroeder <xyz123456@yahoo.com> wrote in message:
news:<MPG.1d269a458040efa898af2e@news.individual.net>
Ms Voice of freedom <MsVoiceFreedom@freedom.naa> wrote in message:
news:<1119668864.d850169ec4e4011f24462caf77638ba2@teranews>
TEW <tew@cox.com> wrote :
modest <modest@newsman.org> wrote in message:
news:<dI-dncicD8e3NiHfRVn- 2A@comcast.com>
I see no reason any more to "own" a house in the territories
claimed by this government. I think many people will soon
agree with me that it just isn't worth investing money and
sweat into your home if the goons can so easily take it away.
Emminent domain has been an accepted part of living for
decades, when the Feds, State, County or Munincipality wants
to take what it wants from you to build a highway, railroad or
any other publicly owned and significant works project, they
can do so under most circumstances.
The issue is over the fact that private developers can now
work with the municipality to do it. That's worrisome.
Yeah, I wonder if it will get to the point where developers or
corporations can sieze your home and then sell it for a profit?
I live in downtown Toronto, the city recently used "Emminent domain" to wipe
out a pile of really crappy buildings which were an eyesore, but built a
"Town Square" with the Canadian Music Hall of Fame, an outdoor music stage
and a museum in their place. The owners of the "eyesore" got upper market
value for their shacks. I have no problem with that.
We still don't have a law which says Wal Mart can do it. It's got to belong
to the public, not Tim Horton's, McDonalds' or Tim Hortons.
Sorry, being drunk I said Tim Horton's twice. :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
23 Jun 2005 04:37:44 PM |
|
|
Melissa <melissa@Colorado.xxx> wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled today that there's essentially no more
such thing as private property in the United States.
This is certainly something worth writing to your Representatives and
Senators about. There are only two ways to undo this travesty
now...either the Supreme Court overturns this horrendously bad ruling or
we get another Constitutional Amendment which undoes this ruling -
ignoring, of course, that the ruling already violates several Amendments
and the clear intent of the founders concerning Eminent Domain.
One should also write to your state and local representatives asking
them how they intend to uphold, protect and defend your private property
rights.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
is a good site to find those who represent you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Melissa" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
23 Jun 2005 07:40:15 PM |
|
|
(Eric) wrote :
Melissa <melissa@Colorado.xxx> wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled today that there's essentially no
more such thing as private property in the United States.
This is certainly something worth writing to your
Representatives and Senators about. There are only two ways to
undo this travesty now...either the Supreme Court overturns
this horrendously bad ruling or we get another Constitutional
Amendment which undoes this ruling - ignoring, of course, that
the ruling already violates several Amendments and the clear
intent of the founders concerning Eminent Domain.
One should also write to your state and local representatives
asking them how they intend to uphold, protect and defend your
private property rights.
Yeah anytime someone goes to the government now and says they
want to build a new housing project that will increase the tax
base, they can condemn your house and land and pay you 20% of
what it's worth. It amounts to legalized looting, as if that was
anything new in this country, but it will become much more common
now.
We saw 2 square blocks of Lakewood condemned a year ago, to make
room for a new super Walmart. Gas stations, office buildings and
businesses were all forced to close for their "increased tax
base", "for the good of the collective".
--
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/
The last best hope for liberty, to give the world its first Bill
of
Rights: http://www.UPAlliance.org/billofrights.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Universal-Planetary-Alliance/
http://lakewoodcolorado.net/school.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
23 Jun 2005 08:32:48 PM |
|
|
"Melissa" <melissa@Colorado.xxx> wrote
We saw 2 square blocks of Lakewood condemned a year ago, to make
room for a new super Walmart. Gas stations, office buildings and
businesses were all forced to close for their "increased tax
base", "for the good of the collective".
Same thing here in Aurora at Fitzsimons- they want a tonier neighborhood
around the new Health Sciences district, so they're stealing the land and
giving it to rich developers. It's a local scandal, and the source of a lot
of resentment amongst the utterly-fucked. It's almost uniformly onsite
landlords/owners; folks that have lived here for years, working their
businesses and being good neighbors.
You can hear rumbles of it on the corridor between Old Lowry and Old
Stapleton too- forced gentrification at our expense.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Voice of freedom" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
23 Jun 2005 08:41:07 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote :
"Melissa" <melissa@Colorado.xxx> wrote
We saw 2 square blocks of Lakewood condemned a year ago, to
make room for a new super Walmart. Gas stations, office
buildings and businesses were all forced to close for their
"increased tax base", "for the good of the collective".
Same thing here in Aurora at Fitzsimons- they want a tonier
neighborhood around the new Health Sciences district, so
they're stealing the land and giving it to rich developers.
It's a local scandal, and the source of a lot of resentment
amongst the utterly-fucked. It's almost uniformly onsite
landlords/owners; folks that have lived here for years,
working their businesses and being good neighbors.
You can hear rumbles of it on the corridor between Old Lowry
and Old Stapleton too- forced gentrification at our expense.
And some of you still think that "the people" control the
government, or that it even serves the people?
I keep seeing people talking as if they really think that their
vote counts, despite evidence that no matter who we elect, the
anti-liberty agenda keeps moving forwards. Like The Who song;
Here's the new boss, the same as the old boss. But people just
keep thinking like the government is supposed to represent them
and be working for them. Nothing could be further from the truth
and here's some proof that will open your eyes. This is an
excerpt from The Sovereign Individual. I asked the publishers
for, and received permission to quote, this large a consecutive
segment from the book.
WHO CONTROLS GOVERNMENT?
The key to this unorthodox conclusion lies in recognizing where
the control of democratic government is lodged. It is an issue
that is not as simple as it may seem. In the modern era, the
question of who controls the government has almost always been
asked as a political question. It has had many answers, but
almost uniformly these involved identifying the political party,
group, or faction that dominated the control of a particular
state at a particular moment. You have heard of governments
controlled by capitalists, governments controlled by labor,
governments controlled by Catholics, and by Islamic
fundamentalists. Governments controlled by tribal and racial
groups; governments controlled by Hutus and governments by
whites. You have also heard of governments controlled by
occupational groups, such as lawyers or bankers. You have heard
of governments controlled by rural interests, by big-city
machines and by people living in the suburbs.
And you have certainly heard of governments controlled by
political parties, by Democrats, Conservatives, Christian
Democrats, Liberals, Radicals, Republicans, and Socialists.
But you probably have not heard much about a government
controlled by its customers. Economic historian Frederic Lane
laid the basis for a new way of understanding where the control
of government lies in some of his lucid essays on the economic
consequences of violence discussed earlier. Thinking about
government as an economic unit that sells protection led Lane to
analyze the control of government in economic rather than
political terms. In this view there are three basic alternatives
in the control of government, each of which entails a
fundamentally different set of incentives: proprietors,
employees, and
customers.
Proprietors
In rare cases, even today, governments are sometimes controlled
by a proprietor, usually a hereditary leader who for all intents
and purposes owns the country. For example, the Sultan of Brunci
treats the government of Brunci somewhat like a proprietorship.
This was more common among lords of the Middle Ages, who treated
tlieir fiefs as proprietorships to optimize their incomes.
Lane described the incentives of "the owners of the production-
producing enterprise" as follows:
An interest in maximizing profits would lead him, while
maintaining prices, to try to reduce his costs. He would, like
Henry VII of England or Louis XI of France, use inexpensive
wiles, at least as inexpensive devices as possible, to affirm his
legitimacy, to maintain domestic order, and to distract
neighboring princes so that his own military expenses would be
low. From lowered costs, or from the increased exactions made
possible by the firmness of his monopoly, or from a combination,
he accumulated a surplus...." 7
Governments controlled by proprietors have strong incentives to
reduce their costs of providing protection or monopolizing
violence in a given area. But so long as their rule is secure,
they have little incentive to reduce the price (tax) they charge
their customers below the rate that optimizes revenues. The
higher the price a monopolist can charge, and the lower his
actual costs, the greater the profit he will make. The ideal
fiscal policy for a government controlled by its proprietors
would be a huge surplus. When governments can keep their revenues
high but cut their costs, this has a large impact on the use of
resources.
Labor and other valuable inputs that would otherwise
be wasted providing unnecessarily expensive protection become
available instead for investment and other purposes. The higher
the monarch can raise his profit by lowering costs, the more
resources are freed. When these resources are used for
investment, they provide a stimulus for growth. But even if they
are used for conspicuous consumption, they help create and feed
new markets that otherwise would not exist if the resources had
been wasted to produce inefficient "protection."
Employees
It is easy to characterize the incentives that prevail for
governments controlled by their employees. They would be similar
incentives in other employee-controlled organizations. First and
foremost, employee-run organizations tend to favor any policy
that increases employment and oppose measures which reduce jobs.
As Lane put it, "When employees as a whole controlled, they had
little interest in minimizing the amounts exacted for protection
and none in minimizing that large part of costs represented by
labor costs, by their own salaries. Maximizing size was more to
their taste also."
A government controlled by its employees would seldom have
incentives to either reduce the costs of government or the price
charged to their customers. However, where conditions impose
strong price resistance, in the form of opposition to higher
taxes, governments controlled by employees would be more likely
to let their revenues fall below their outlays than to cut their
outlays. In other words, their incentives imply that they may be
inclined toward chronic deficits, as governments controlled by
proprietors would not be.
Customers
Are there examples of governments controlled by their customers?
Yes.
Lane was inspired to analyze the control of government in
economic terms by the example of the medieval merchant republics,
like Venice. There a group of wholesale merchants who required
protection effectively controlled the government for centuries.
They were genuinely customers for the protection service
government provided, not proprietors. They paid for the service.
They did not seek to profit from their control of government's
monopoly of violence. If some did, they were prevented from doing
so by the other customers for
long periods of time. Other examples of governments controlled by
their customers include democracies and republics with limited
franchise, such as the ancient democracies, or the American
republic in its founding period. At that time, only those who
paid for the government, about 10 percent of the population, were
allowed to vote.
Governments controlled by their customers, like those of
proprietors, have incentives to reduce their operating costs as
far as possible.
But unlike governments controlled hy either proprietors or
employees, governments actually controlled by their customers
have incentives to hold down the prices they charge. Where
customers rule, governments are lean and generally unobtrusive,
with low operating costs, minimal employment, and low taxes. A
government controlled by its customers sets tax rates not to
optimize the amount the government can collect but rather to
optimize the amount that the customers can retain. Like
typical enterprises in competitive markets, even a monopoly
controlled by its customers would be compelled to move toward
efficiency. It would not be able to charge a price, in the form
of taxes, that exceeded costs by more than a bare margin.
THE ROLE OF DEMOCRACY: VOTERS AS EMPLOYEES AND CUSTOMERS
Lane treats democracy in the conventional way in assuming that it
brings violence-using and violence-producing enterprises
"increasingly under the control of their customers." This is
certainly the politically correct conclusion. But is it true? We
think not. Look closely at how modern democracies function. First
of all, they have few characteristics of those competitive
industries where the terms of trade are clearly controlled by
their customers For one thing, democratic governments typically
spend only a bare fraction of their total outlays on the service
of protection, which is their core activity. In the United
States, for example, state and local governments spend just 3.5
percent of their total outlays on the provision of police, as
well as courts and prisons. Add military spending, and the
fraction of revenues devoted to protection is still only about 10
percent. Another revealing hint that mass democracy is not
controlled by its customers is the fact that contemporary
political culture, inherited from the Industrial Age, would
consider it outrageous if policies on crucial issues were
actually informed by the interests the people who pay the bills.
Imagine the uproar if a U.S. president or a British prime
minister proposed to allow the group of citizens who pay the
majority of the taxes to determine which programs of government
should continue and which groups of employees
should be fired. This would deeply offend expectations of how
government should operate, in a way that allowing government
employees to determine whose taxes should be raised would not.
Yet when you think about it, when customers really are in the
driver's seat it would be considered outrageous that they should
not get what they want. If you went into a store to buy
furniture, and the salespeople took your money but then proceeded
to ignore your requests and consult others about how to spend
your money, you would quite rightly be upset. You would not think
it normal or justifiable if the employees of the store argued
that you really did not deserve the furniture, and that it should
be shipped instead to someone whom they found more worthy. The
fact that something very like this happens in dealings with
government shows how little control its "customers" actually
have.
By any measure, the costs of democratic government have surged
out of control, unlike the typical situation where customer
preferences force vendors to be efficient. Most democracies run
chronic deficits. This is a fiscal policy characteristic of
control by employees. Governments seem notably resistant to
reducing the costs of their operations. An almost universal
complaint about contemporary government worldwide is that
political programs, once established, can be curtailed only with
great difficulty. To fire a government employee is all but
impossible. In fact, one of the principal advantages arising from
privatization of formerly state-owned functions is that private
control usually makes
it far easier to weed out unnecessary employment. From Britain to
Argentina, it has not been uncommon for the new private managers
to shed 50-95 percent of former state employces.
Think, as well, of the basis upon which the fiscal terms of
government's protection service is priced. For the most part, you
would look in vain for hints of competitive influences on tax
rates
according to which government services are priced. Even the
occasional debates about lowering taxes that have interrupted
normal political discourse in recent years betray how far removed
democratic government has normally been from control by its
customers. Advocates of lower taxes sometimes have argued that
government revenues would actually increase because rates
previously had been set so high that they
discouraged economic activity.
The trade-off they normally intended to highlight was not
competition between jurisdictions but something much more
amazing. They did not argue that because tax rates in Hong Kong
were only 15 percent, rates in the United States or Germany must
be no higher than 15 percent. To the contrary. Tax debates have
normally assumed that the trade-off
facing the taxpayer was not between doing business in one
jurisdiction or doing it in another, but between doing business
at penal rates or taking a holiday. You were told that productive
individuals subject to predatory taxation would walk away from
their in-boxes and go golfing if their tax burdens were not
eased.
The fact that such an argument could even arise shows how far
removed from a competitive footing the protection costs imposed
by democratic welfare states have been. The terms of progressive
income taxation, which emerged in every democratic welfare state
during the course of the twentieth century, are dramatically
unlike pricing provisions that would be preferred by customers.
This can easily be seen by comparing
taxation imposed to support a monopolistic provision of
protection with tariffs for telephone service, which until
recently was a monopoly in most places. Customers would scream
bloody murder if a telephone company attempted to charge for
calls on the same basis that income taxes are imposed. Suppose
the phone company sent a bill for $50,000 for a call to London,
just because you happened to conclude a deal worth $125,000
during a conversation. Neither you nor any other customer in his
right mind would pay it. But that is exactly the basis upon which
income taxes are assessed in every democratic welfare
state.
When you think closely about the terms under which industrial
democracies have operated, it is more logical to treat them as a
form of government controlled by their employees. Thinking of
mass democracy as government controlled by its employees helps
explain the difficulty of changing government policy. Government
in many respects appears to be run for the benefit of employees.
For example, government schools in most democratic countries seem
to malfunction chronically and without remedy. If customers truly
were in the
driver's seat, they would find it easier to set new policy
directions.
Those who pay for democratic government seldom set the terms of
government spending. Instead, government functions as a co-op
that is both outside of proprietary control and operating as a
natural monopoly. Prices bear little relation to costs. The
quality of service is generally low compared to that in private
enterprise. Customer grievances are hard to remedy, In short,
mass democracy leads to control of government by its "employees."
But wait. You may be saying that in most jurisdictions there are
many more voters than there are persons on the government
payroll. How could it be possible for employees to dominate under
such conditions? The welfare state emerged to answer exactly this
quandary. Since there were not otherwise enough employees to
create a working majority, increasing numbers of voters were
effectively put on the payroll to receive transfer payments of
all kinds. In effect, the recipients of transfer payments and
subsidies became pseudo govemment employees who were able to
dispense with the bother of reporting every day to work. It was a
result dictated by the megapolitical logic of the industrial age.
When the magnitude of coercive force is more important than the
efficient deployment of resources, as was the case prior to 1989,
it is all but impossible for most governments to be controlled by
their customers. As the example of the late Soviet Union
illustrated so well, until a few years ago it was possible for
states to exercise great power in the world even while wasting
resources on a massive scale. When returns to violence are high
and rising, magnitude means more than efficiency. Larger entities
tend to prevail over smaller ones. Those governments that are
more effective in mobilizing military resources, even at the cost
of wasting many of them, tend to prevail
over those that utilize resources more efficiently.
Those who pay for democratic government have little to say about
how their money is spent. Instead, it functions as a co-op which
is both outside of proprietary control, and operating as a
natural monopoly. Prices bear little relation to costs. The
quality of service is generally low compared to that in private
enterprise. Customer grievances are hard to remedy. In short,
mass democracy leads to control of government by its "employees."
Think what this means. It inescapably implies that when
magnitude means more than efficiency, governments controlled by
their customers cannot prevail, and often, cannot survive. Under
such conditions, the entities that will be most effectively
militarily are those that commandeer the most resources or war.
But governments that are truly controlled by their customers who
pay their bills are unlikely to have carte blanche to reach into
the pockets of everyone to extract resources.
Customers normally wish to see the prices they pay for any
product or service, including protection, lowered and kept under
control. If the Western democracies had been under customer
control during the Cold War, that fact alone would have made them
weaker competitors militarily, because it would almost certainly
have curtailed the flow of resources into the government.
Remember, where customers rule, both
prices and costs should be expected to be under tight control.
But this is hardly what happened. The welfare states were
manifestly the winners of the spending contest during the Cold
War. Commentators of all stripes cited as a factor in their
triumph their ability to spend the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.
It is precisely this fact that highlights the way in which the
inefficiencies of democracy made it megapolitically predominant
during a period of rising returns to violence. Massive military
spending, with all its waste, represents distinctly suboptimal
deployment of capital for private gain. We suggested earlier that
while welfare states were economically efficient as compared to
state socialist systems, they are far less efficient for the
creation of wealth than laissez faire enclaves, like Hong Kong.
Ironically, it was this very inefficiency of the democratic
welfare state as compared to a more unencumbered free-market
system that made it successful-in the megapolitical conditions of
industrialism.
How did inefficiency fostered by democracy become a factor in
its success during the Age of Violence? The key to unraveling
this apparent paradox lies in recognizing two points:
1. Success for a sovereignty in the modern period lay not in
creating wealth but in creating a military force capable of
deploying overpowering violence against any other state. Money
was needed to do that, but money itself could not win a battle.
The challenge was not to create a system with the most efficient
economy or the most rapid rate of growth, but to create a system
that could extract more resources and channel them into the
military. By its nature, military spending is an area where the
financial returns per se are low or nonexistent.
2. The easiest way to obtain penrnission to invest funds in
activities with little or no direct financial return, like tax
payments, is to ask for permission from someone other than the
person whose money is coveted. One of the ways that the Dutch
were able to purchase Manhattan for twenty-three dollars' worth
of beads is that the particular Indians to whom they made the
offer were not the ones who properly owned it. "Getting to yes,"
as the marketing people say, is much easier under those terms.
Suppose, for example, that as authors of this book we wanted you
to pay not its cover price but 40 percent of your annual income
for a copy. We would be far likelier to get permission to do so
if we asked someone else, and did not have to ask you. In fact,
we would be far more persuasive if we could rely
instead upon the consent of several people you do not even know.
We could hold an ad hoc election, what R. L. Meneken described,
with less exaggeration than he might have thought, as "an
advanced auction of stolen goods." And to make the example more
realistic, we would agree to share some of the money we collected
from you with these anonymous
bystanders in exchange for their support.
That is the role the modern democratic welfare state evolved to
fulfill. It was an unsurpassed system in the Industrial Age
because it was both efficient and inefficient where it counted.
It combined the efficiency of private ownership and incentives
for the creation of wealth with a mechanism to facilitate
essentially unchecked access to that wealth. Democracy kept the
pockets of wealth producers open. It succeeded militarily during
the high-water period of rising returns to violence in the world
precisely because it made it difficult for customers to
effectively restrict the taxes the govemment collected or other
ways of funding the outlay of resources for the military, such as
inflation.
-- The Sovereign Individual by Davidson & Mogg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
23 Jun 2005 08:59:14 PM |
|
|
"Ms Voice of freedom" <MsVoiceFreedom@freedom.naa> wrote
And some of you still think that "the people" control the
government, or that it even serves the people?
Not a proposition I ever advanced- we've talked about abstracts, but you're
never asked me what my personal positions are. My general purpose for citing
the precepts of our Constitution is to call attention to their perversion by
our trusted public servants.
One of my particular beefs is with 'zoning', and the way they can pick your
pocket by the way of no harm.
Chas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Levinson" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 04:23:50 PM |
|
|
Eric wrote:
Melissa <melissa@Colorado.xxx> wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled today that there's essentially no more
such thing as private property in the United States.
This is certainly something worth writing to your Representatives and
Senators about. There are only two ways to undo this travesty
now...either the Supreme Court overturns this horrendously bad ruling or
we get another Constitutional Amendment which undoes this ruling -
ignoring, of course, that the ruling already violates several Amendments
and the clear intent of the founders concerning Eminent Domain.
There are also legal and nonviolent ways to sabotage development
projects on land seized by eminent domain (and elsewhere; the methods
are often used abusively against private property rights).
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/eminent.html
Here's a very simple one. If a Wal-Mart took my home through eminent
domain, I would spend a couple of hours a day watching them build on
what was my land. The instant I saw a construction worker without a hard
hat, I'd photograph him and mail it to OSHA. Then the developer would be
hit with a fine and perhaps a costly delay to his project.
I've already photographed water covering my yard (and those nearby)
after a heavy rainstorm. I've heard that that can get the land defined
as a "wetland," thus leaving anyone who seizes my property with a very
expensive wildlife refuge.
--Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Voice of freedom" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court: NO MORE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES! |
24 Jun 2005 05:54:30 PM |
|
|
Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote :
Eric wrote:
Melissa <melissa@Colorado.xxx> wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled today that there's essentially no
more such thing as private property in the United States.
This is certainly something worth writing to your
Representatives and Senators about. There are only two ways
to undo this travesty now...either the Supreme Court
overturns this horrendously bad ruling or we get another
Constitutional Amendment which undoes this ruling - ignoring,
of course, that the ruling already violates several
Amendments and the clear intent of the founders concerning
Eminent Domain.
There are also legal and nonviolent ways to sabotage
development projects on land seized by eminent domain (and
elsewhere; the methods are often used abusively against
private property rights).
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/eminent.html
Here's a very simple one. If a Wal-Mart took my home through
eminent domain, I would spend a couple of hours a day watching
them build on what was my land. The instant I saw a
construction worker without a hard hat, I'd photograph him and
mail it to OSHA. Then the developer would be hit with a fine
and perhaps a costly delay to his project.
I've already photographed water covering my yard (and those
nearby) after a heavy rainstorm. I've heard that that can get
the land defined as a "wetland," thus leaving anyone who
seizes my property with a very expensive wildlife refuge.
Great. And then you could always find archeological artifacts
there ( arrow heads, skulls, even stones that look like arrow
heads or axes ), which would require them to do an archeological
dig of the entire area with tooth brushes and sable brushes. :)
Or find an endangered species there, that's always good. An ant
or dust mite?
--
Ms Liberty - Colorado, USA
The Planetary Bill of Rights Project needs major startup funding:
http://upalliance.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
