vision2020
Re: Property Rights and the Government
I think you have summed this all up pretty well Ted:
"The government *allows* individuals.."
Do I really need to say more? But just in case the point is missed,
Ted understands exactly what is going on. The government *allows*,
or it may NOT *allow*. The government decides, not you.
If you are nice, and play by the government rules,:
- then the government might *allow* you to keep your home,
- then the government might *allow* you to make a profit,
- then the government might *allow* you to build a deck,
- then the government might *allow* you have a living,
- then the government might *allow* you to travel,
And if we are all real nice, then the government will really make us
free in some of the other following ways:
- we are free from the responsiblity of taking care of the poor, the
gov't will do it for us, give me your federal taxes;
- we are free from the responsibility of taking care of the elderly,
the gov't will do it for us, give me your medicaid and medicare;
- we are free from having to educate our children, because the gov't
will do it for us, give me your property taxes and federal taxes;
- we are free from having the responsibility of providing for our
old age, because the gov't will do it for us, give me your social
security;
- we are free from having to worry about our own protection, because
the gov't will do it for us, give me those stinking guns;
And if none of that works, well, doggone it, then lets just pass a
law. Because if there isn't a law for it or against it or even a law
just to acknowledge it, then doggone it, lets pass one!
You know, this is the free-est country in world. Our government will
make sure we have all the freedom we want. And it will pass more laws
ensuring more freedoms, like freedom of association, which almost
passed in the Supreme Court which would have freed us up from having
to decide who we can and cannot associate with, because the gov't would
decide that for us; or, freedom from intolerance, we will be free from
having to decide what is right and wrong in speech, because the gov't
will pass hate crime laws, similar to canada; sheesh, so much freedom!
Do we really want all that FREEDOM? FREEDOM!
(I really enjoyed that.)
Cheers!
John Harrell
--- Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dale, et. al.
>
> If you can sell your home and make a profit on it, which many Americans do
> on a regular basis as a way of generating huge profit, and the government
> allows you to do this for your own personal gain, how can you say that you
> have no real "ownership" of said property in any sense of this term, just
> because of taxes and building codes and other regulations? The government
> allows individuals to personally benefit
> from Capitalist manipulations of private property in ways that provide
> tremendous financial benefits to the individual. Does this not in turn mean
> that the government should regulate said private property to enforce
> responsible and lawful use of private property?
>
> Not only is the government reasonable in sometimes asserting its right to
> regulate private property, so that if private property is being used to
> commit a crime, the property rights of the owner can be voided, we recognize
> that our own bodies and person are sometimes subject to draconian regulation
> for the "public good," a far more potentially dangerous form of government
> power. Prostitutes can be jailed for engaging in a free un-coerced exchange
> with another adult of "access" to their bodies for money, and people who
> have contagious diseases can be kept in confinement against their will. Do
> I really "own" my own body when the government can jail me for simply
> displaying that body in public, or tell me that I can be jailed for a free
> exchange of certain sexual acts with another adult, even when no money is
> exchanged? Personal drug use is another example of the government person's
> body.
>
> If a private property owner is polluting his neighbors water or air, doesn't
> this one example alone demonstrate the need for a third party, the State, to
> mediate between the parties and restrict the unbridled freedom of a property
> owners to do as they wish. Of course many government laws and regulations
> are unreasonable, but what system of organizing society is perfect?
>
> If the government needs to use your property for the "pubic good," like when
> a dam is built, flooding your land, or a military project needs the land,
> you can be forced to sell it, but you will be paid, the government often
> does not just seize the land with no compensation, though I know there are
> cases where in effect this has happened, especially to Native American
> tribal land.
>
> And if you break the tax laws and the government seizes your house, well,
> perhaps this is an egregious abuse of government power, if you are not
> compensated properly, like the seizures of property and assets that have
> been ongoing in recent years for people charged with certain drug crimes,
> EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED IN A COURT OF ANY CRIME. But our
> laws do allow the government to take away people's rights, or property, when
> they commit crimes, like breaking tax laws, whether rightly or not.
>
> To return to my first point, how can your ownership of a home be in "name
> only" when you can make a killing financially off buying a house, improving
> it, waiting for the value to go up, then selling said house at a huge
> profit, that you personally can walk away with to travel the world, if you
> wish? If the government really is the true "owner" of the property,
> wouldn't the profit from the sale of a house then go to the government?
>
> The best claim I think you can make with your argument is to assert that
> property is subject to "co-ownership" between the government and the deed
> holder, subject to a complex set of rules governing how each party can
> assert it's claims over said property, or profit from the use or sale of
> said property.
>
> Ted
>
>
> >From: "Dale Courtney" <dmcourtn@moscow.com>
> >To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
> >Subject: Re: Moscow Civic Association
> >Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 06:40:57 -0800
> >
> >Melynda,
> >
> >You wrote that government is the "effective regulator" of commerce and
> >industry. But civil government is incapable of even regulating the making
> >of a pencil (see the irenic article I Pencil:
> >http://www.self-gov.org/freeman/9605read.html).
> >
> >Also, I would argue that if the government is the regulator, then ownership
> >is in name only.
> >
> >Tell me, who really owns my house (when I own it outright)? If I were not
> >to pay my property taxes, what then? The state comes and confiscates it and
> >sells it. At that point, my ownership is in actuality just renting from the
> >state.
> >
> >And finally, do I really own my house when I am told what I can and cannot
> >do with it? I cannot even put a deck on my house without getting
> >governmental approval to do so. I cannot setup a grey-water system without
> >jumping thru all of the regulatory hoops that add $10,000 to the cost of
> >the system!
> >
> >My point in my above rant (a raw nerve for this economic libertarian) is
> >that when governments are the "effective regulator", they are not effective
> >(see Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations); and they in reality do own it (even
> >though they let us pretend that we do).
> >
> >Pax,
> >Dale
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Melynda Huskey
> > To: Dale Courtney ; vision2020@moscow.com
> > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 10:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: Moscow Civic Association
> >
> >
> > Dear Dale,
> >
> > Progressivism promotes government as an effective regulator of commerce
> >and industry, but does not call for the public or collective ownership of
> >the means of production.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Melynda
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dale Courtney
> > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:29 AM
> > To: vision2020@moscow.com
> > Subject: RE: Moscow Civic Association
> >
> > Melynda Huskey wrote:
> > > The progressive movement was/is "a reform movement (beginning
> > > in the first
> > > decades of the 20th century) principally focused on the role of the
> > > government (local, state, and national) in alleviating the
> > > economic and
> > > social disarray brought about by the rapid urbanization and
> > > industrialization of America."
> >
> > Can you please tell me the difference between this definition and that
> > of socialism?
> >
> > Dale Courtney
> > Moscow, Idaho
> > Free to be me, free to be you (as long as you agree with Tom
> >Hansen...)
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
> >http://explorer.msn.com
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Back to TOC