[internetworkers] The Local Gov't Fair Competition Act.
motley.crue.fan at gmail.com
Mon Jul 16 17:22:37 EDT 2007
On 7/16/07, Cristóbal Palmer <cristobalpalmer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why is property a fundamental right? Here's the preamble to our
I never said the Constitution made property a fundamental right, and I never
will. And that's
because I hold that Constitutions don't grant rights, they simply affirm a
subset of them.
Rights, such as the right to property, I personally property ownership hold
to be such a fundamental and
inalienable right that it transcends the issue of Constitutions of
governments. I believe
that all individuals are inherently sovereign and own what they own, and
that all other rights
extend from property rights (eg, I own my body, so if you kill me you are
damaging my property).
> I challenge you to give an example of a nation of larger than trivial
> size that has survived for more than a generation without compulsory
> taxation and Eminent Domain.
I don't know that one has, but I also consider it to be a moot point. For
because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done.
Secondly, I don't
put much value in the idea of nation-states at all. I'd prefer to see a
world without that particular
Don't get me wrong: I don't think that people or the government should
> be able to go around seizing people's stuff for no good reason (that
> would conflict with a reasonable person's sense of justice).
But who gets to decide who a "reasonable person" is? And what if it's
my property but I disagree with the choice of "reasonable person" to
this? It might seem like I'm just being contrary for the sake of it, but I
is a legitimate point of dispute: two people, both of whom would probably be
judged "reasonable" can certainly have diametrically opposed views on, well,
much anything. I just don't think there is an valid way to make an
judgment about what is "reasonable."
> our current Supreme Court has gone a bit overboard with Eminent
> Domain. When it's okay to take Phil's stuff from him should be an
> incredibly short list of circumstances, but our country has recognized
> from the beginning that such circumstances do exist.
"Our Country" may recognize it, what what if I don't? I reject the notion
that "society" has any intrinsic authority to make rules like this.
Let me use something of a metaphor here. If you're driving in your car, and
armed gunman comes along and orders you out of your car and takes it, you
would probably call that a car-jacking and insist that it was theft. If 5
gunmen do the same thing, it's still theft, no? What about 20? Still theft,
50? What about 300 million? If the principle is that having your property
taken by force is wrong, why does just changing the numbers change that?
If it makes more sense that way, pretend it's a mugging instead of a
the principle is the same.
And I know people will contend that will contend that the money taken
by taxation is used for good causes, and to fund essential service, etc.
I reply by asking this: If you're mugged at gunpoint and a guy takes, say,
off of you, you'd normally be upset, right? But what if he then walks
street and donates it to a homeless shelter? Are you still upset, even
it went for a good cause? Personally I would be, simply because I was
deprived of what I hold to be my right to choose what to do with my property
in this case). Even if I intended to give all or most of that money to the
shelter in the first place, I'd *still* be upset, just as a matter of
Simply put, I believe that the right of an individual to own their property,
choose what to do with it, trumps everything else. And I believe we can
construct a system of society and "governance" that is functional, that does
not depend on depriving people of these fundamental rights.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the InterNetWorkers