dasmi
Member
One can do all sorts of underhanded things with the internet, if one were so inclined.
High Court Rules Gov'ts Can Seize Property
- Thread starter Nazirite
- Start date
- Status
dasmi
Member
Nope. Did I say "vote libertarian?"
spartacus2002
Member
My wife's work computer got hacked; somebody cruising the net decided to stash a bunch of normal porn movies there (probably to keep his parents from finding them). No firewalls, an open IP address, and you're toast.
Besides, it's the NATURE of the allegation that makes it so indefensible
dasmi
Member
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
check that out. Someone wants to build a hotel on Justice Souter's property
check that out. Someone wants to build a hotel on Justice Souter's property
RealGun
Member
As a gun owner, assuming you are one, you really haven't been paying attention.
dasmi
Member
Other than the assault weapons ban, what has he done to protect the liberties of those in this country?
He supports strengthening the PATRIOT ACT. He won't do a damn thing about the borders.
And before you infer that I might be an anti-troll, please read some of my other posts. You'll see that I am in fact a gun owner, and one who believes deeply in personal freedom, and the government staying the hell out of our business.
He supports strengthening the PATRIOT ACT. He won't do a damn thing about the borders.
And before you infer that I might be an anti-troll, please read some of my other posts. You'll see that I am in fact a gun owner, and one who believes deeply in personal freedom, and the government staying the hell out of our business.
longeyes
member
eminent domain - global style - the bigger plan
North American Leaders Unveil Security and Prosperity Partnership
Bush, Fox, Martin outline trilateral efforts during March 23 meeting
President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President Vicente Fox announced the establishment of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" in a March 23 joint statement.
Convening that same day in Waco, Texas, for a trilateral meeting, the North American leaders said the security and prosperity of their nations are "mutually dependent and complementary" and explained the impetus for the new initiative.
"In a rapidly changing world, we must develop new avenues of cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our businesses more competitive, and our economies more resilient," they said in their statement.
The leaders indicated that the North American partnership will work to achieve these ends and "is committed to reach the highest results to advance the security and well-being of our people."
As part of their efforts to protect North America from external threats, to prevent and respond to threats within North America, and to streamline legitimate cross-border trade and travel, the three countries will implement common border-security strategies, enhance infrastructure protection, implement a common approach to emergency response, implement improvements to aviation and maritime security, enhance intelligence partnerships, combat transnational threats, and implement a border-facilitation strategy.
To improve North American competitiveness and enhance the quality of life in the region, the partnership participants will pursue regulatory cooperation while maintaining high health and safety standards.? The North American nations will also promote sectoral cooperation in energy, transportation, financial services, technology and other areas.? Other initiatives include reducing the costs of trade and enhancing environmental stewardship.
To pursue the partnership mandate, ministerial-level working groups will be established to set specific, measurable, achievable goals and identify concrete steps toward these goals.? Within 90 days, the ministers will issue initial reports.? Thereafter, the groups will report semi-annually, the three leaders said in their statement.
Following is the text of the joint statement, as released by the White House:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Crawford, Texas)
March 23, 2005
Joint Statement by President Bush, President Fox, and Prime Minister Martin Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, gather in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
Over the past decade, our three nations have taken important steps to expand economic opportunity for our people and to create the most vibrant and dynamic trade relationship in the world.? Since September 11, 2001, we have also taken significant new steps to address the threat of terrorism and to enhance the security of our people.
But more needs to be done.? In a rapidly changing world, we must develop new avenues of cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our businesses more competitive, and our economies more resilient.
Our Partnership will accomplish these objectives through a trilateral effort to increase the security, prosperity, and quality of life of our citizens.? This work will be based on the principle that our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary, and will reflect our shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic values and institutions.? Also, it will help consolidate our action into a North American framework to confront security and economic challenges, and promote the full potential of our people, addressing disparities and increasing opportunities for all.
Our Partnership is committed to reach the highest results to advance the security and well-being of our people.? The Partnership is trilateral in concept; while allowing any two countries to move forward on an issue, it will create a path for the third to join later.
Advancing our Common Security
We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our shared borders.? As part of our efforts, we will:
-- Implement common border-security and bio-protection strategies;
-- Enhance critical infrastructure protection, and implement a common approach to emergency response;
-- Implement improvements in aviation and maritime security, combat transnational threats, and enhance intelligence partnerships; and
-- Implement a border-facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate flow of people and cargo at our shared borders.
Advancing our Common Prosperity
We will work to enhance North American competitiveness and improve the quality of life of our people.? Among other things, we will:
-- Improve productivity through regulatory cooperation to generate growth, while maintaining high standards for health and safety;
-- Promote sectoral collaboration in energy, transportation, financial services, technology, and other areas to facilitate business; and invest in our people;
-- Reduce the costs of trade through the efficient movement of goods and people; and
-- Enhance the stewardship of our environment, create a safer and more reliable food supply while facilitating agricultural trade, and protect our people from disease.
Next Steps
We will establish Ministerial-led working groups that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working groups will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.? They will identify concrete steps that our governments can take to meet these goals, and set implementation dates that will permit a rolling harvest of accomplishments.
Within 90 days, Ministers will report back to us with their initial report.? Following this, the groups will report on a semi-annual basis.? Because the Partnership will be an ongoing process of cooperation, new items will be added to the work agenda by mutual agreement as circumstances warrant.
Through this Partnership, we will ensure that North America remains the most economically dynamic region of the world and a secure home for our people in this and future generations.
North American Leaders Unveil Security and Prosperity Partnership
Bush, Fox, Martin outline trilateral efforts during March 23 meeting
President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President Vicente Fox announced the establishment of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" in a March 23 joint statement.
Convening that same day in Waco, Texas, for a trilateral meeting, the North American leaders said the security and prosperity of their nations are "mutually dependent and complementary" and explained the impetus for the new initiative.
"In a rapidly changing world, we must develop new avenues of cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our businesses more competitive, and our economies more resilient," they said in their statement.
The leaders indicated that the North American partnership will work to achieve these ends and "is committed to reach the highest results to advance the security and well-being of our people."
As part of their efforts to protect North America from external threats, to prevent and respond to threats within North America, and to streamline legitimate cross-border trade and travel, the three countries will implement common border-security strategies, enhance infrastructure protection, implement a common approach to emergency response, implement improvements to aviation and maritime security, enhance intelligence partnerships, combat transnational threats, and implement a border-facilitation strategy.
To improve North American competitiveness and enhance the quality of life in the region, the partnership participants will pursue regulatory cooperation while maintaining high health and safety standards.? The North American nations will also promote sectoral cooperation in energy, transportation, financial services, technology and other areas.? Other initiatives include reducing the costs of trade and enhancing environmental stewardship.
To pursue the partnership mandate, ministerial-level working groups will be established to set specific, measurable, achievable goals and identify concrete steps toward these goals.? Within 90 days, the ministers will issue initial reports.? Thereafter, the groups will report semi-annually, the three leaders said in their statement.
Following is the text of the joint statement, as released by the White House:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Crawford, Texas)
March 23, 2005
Joint Statement by President Bush, President Fox, and Prime Minister Martin Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, gather in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
Over the past decade, our three nations have taken important steps to expand economic opportunity for our people and to create the most vibrant and dynamic trade relationship in the world.? Since September 11, 2001, we have also taken significant new steps to address the threat of terrorism and to enhance the security of our people.
But more needs to be done.? In a rapidly changing world, we must develop new avenues of cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our businesses more competitive, and our economies more resilient.
Our Partnership will accomplish these objectives through a trilateral effort to increase the security, prosperity, and quality of life of our citizens.? This work will be based on the principle that our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary, and will reflect our shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic values and institutions.? Also, it will help consolidate our action into a North American framework to confront security and economic challenges, and promote the full potential of our people, addressing disparities and increasing opportunities for all.
Our Partnership is committed to reach the highest results to advance the security and well-being of our people.? The Partnership is trilateral in concept; while allowing any two countries to move forward on an issue, it will create a path for the third to join later.
Advancing our Common Security
We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our shared borders.? As part of our efforts, we will:
-- Implement common border-security and bio-protection strategies;
-- Enhance critical infrastructure protection, and implement a common approach to emergency response;
-- Implement improvements in aviation and maritime security, combat transnational threats, and enhance intelligence partnerships; and
-- Implement a border-facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate flow of people and cargo at our shared borders.
Advancing our Common Prosperity
We will work to enhance North American competitiveness and improve the quality of life of our people.? Among other things, we will:
-- Improve productivity through regulatory cooperation to generate growth, while maintaining high standards for health and safety;
-- Promote sectoral collaboration in energy, transportation, financial services, technology, and other areas to facilitate business; and invest in our people;
-- Reduce the costs of trade through the efficient movement of goods and people; and
-- Enhance the stewardship of our environment, create a safer and more reliable food supply while facilitating agricultural trade, and protect our people from disease.
Next Steps
We will establish Ministerial-led working groups that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working groups will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.? They will identify concrete steps that our governments can take to meet these goals, and set implementation dates that will permit a rolling harvest of accomplishments.
Within 90 days, Ministers will report back to us with their initial report.? Following this, the groups will report on a semi-annual basis.? Because the Partnership will be an ongoing process of cooperation, new items will be added to the work agenda by mutual agreement as circumstances warrant.
Through this Partnership, we will ensure that North America remains the most economically dynamic region of the world and a secure home for our people in this and future generations.
RealGun
Member
Good question, but he hasn't and won't hurt me like Kerry could have, gun control high on his agenda. Imagine a WH empowered Feinstein and Schumer. I'll leave it at that. You can go ahead and say parties are hard to distinguish sometimes, but there were real choices for President, when it came to gun control. That's an old, tired subject.
Last edited:
Waitone
Member
Longeyes, I noted that meeing also. It was held before the EU constitution tanked. I believe they were preparing to compete against the European Union when it effectively became the United States of Europe. It didn't happen and looks for now llike the EU remains a dream of Chermany. There is another NGO document out there that lays out the whole plan.
Bottom line our anti-UN president is in fact an internationalist, not a UN-ist. Either way he is not much for national sovereignty.
Bottom line our anti-UN president is in fact an internationalist, not a UN-ist. Either way he is not much for national sovereignty.
2nd Amendment
member
Just compensation, eh?
Read this article and what one of the homeowners has to say. Note especially this part:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45034
Read this article and what one of the homeowners has to say. Note especially this part:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45034
hoppinglark
Member
let's drive to New London
okay lets' go to New London and have us a little party in front of the homes of all the city officials.
I'll bring the music, You bring the kegs
okay lets' go to New London and have us a little party in front of the homes of all the city officials.
I'll bring the music, You bring the kegs
ravinraven
Member
There is a doings planned for the 5th of July, I heard. I doubt that I can make it. If something is planned for later, I'll get to it.
Different point: Anyone have a guess as to how this ruling might affec your ability to obtain a mortgage? Suppose the bank suspects that ten years into your repayment, the gov't will steal your house from you and leave you and the bank high and dry.
rr
Different point: Anyone have a guess as to how this ruling might affec your ability to obtain a mortgage? Suppose the bank suspects that ten years into your repayment, the gov't will steal your house from you and leave you and the bank high and dry.
rr
Waitone
Member
ravinraven, good question.
Here's another. What happens if you honk off a member of the planning board? He or she now has the ability to do you serious hurt and there ain't nothin' you can do about it.
I think Kelo opened the door to profound corruption at the local level (as if that is not a problem now).
Here's another. What happens if you honk off a member of the planning board? He or she now has the ability to do you serious hurt and there ain't nothin' you can do about it.
I think Kelo opened the door to profound corruption at the local level (as if that is not a problem now).
hoppinglark
Member
maybe the banks will help, to overturn this?
maybe they'll not do busieness with companies that use E.D.
hmmm not likely, we're on our own.
maybe they'll not do busieness with companies that use E.D.
hmmm not likely, we're on our own.
spartacus2002
Member
This holding is a bad one for several reasons, but mainly for how it undercuts the 5 pillars of The Rule Of Law.
The Rule of Law, as classically formulated, has the following 5 tenets:
1. Known general rules of law, equally applicable to all (both citizens and government).
2. Certainty/constancy of the law, enabling people to plan their lives and activities with an understanding of the law's predictable impact.
3. Absence of wholly arbitrary or discretionary government power over the lives and acts of individuals.
4. A broad sphere of individual freedom protected from other individuals and from government.
5. Independent review of the law's application to individuals and to actions by government officials.
Looking at these, we can see by this ruling how certainty is undermined, how discretionary government activity is unleashed, and how the independent review of the law's application has failed (because SCOTUS has turned to the dark side of Deferral to Govt Authorities when we and SCOTUS both KNOW that giving private property to another private individual is NOT what the public use part of the 5th Amendment intended.)
Allow me to demonstrate the path of social disorder that follows as the rule of law is diminished:
1. as you destabilize some rules, you will affect other rules as the destabilization disrupts the natural self-ordering of human interaction.
2. As rules fray, or are not observed by government, the people cease to observe the rules themselves.
3. As rules fray through nonobservance by govt and/or the people, the people cease to feel able to count on the rules.
4. As people cease to count on the rules, they cease feeling able to count on each other (as rules cannot enforce private behavior), and they feel mistrust.
5. Mistrust of individuals leands to mistrust of institutions and government, and the people cease to hold government accountable.
6. As standards fall, corruption infects government.
What is the number one means of destabilizing rules as mentioned in #1 above? Lack of observation of property rights. Other means are infringements on liberty in personal affairs, in trade, etc; redistribution of wealth to buy votes of a particular constituency or constituencies; expansion of government power beyond that explicitly authorized; and the costs of compliance with norms and rules EXCEED the costs of noncompliance. Ask yourselves how many of those are met in the early 21st-century American legal structure.
As you can see, I've spent some serious time thinking about this issue
The Rule of Law, as classically formulated, has the following 5 tenets:
1. Known general rules of law, equally applicable to all (both citizens and government).
2. Certainty/constancy of the law, enabling people to plan their lives and activities with an understanding of the law's predictable impact.
3. Absence of wholly arbitrary or discretionary government power over the lives and acts of individuals.
4. A broad sphere of individual freedom protected from other individuals and from government.
5. Independent review of the law's application to individuals and to actions by government officials.
Looking at these, we can see by this ruling how certainty is undermined, how discretionary government activity is unleashed, and how the independent review of the law's application has failed (because SCOTUS has turned to the dark side of Deferral to Govt Authorities when we and SCOTUS both KNOW that giving private property to another private individual is NOT what the public use part of the 5th Amendment intended.)
Allow me to demonstrate the path of social disorder that follows as the rule of law is diminished:
1. as you destabilize some rules, you will affect other rules as the destabilization disrupts the natural self-ordering of human interaction.
2. As rules fray, or are not observed by government, the people cease to observe the rules themselves.
3. As rules fray through nonobservance by govt and/or the people, the people cease to feel able to count on the rules.
4. As people cease to count on the rules, they cease feeling able to count on each other (as rules cannot enforce private behavior), and they feel mistrust.
5. Mistrust of individuals leands to mistrust of institutions and government, and the people cease to hold government accountable.
6. As standards fall, corruption infects government.
What is the number one means of destabilizing rules as mentioned in #1 above? Lack of observation of property rights. Other means are infringements on liberty in personal affairs, in trade, etc; redistribution of wealth to buy votes of a particular constituency or constituencies; expansion of government power beyond that explicitly authorized; and the costs of compliance with norms and rules EXCEED the costs of noncompliance. Ask yourselves how many of those are met in the early 21st-century American legal structure.
As you can see, I've spent some serious time thinking about this issue
RealGun
Member
This is exactly why people must move quickly to reestablish clear rules for eminent domain at a local level. Otherwise, there will be no appeal beyond a State Supreme Court. "Public use" is the key. "Public ownership" or "public benefit" is not the intent of eminent domain and forms a clear opening for unbridled corruption.
Residences can be eliminated by rezoning but need to be grandfathered for the duration of current ownership. Clearing an area can then take many years. Selling a residence as commercial property can be very lucrative, so a property owner simply needs to be offered a fair price to accelerate the process. The corruption comes from finding ways to avoid paying that "fair price". You want to use an area for other purposes. How much is it worth to you?
You need to improve the tax base? Offer some incentives.
You need to pry loose the last few hold outs? Raise the taxes for that area, so they have to support the infrastructure. That part is not an entitlement. Higher taxes make the buy out offers more appealing. I suppose an annual cap on percentage increase in taxes would contain gross abuse.
Bubbles
Member
CT General Assembly Favors USSC Decision
Note that again, the vote falls along Party lines...
General Assembly kills GOP plan to limit eminent domain powers
By SUSAN HAIGH
Associated Press Writer
June 29, 2005, 1:20 AM EDT
HARTFORD, Conn. -- Republican leaders in the state Senate have called for another special session to consider legislation limiting Connecticut's eminent domain laws following its defeat in the General Assembly on Tuesday.
The proposal, offered in response to last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing New London to take homes for a private development project, was killed on a mostly 22-11 party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
The House of Representatives, which also is run by Democrats, defeated a similar proposal 82-50.
The plans were offered as amendments to legislation that details the two-year, $31.2 billion budget and other provisions.
Republican leaders in the Senate say homeowners need immediate protections in the wake of the court decision, they said.
The GOP proposal would have prevented a municipality or government agency from taking owner-occupied residential property with four or fewer units for a private development project.
"I just don't believe that we should be in the business of taking a family's home away from them for private interests," said Sen. John McKinney, R-Fairfield. "I don't believe we should stand up and say private corporate needs, private development needs, trump individual rights."
Democrats balked at the timing of the GOP proposal. Some Democratic lawmakers said it makes more sense to confront the issue next year in a regular session when legislators can get more public comment.
"We ought to study this more carefully so there are not unintended consequences," said Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn. He and other Democrats said the amendment raises more questions than it answers.
Last Thursday's 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court widens eminent domain power, granting local governments broad rights to seize private property to generate tax revenue. The majority noted that states are free to pass additional protections.
Republicans said that the Senate, which was meeting in special session on Tuesday, has passed legislation before that hasn't gone through the regular public hearing process. They urged passage by the General Assembly now to protect constituents.
"I would much rather err on the side of going too far to protect individual homeowners and property owners ... than protecting some government agency that wants to take their home because they have the authority, the awesome power to do so because of economic gain," said Sen. David Cappiello, R-Danbury.
House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, said he plans next year to resurrect a bill that died last session preventing the taking of property in Connecticut for economic development.
At least eight states _ Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington _ forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.
Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, said last week they are interested in revisiting Connecticut's eminent domain laws next year.
Note that again, the vote falls along Party lines...
General Assembly kills GOP plan to limit eminent domain powers
By SUSAN HAIGH
Associated Press Writer
June 29, 2005, 1:20 AM EDT
HARTFORD, Conn. -- Republican leaders in the state Senate have called for another special session to consider legislation limiting Connecticut's eminent domain laws following its defeat in the General Assembly on Tuesday.
The proposal, offered in response to last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing New London to take homes for a private development project, was killed on a mostly 22-11 party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
The House of Representatives, which also is run by Democrats, defeated a similar proposal 82-50.
The plans were offered as amendments to legislation that details the two-year, $31.2 billion budget and other provisions.
Republican leaders in the Senate say homeowners need immediate protections in the wake of the court decision, they said.
The GOP proposal would have prevented a municipality or government agency from taking owner-occupied residential property with four or fewer units for a private development project.
"I just don't believe that we should be in the business of taking a family's home away from them for private interests," said Sen. John McKinney, R-Fairfield. "I don't believe we should stand up and say private corporate needs, private development needs, trump individual rights."
Democrats balked at the timing of the GOP proposal. Some Democratic lawmakers said it makes more sense to confront the issue next year in a regular session when legislators can get more public comment.
"We ought to study this more carefully so there are not unintended consequences," said Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn. He and other Democrats said the amendment raises more questions than it answers.
Last Thursday's 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court widens eminent domain power, granting local governments broad rights to seize private property to generate tax revenue. The majority noted that states are free to pass additional protections.
Republicans said that the Senate, which was meeting in special session on Tuesday, has passed legislation before that hasn't gone through the regular public hearing process. They urged passage by the General Assembly now to protect constituents.
"I would much rather err on the side of going too far to protect individual homeowners and property owners ... than protecting some government agency that wants to take their home because they have the authority, the awesome power to do so because of economic gain," said Sen. David Cappiello, R-Danbury.
House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, said he plans next year to resurrect a bill that died last session preventing the taking of property in Connecticut for economic development.
At least eight states _ Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington _ forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.
Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, said last week they are interested in revisiting Connecticut's eminent domain laws next year.
2nd Amendment
member
Higher taxes, as in property taxes? Just another aspect of our lack of property rights. Better idea, eliminate these most archaic of taxes, fuedal as they are, and let government do what individuals do when an individual doesn't want to sell a piece of property: Go elsewhere.
Mr. James
Member
Too true, and tragic he has to even speak the words.
More true words that shouldn't need saying.
Call me officially ashamed to be an American.
Shweboner
Member
I dont know if anyone has posted this...
But you gotta love the irony in the fact that Connecticut is the "Constitution State"
But you gotta love the irony in the fact that Connecticut is the "Constitution State"
shooterx10
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 159
How many Carl Dregas are out there and waiting?
With this SCOTUS decision, one day in the future we're all going to have to make a decision that those patriots of 200+ years ago made: standup for yourselves and take back what was taken from you or kowtow down to an ever oppressive monarchy. In this case this monarchy IS OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!
Here is the story of Carl Drega, a man who chose to make a stand: http://www.iresist.com/cbg/dregas.html
With this SCOTUS decision, one day in the future we're all going to have to make a decision that those patriots of 200+ years ago made: standup for yourselves and take back what was taken from you or kowtow down to an ever oppressive monarchy. In this case this monarchy IS OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!
Here is the story of Carl Drega, a man who chose to make a stand: http://www.iresist.com/cbg/dregas.html
Read the book...
If anybody hasn't read "The Ballad of Carl Drega" (Vin Suprynowicz sp?), now is a good time. There are tracts in it dealing with people who resisted City Halls taking away property, or in general making property owners lives miserable. I never realized what the folks out West had to deal with until I read this. Dregas story is one of many presented.
If you want to understand what's coming down the pike, and want a great treatise on the primal importance of property rights as part of the bargain, read Michael Maly's "Russia as it is". It's the best post-mortem examination of Communism for understanding it. You will find that our eroding property rights are the only things separating us from your greatest fears. I've read all the thick "Mass psychology of" (Fascism/Communism) tomes, but this little book with the odd cover explained what I saw in post-Soviet Russia 10x better than books with 10x the price or reputation did... Maly is a bit idealistic about the US federal government protecting our rights, but coming from his backgound, that's forgivable. The author is also a very personable, nice guy.
Buy a few copies and pass them out. You won't be disapointed...
If anybody hasn't read "The Ballad of Carl Drega" (Vin Suprynowicz sp?), now is a good time. There are tracts in it dealing with people who resisted City Halls taking away property, or in general making property owners lives miserable. I never realized what the folks out West had to deal with until I read this. Dregas story is one of many presented.
If you want to understand what's coming down the pike, and want a great treatise on the primal importance of property rights as part of the bargain, read Michael Maly's "Russia as it is". It's the best post-mortem examination of Communism for understanding it. You will find that our eroding property rights are the only things separating us from your greatest fears. I've read all the thick "Mass psychology of" (Fascism/Communism) tomes, but this little book with the odd cover explained what I saw in post-Soviet Russia 10x better than books with 10x the price or reputation did... Maly is a bit idealistic about the US federal government protecting our rights, but coming from his backgound, that's forgivable. The author is also a very personable, nice guy.
Buy a few copies and pass them out. You won't be disapointed...
- Status