So, someone decides the Awkward Stage is over...

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I were put in this type of situation and if the buy out offer was fair I would probably take it.
As the future home of a multi-million (billion?) dollar development, a "fair" offer for the folks in New London would probably have to be at least 10 times, maybe 20 times, their appraised valuation.

But that doesn't seem to be what they're being offered. :fire: :cuss: :barf:
 
The government would annihilate him and 99.999% of people out there would cheer the government for it, including the vast majority of this forum.
who would be worried that the use of force against government, especially with a firearm, makes them look bad. :rolleyes:
 
Violent or armed response to loss of property is a losing proposition. Moral and ethical questions aside, there is no follow up other than jail; the whole thing just doesn't go anywhere. I am assuming that the general public is pretty much of the same mind as I, would be on the home owner's side but would not support violence.

I do foresee people getting frustrated and desperate. Maybe frivilous lawsuits to make such moves too expensive. In the Half Moon Bay area a very hotly contested hotel construction was set afire while being built. A contractor is trying to push for eminent domain takeover of Judge Souter's property. The general puplic does support the people behind abuse of power (Judge Souter is not supporting abuse, strictly speaking) feeling the pain.
 
Violent or armed response to loss of property is a losing proposition. Moral and ethical questions aside, there is no follow up other than jail; the whole thing just doesn't go anywhere.

If one person does it, he's a nutter with a gun.

If ten, it's a riot.

If a hundred, a revolt.

If a thousand, a revolution.
 
Remeber, Cuchulainn has already explained to us that resistance is futile.
Actually, I never said anything of the kind. I simply understand the difference between resistance and boyish fantasies.

If you go to New London, (Which you won't ...according to Cuchulainn) and you begin armed rebellion (Which you won't ...according to Cuchulainn) then you will be destroyed by the Feds and nobody, repeat NOBODY will come to your aid (according to Cuchulainn).
Yes, I do believe that the children who fantasize here on THR and elsewhere about shooting it out with government won't actually do it.

However, to the point of this thread, if someone were to decide to "shoot the bastards," he would, indeed, be alone. If anyone were to come to his aid, they wouldn't be enough to matter.

The cops/soldiers would kill them.

The politicians would do a little jig in private about having propaganda handed to them, and they'd come out into public to condemn the "violent anti-government extremists." They'd seize the chance to propose more restrictions.

The press would nod solemnly as it promoted the propaganda.

The people would believe the propaganda in the 10 minutes that they were distracted from the new season of American Idol.

Armed rebellion in the USA in 2005 is a pipe dream. Don't fool yourselves.
 
Yes, I do believe that the children who fantasize here on THR and elsewhere about shooting it out with government won't actually do it.
You could be right. Then again somebody was probably saying the same thing on April 18, 1775. It only took 70 minutemen to engage the British-who had the most formidable military in the world- and get the ball rolling, remember.

Who knows?
 
Lol if you got 70 people together to kick the British out today, 30 of them would be undercover agents from alphabet agencies, and another 20 would be snitches.

It's got to be the 'coolest' job a cop can have, second to being officer awesome of the tactical team. "Look at me, I'm Johnny Depp, Jump, Jump Street, oh yea, Jump. Johnnnnnnny Depp!!111one"
 
I think BruceH has the most plausible solution.
It's not the police who will be ordered to storm the homeowner, but the MONEY-people behind the whole scheme, who need to have the fear of god put into them. If THEY were abducted in the night and found with their heads on pikes, with adequate indication of just what they had done to deserve it, and why it was wrong, then the bloody buggers' eyes would water.

If wrongdoers realllllly had a potent sense of just what will come to them because of their rapacious greed, we'd probably see this kind of thing stop dead in its tracks.


-Jeffrey
 
Then again somebody was probably saying the same thing on April 18, 1775.
Spare me. This isn't 1776. It isn't even 1860. Americans in 2005 aren't going to rise up to any extent that would matter.

Modern American are rarely capable of large-scale peaceful political protest -- and the ones that are most capable are a bunch of peacnik leftists -- and you all have fantasies about them taking up arms over classic civil rights?

Please.

Most people would barely notice our would-be rebel's suicide-by-cop/soldier -- and for the few minutes they noticed, they'd think of him as "going postal," not as a valiant rebel standing up for his rights.

"Oh, gee, another dude went postal. Wanna watch a Simpsons re-run? Could you get me a Diet Coke while you're up?"
 
A homeowner there comes to the true end of the legalist system and is presented with the day of decision. Move out, take what they offer and walk away, or stand the ground and "shoot the bastards". How do you think this would play out?

Would the authorities make a public confrontation of it?

Would other people physically rally to this property owners defense?

Considering how public this is and how much of the population vehemently opposes the Kelo Decision, how would the MSM Spin it?

How would the average citizen, already unsettled by the SCOTUS decision, view such a person? And how much control over this would the media have?

It's an unfinished story, but I started a story on Frugals about just such a scenerio......

I think I have 8 chapters so far....here is a link to the first chapter.

http://www.frugalsquirrels.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=33;t=003048

I.G.B.
 
As for Joe Blow down the road here, he is toast. When he puts up armed resistance, everybody will know that he was a wacko gun nut that provoked a fight with the law and lost. A wacko, I tell you. You'll hear about the time he spit on an umpire at a Little League game. You'll hear about how he was despondant over his recent separation from his wife. You'll hear about how the local law had visited him numerous times for all the various reasons they deal with wackos. They offered him a fair deal to get out of the way and he chose the wacko way of the gun. Yep, couldn't be avoided.

Yep. The gov will slyly state off the record that he is a deadbeat father who doesn't pay child support, he may have had a drug problem, and he likes child porn..... and the press will repeat ad nauseum
 
Some side effects of ED expansion:

- towns which outlaw the use of ED will see property values rise, and enjoy higher tax receipts that way. Lack of ED potential on a local level would become a factor when house-shopping. Free market solution is likely the best.

- armed resistance to wrecking crews and supporting enforcers won't work, threat of assassination of the councilmen and developers might (in the long run) but, again, people competent enough to take effective action would also be competent enough to cut their own losses and leave.

- some modern digital cameras can send images to a remote computer. Confiscating such a camera would not remove the images from being broadcasted. But generating public support would require that the viewers would feel "here, but by the grace of providence, goes my home" and that would be tough to do.
 
Proposal regarding "just compensation"

A problem identified above by HankB (are we related?) is that the value of the property collected as a whole is much greater than the sum of the parts. Perhaps a judge some where, some day will say that "just compensation is a share of the profits made from the "public benefit" property in the future, in perpetuity. (I know that the Const. says "public use," but that was the old dead Conct. The new, living, breathing document has now spoken.)

In the beginning, many sell out at the first offer A few hold out for a bigger payment. When the last hold out get awarded a share of all future profits, we will see a shift in how these deals work. All of the property owners will band together up front and demand that they each get a share of this future "public benefit." These project will become less attractive to developers.
 
oh Mr. Govenor

I was just thinking, what about the National Guard?
I remember stories of a National Guard unit that was ordered to PREVENT black students from entering a school..
Why not send the National Guard in to protect a home?



Oh because no one wants to do the right thing.... :(
 
"- towns which outlaw the use of ED will see property values rise, and enjoy higher tax receipts that way. Lack of ED potential on a local level would become a factor when house-shopping. Free market solution is likely the best."

...There can be no free market when you have no guarantee of your ownership of property. Anyway - once those values go up, because there's no ED, what do you think the council is going to do? They're going to cash in on their rich new neighbourhood and let that golf-course developer clear out all the 'slummers' - ie the original residents before it became a fancy neighborhood.

Again, there is absolutely no way for a free market to function without the government protecting private property. FFS govt has only 3 roles, and protecting property rights is one o them. FK!


"When the last hold out get awarded a share of all future profits, we will see a shift in how these deals work."

I sympathize, looking for a bright side, but there is none. These companies have entire floors of office buildings filled with people who do nothing but figure out ways to cheat on income tax. How the hell can you avoid that? There is no way you can afford the expertise to make sure they don't screw you when they write up the contract you sign. And even if the contract is bullet-proof, they can simply NOT PAY YOU. Yea, they can do that, they can just tell you to go F off, and not give you any money. If you want your money, that you are guaranteed in a contract, then get a lawyer and meet them in court in 5 years, as they use a variety of stalling tactics and expensive techniques designed to BREAK you, or bankrupt you, whatever.
 
Joejojoba111 said:
Again, there is absolutely no way for a free market to function without the government protecting private property.

I think what you meant to say was, there is absolutely no way for a free market to function with a government.
 
The futility of armed insurrection and the futility of resistance are entirely different topics.


So does that mean you won't enlighten us?

Can you define for us what resistance is and is not, and how, if not by arms, we should resist a tyrranical federal, state or local gov't? They don't seem to understand anything but power...

Or is it just that you believe that we in the fantasy realm won't understand the big words?
 
Now, now thereisnospoon. You're supposed to limit your resistance to harshly worded correspondence. Please show some decorum. You don't actually believe all that second amendment nonsense, do you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top