Post #162,913
7/5/04 4:14:35 PM
|
The state giveth, the state taketh away
I find that different people have different attitudes about the connections between property and government.
Mine is that property is a socially accepted construct created by society. As far as I'm concerned, the notion of property is something that needs to justify itself. Of course it handily does - capitalism is a very effective motivator. But since the idea is created and enforced by society (generally by rules codified the government), society also has the right to put limitations on the proper usage of the property, and set up rules under which your property legitimately passes to someone else.
That is my justification for all kinds of intrusions on the notion of private property, ranging from taxation laws to enforcement of basic sanitatary practices. I personally see no difference between a law saying that people preparing food have to wash their hands (a law that has saved many millions of lives) and a law saying that if you do not pay the government a certain amount of money each year, they can take your house.
If you want a better target for wrongful intrusions of government onto private property, look at what is done with [link|http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0509/p01s03-ussc.html|eminent domain] all of the time. The 5'th amendment to the Constitution is supposed to protect people from the abuse of that power, but it doesn't tend to in practice. (I don't consider it "protection" when the government offers you "compensation" that is well below what was the fair market price for your property.) Furthermore, and even more troubling, the power tends to be (ab)used most commonly by local governments to the benefit of private interests.
Cheers, Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,915
7/5/04 4:44:26 PM
|
60 Minutes story on eminent domain
This past Sunday. Was rather infuriating to watch. This nice old couple along with numerous other houses which faced some river were having eminent domain used on them to force them to sell their houses so high priced condos could be put up instead. (Supposedly at market prices.) Their homes were deemed "blighted" so this law could be used. "Blight" was finally determined to be not having more than one bathroom, not having more than a one car garage, not having the garage attached to the house etc. The mayor of the town was trying to defend this. When Mike Wallace brought up the fact that her house was deemed "blighted" under those criteria you could see her start to squirm. Heh. In the end the old couple won and the mayor was voted out at the next election (YEAH!)
There was also the case of a brake mechanic owner who was being turfed off his land so that the Ace's Hardware could move to that spot. He was fighting that too and was quite indignant like the old couple.
That's just pathetic that these companies would do that and get the government to go along with it, using a law not the way it's intended (ie: to reclaim slums.) If they want the land bad enough they're just going to have to pony up the $$$ until the owner feels it's worth it to them. If they don't want to sell for any price then it's tough shit.
lister
|
Post #162,931
7/5/04 6:35:02 PM
|
Pah, Mike Wallace.
He likes to expose himself to hotel workers. Nasty old perv.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #162,935
7/5/04 6:50:20 PM
7/5/04 7:35:25 PM
|
Wasn't that something that came up at the party?
Dang, whose story was that?
Cheers, Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Edited by ben_tilly
July 5, 2004, 07:34:35 PM EDT
Edited by ben_tilly
July 5, 2004, 07:35:25 PM EDT
|
Post #162,944
7/5/04 7:09:02 PM
7/5/04 7:39:18 PM
|
(Nothing to see. (Thanks)).
|
Post #162,947
7/5/04 7:39:54 PM
|
I don't know how that happened
I don't have those boxes normally unchecked. And I don't remember unchecking them.
I've seen a bug like that on a Perl website which was using the POST method. It can happen sporadically when the software does not check whether the amount of data received matches what CONTENT_LENGTH said should be sent. (Perl's CGI.pm only remembered to do that on multi-part posts. I sent in a bug report. I'm not sure that it was acted on though.)
Cheers, Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,967
7/5/04 9:01:01 PM
|
Mine.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #162,938
7/5/04 6:56:08 PM
|
Explain
|
Post #162,969
7/5/04 9:06:31 PM
|
Re: Explain
My wife used to work at the Bell Tower Hotel in Ann Arbor. Wallace is a big alumni fund raiser type bigwig.
She worked the continental breakfast room, and got a call to take a tray up to his room. She goes up, knocks, gets a "come in", and enters to find him standing in a t-shirt in the middle of the room.
JUST a t-shirt. And not a long one.
He slowly gets into bed and invites her to set the tray next to him on the covers. She put it on the hall table and scooted.
Apparently he has a history of doing this sort of thing. Call for his dry cleaning, the bellhop finds him standing buck-naked in the middle of the room, etc.
Everyone there knew that he did that sort of thing. She was told not to bother pressing harassment charges, given that his connections and alumni activity would prevent her getting any sort of sympathetic ear whatsoever.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #162,996
7/5/04 10:23:33 PM
|
You have no problem with government ownership of everything?
Property tax is rent. You don't pay you get evicted. Or worse.
Who controls disposition of the land? The owners. The government.
Who controls the use of land (via zoning)? The owners. The government.
At best, we can hold a lifetime lease.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning, As hopeless as it seems in the middle, Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #163,014
7/6/04 1:10:00 AM
|
You got it
I have problems if that ownership is abused.
I also believe that, for most things, the most efficient systematic use of resources is to make them private property. This true often enough that I think that government has to justify any significant deviations from this baseline.
Of course I recognize that I exist in a society that tends to answer this question differently than I do. That is a common problem for me, see my thoughts on being a [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=104633|moral relativist] in our society. But it is inconvenient. :-(
Cheers, Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #163,024
7/6/04 6:52:59 AM
|
Excuse me?
The confiscation of all property from the American people was the first abuse. Tell me, when the government took the role of landlord, did it buy the land from the former owners? I also believe that, for most things, the most efficient systematic use of resources is to make them private property. This true often enough that I think that government has to justify any significant deviations from this baseline. This statement makes no sense. There IS no private property when you have to pay a fee to retain so-called 'ownership'. As I said before, the most we can have in this country anymore is a lease. Your baseline does not exist. It is a fantasy.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning, As hopeless as it seems in the middle, Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #163,050
7/6/04 10:29:30 AM
|
You'd be an example of someone who feels differently
Property in the sense that you take for granted and are outraged that the government infringed on is a creation of the same government that you dislike for so infringing.
Don't believe me? Just consider how much Western notions of property differ from the notions of the people here when we showed up. That anything like our notions now prevail is due to our government enforcing our notions on them.
Cheers, Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #163,065
7/6/04 12:35:56 PM
|
And now
verbs meaning 'to own' actually mean 'to license' I suppose.
Oh well. I guess 'property is theft', right?
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning, As hopeless as it seems in the middle, Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #163,067
7/6/04 12:43:56 PM
|
Prepare your residence for quartering
|