|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:04 am Post subject: |
    |
|
Back to that disrespectful part of the thread post where Hillary is seizing your freedoms....and as we all know, freedom means little without mentioning property rights. What good is your freedom to use your talents and your willingness to work hard to acquire wealth, if your rights to that wealth can be denied at the whim of a few politicians?
After the fall of Soviet Union much was made of their attempt to create economic liberty for the victims of communism. All attempts to create a free, market-based economy in Russia met with only limited success, however, until laws were instituted to insure the property rights of ordinary citizens.
Our law recognizes that that there are times when government must use its police power to seize the property of private citizens. Although the right to eminent domain is not specifically recognized in the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment contains the words "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is a recognition of the government's right to take private property, and a stipulation that it must be taken for "public use." OK .. sorry for the legal lesson, now let me tell you what is going on in small town USA. What you read today should horrify you, as this sort of government assault on property rights is going on virtually everywhere in this country.
If one private individual wants to own a certain piece of property, but the legal owner of that piece of property doesn't want to sell it, the private property rights of the owner of the real estate should be recognized, and the person trying to buy the property should back off. Well, that's not the way it's been working in the USA, you see, as some have friends in powerful places ... maybe politicians on the city council.
But wait! Aren't governments supposed to use eminent domain to seize private property only when that property is needed for a public use? How can these politicians take that property away from its owners and then sell it to a private company to build say a privately owned shopping center..... like a SuperWalmart?
Here's what the politicians are saying. They claim that they simply cannot collect enough property taxes in their town of to pay for all of the government they believe the citizens of such a town may need. They need some sales taxes. Trouble is, there aren't enough businesses around town to generate the amount of sales taxes these politicians want. The answer? Hey! Let's get a shopping center in town. A shopping center will generate thousands of dollars in sales taxes, and we'll have all that money to spend! What a concept!
So, any town USA's "public use" excuse is that the current owners of the land simply don't pay enough taxes. The land needs to be seized and turned over to someone who will generate some more tax payments. Those additional taxes can then be spent on the public. There's your "public use."
You might not realize it from your side of the pond, but this very same excuse can be used by any government entity anywhere in the United States that wants to increase its tax revenues? Let's say that you're sitting fat and happy in a home that has been in your family for generations. You're sitting on about five acres in a prime location near a major city. A local developer wants your property to build a subdivision of cluster-mansions. You don't want to sell. The developer goes to the county commission and tells them that if he had that property he could build at least 15 homes there worth about $600,000 each. The developer correctly points out to the politician that the county could collect thousands of dollars in additional property taxes if he could just get his hands on that land and build those homes. A few weeks passes and one day you get a letter from the county attorney telling you that your property is going to be seized by the county. Their only excuse is that they can get more tax dollars if your five acres had 15 homes than they can with your 60 year-old farmhouse. The "public use?" More tax revenues.
If governments can abuse the concept of eminent domain in this manner then your private property rights are virtually non-existent. You own your home only so long as the local politicians tolerate that ownership. Let some developer come along with a better idea, and you can kiss your dirt goodbye.
What are the politicians of small town USA saying about the rights of the property owners? They think that these property owners are just being greedy. "Sometimes the good of the many has to outweigh the greed of the few." Sound familiar? Remember, it was Hillary Clinton who recently said "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." Private property rights? The rights of the individual? Hey, these are all to be set aside for the good of the collective. I wonder if Hillary Clinton has ever met with any of these small town politial wonders? I wonder if Hillary would tell us that the individual has the obligation to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man. If so, she wouldn't be the first person to express that belief. Adolf Hitler said the same thinking back in 1933.
Yes, I'm invoking some pretty ugly names here in the defense of the property rights of small town landowners. That's because I'm passionate about the right to property and to the idea that one of the prime directives to government is to protect those property rights, not to destroy them for the economic gain of another. Property rights are the absolute foundation of economic liberty, and property rights are under assault by the politicians of small town USA....and who knows, it could even be Hitlary Clinton in 2008  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jade7
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
