Posted on 09/12/2006 1:56:42 AM PDT by goldstategop
The city of Cooper City, Fla., has given itself the power to seize residents' personal property in times of emergency.
Officials deemed this new law necessary because of what is expected to be a busy hurricane season.
But don't worry, they say. The law would never be enforced unless there were no other options – presumably meaning that the city could not persuade private citizens to permit the government to borrow, rent or buy their equipment.
Think of it as eminent domain for generators, power tools, trucks and anything else local czars determine they need.
Not surprisingly, this plan has met with some resistance.
''These people, with their mindset, should be arrested and put in jail for even attempting to do something like this,'' said Tim Wilder, a mobile mechanic who owns emergency tools and equipment.
While Commissioner Elliot Kleiman acknowledged that such a law is subject to abuse, he explained, ''but it's not going to happen here.''
Wouldn't that make you feel better?
You see, tyrants and dictators always believe they will be benevolent – that they would do the right thing in all circumstances. Few people run for office or seek power believing they cannot be trusted. They almost all trust themselves.
However, if we could trust people in power, we wouldn't need the safeguards we have in America to keep them in check, to limit their authority, to restrict their actions, to maintain the rule of law rather than the rule of men.
What's happening in Cooper City is not unusual. Unfortunately it is happening all over the country. It's happening in local governments. It's happening n state governments. And it's happening at the federal level.
That's why this is worth talking about – worth thinking about, worth praying about and worth fighting with all of our American resolve for independence and liberty and individual freedom.
It's easy for government to respect civil rights in the best of times. The challenge is for government to respect them in the worst of times. And few rights are as foundational as property rights.
That's why I agree with Mr. Wilder. That's the theory behind our rights. But what about the pragmatic implications of seizure laws like this? Are they really effective? Or are they, in fact, counterproductive to saving lives and property in times of emergency?
Think about this.
The best emergency scenario is that people themselves are prepared. Even the most well-equipped, efficient, resourceful and powerful government in the world can't take care of everyone's needs in an emergency.
Does a law like the one approved in Cooper City encourage people to prepare for emergencies? Or does it discourage them?
Most of the adamant objections to the law come from people who are prepared – people who make preparedness a way of life, people who even make a living investing in and operating emergency equipment.
Are these not the very people we need during times of emergency? Isn't it better to encourage people to do just what these folks are doing? Isn't it better for all concerned if we don't discourage people from making those investments and maintaining those businesses? Would any city or state want to drive these people out of their jurisdictions by raising fears of confiscation of their property and livelihoods?
Furthermore, why would other private citizens knowingly invest their own dollars and cents in preparing when city officials are giving them the impression that their neighbor's equipment will be seized by government to rescue them?
It's just one more example of a law that makes people more dependent on government – never a good idea in times of emergency.
You want to hear the real kicker? The Cooper City law, as with so many others like it, would allow officials to prohibit possession of firearms in times of emergency and close any public gathering place.
There go the First and Second Amendments as well as the Third, Fourth and Fifth in one fell swoop.
Is there any point in owning anything any more? Or, maybe a better question would be: Does anyone, besides government, really own anything any more?
"Public opinion contradicts you."
Which is the saddest commentary possible.
Why can't a city(or county or State) pass a law making illegal aliens ..ILLEGAL denying residence in any rental or sale of property?.. And making it illegal to "knowingly" sell them anything?..
I fail to see how America's/American's willingness to help others here and abroad during catastrophe as "sad"
In fact, it is you who oppose such activity, that is sad.
Willingness to help others is one thing.......being forced to do so is an entirely different issue.
"I fail to see how America's/American's willingness to help others here and abroad during catastrophe as "sad"
In fact, it is you who oppose such activity, that is sad."
The willingness of individuals to help their neighbors is not the question, the force of government in deciding who gets the help and whose assets get used to provide that help is the issue. Your ability to morph the two, then somehow point to others with the "they are selfish" argument is what is sad. The fact that most of society seems to go along with you is sadder still.
And saddest of all is the fact that the FR community has many people that can't see the difference!
I agree with you.
I'm already forced to do enough for others through confiscatory taxes.
What I choose to or choose not to do for others is nobody's danged business but mine.
Not only did we suffer greatly with each increase in taxes, but our charitable organization suffer as well. Why give to any charity outside of the Government? I would venture to say that charitable giving and participation are inversely proportional to the tax rate.
The government set the bar pretty low when it comes to taking private property with the Kelo decision a couple years back. After that un-Constitutional decision nothing much surprise me anymore !!!
Do you take the conservative position on any issue?
Thanks for the ping!
Did you used to post to FR under the name "Cultural Jihad"? I'm getting some major-league deja vu about now.
I do because I want to, not because I have to..........but once said charitable organization starts pushing for higher taxes or intrusion on rights, they lose my support whether they get their wish or not.
"There is a lovely cadre of FReepers just dying to give up more freedom to the government in the emergency we call WOT.
Phone taps and unwarranted searches are just hunky dory as long as its W. As soon as its a RAT govt. it is a totally different story. I can't stand hypocrites and the blind are even worse."
MEGA BUMP!
I do as well, and I am very careful as to who gets that money. I know of many folks that just assume the government takes care of all the stuff that charities used to do...
Nowadays the majority of my charitable giving is in the form of time which permits the various organizations I belong to, to make money.
"Do you have any guns?"
"No"
"Well, we have to enter to make a search per the city ordinance."
"No you don't."
"Whats to stop us sir!"
"The guns I told you I do not have!"
I just thought I would go and see what a bustling metropolis this place was...
http://www.coopercityfl.org/
I'm still parusing the site...
It was in the Sun-Sentinel (a commie rag) a couple of days ago. World Net Daily doesn't do anything original.
Sorry, I don't have a spare generator. You should have prepared better. Now get off my property or I will be forced to defend it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.