Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cinives
My point is that neither the city apartment/rowhouse nor the suburban home meets the basic definition of "private property" from my standpoint.

The underlying economic principle of "private property" is that it gives the owner/occupant a true stake in developing something, creating something, building something, selling something, etc. . . . and that this has always provided the best climate for long-term growth and stability.

Someone who lives on a working farm, lives upstairs from a retail store, or runs a business out of his/her basement is truly a "private property owner" in every sense of the word.

Someone who lives in a suburban home and works in a city 10 miles away may have his/her name on a property title, but the reality is that in the larger economic context, this suburb is not all that much different than an apartment complex or a company-owned town.

93 posted on 02/26/2007 11:14:56 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child

That's a real stretch.

I think if the gubmint ever came to a commuting suburbanite's door and tried to take his property, he'd fight just as hard as one of those people who make their living from their home.

Oh wait - we saw that with Kelo and other instances - people all over the country are fighting the eminent domain issue. Seems a lot of people are attached to the property they own, whether it's just their home or it's their business.

Your thought doesn't hold water.


103 posted on 02/26/2007 11:40:16 AM PST by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson