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

To: NVDave

Pretty consistent with Anglo-American Law, isn’t it? Property is a relative, not an absolute right. It can be taken for cause or for the public good. Nothing like the maxim of Proudhon that “ Property is theft.”


49 posted on 06/25/2012 11:42:49 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: RobbyS

And in the US Constitution, no property may be taken for public use without just compensation. That’s the rub.

Once we start down this road of “some of your property must serve the ‘greater good’, the road to hell becomes paved with very good intentions.

Real property owners in the west see this better than most right now. The Kelo Supreme Court case is another example of outright theft of property for public use. Both examples run contra the US Constitution and originalist intent of the Fifth Amendment.

But for all of that, those thefts of property aren’t cloaked in moral preening, and that’s where I get crossthreaded with the religious left in a fast hurry - telling me that I have a moral or ethical obligation (which they invented from whole cloth) to make some portion (which they determine) of my property accessible for the ‘greater good of man’ or whatever phrasing they wish to use.


52 posted on 06/26/2012 10:05:44 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | 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