Property rights group seeks positives after election defeats

Naples Daily News ^ | November 9, 2002 | ERIC STAATS

[farmfriend]

And you thought Sawgrass was over.

[farmfriend]

ping

[shetlan]

What does "Property Rights" mean to Americans?

[hedgetrimmer]

Bump.

[AuntB]

I wonder if it will EVER be over. I'd like to live long enough to see this nonsense end, but who the heck wants to be 150 years old!

[Madcelt]

And you thought Sawgrass was over.

To those who thought that.....Not Hardly! "We have only just begun to fight".

[farmfriend]

I wonder if it will EVER be over.

It makes the fight hard but the need is great.

[marsh2]

It amazes me that, until women got the vote, they were generally not able to own property. They were considered chatel of their fathers and husbands. That is half the population of the United States and it was not that long ago, and yet, we forget how important the right to own property is.

The ownership of "property" is a fundamental cornerstone of freedom. It is the right to own ones own body and the labor of that body. As an extension, ownership translates into a natural relationship one has with the objects that one mixes with his labor.

There are several property rights - these include the right to own and possess, the right to dispose of, the right to use and enjoy (and to chose how to use and enjoy.) Under the American system, the right to use one's own property is supposedly subject only to the maxim that one may not use one's property in a manner that substantially injures or endangers the health, safety or property of others.

Property is the basis for economic self-determination, economic and social mobility, community economic stability. It is a keystone for personal incentive and economic investment.

To the extent that the collective community encroaches upon individual property rights by regulating use beyond prevention of public injury, it diminishes the economic value of the property. It also impresses the labor of the individual into service of the whole.

This is my basic understanding of a fundamental difference in the beliefs of the Conservative and the Liberal. The Conservative believes in the Conservation of individual property rights and protection of those rights from encroachment by the public. The Liberal believes that property must be redistributed on an equitable basis. The Liberal believes that the public has the dominate right to determine how property should be used, that it must serve the general public's needs first and that individual use is only a subordinate privilege as suffered by the community. The Liberal believes that the community actually collectively owns all resources and that individual ownership is a privilege conditional upon community desires and needs.

[snopercod]

You understand correctly.

Liberals believe that man does NOT have a right to live for his own sake, but must serve the wishes of society.

[AAABEST]

wonder if it will EVER be over.

It makes the fight hard but the need is great.

The need is great and the fight is hard. Which is why we have to kick it up a notch.

PRAC is taking a short rest now that the rebellion and the elections are over. After the holidays we plan on few surprises.

[AAABEST]

Your #8 was so right on and succinct. Keep preaching.

[AuntB]

It's always good to read your musings, marsh2. I'm thinking of moving down your way. We should just take over the county.:<)

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[marsh2]

If you look at how few people really voted in the past elections, you understand that a determinate group of people with a focussed intent CAN make a difference if they get out and vote en block.

I have been a professional property rights advocate for more than a decade. Soon, I will be carrying the massage in a different political capacity. It was a group of active supporters that supported those beliefs through their vote that were able to make that happen.

AuntB - come on down - lol. I have just been told by someone in the know that the enviros have actually assigned the northern California area around Hornbrook to an advocate to set the stage for designation as Wilderness. I have so much territory under seige - need all the help I can get!

[Issaquahking]

Big Ping!

[SierraWasp]

"I have so much territory under seige - need all the help I can get!"

Speaking from experience... Even if you trump them politically in the "court of public opinion," they will sue your political subdivision to a total standstill!!! Most times it's the only court that liberals/enviros/NIMBY's can win in. They've been packing the courts for years and those they haven't packed they avoid by switching jurisdictions at every opportunity.

Yes... you're in for a siege, alright!!!

[farmfriend]

I'm thinking of moving down your way.

Keep on coming. We can use a few good "activists" here in Sac.

[farmfriend]

I have just been told by someone in the know that the enviros have actually assigned the northern California area around Hornbrook to an advocate to set the stage for designation as Wilderness.

Hornbrook Grange might have something to say about that.

[AuntB]

They are just damn intent on tying up EVERYTHING around the Klamath River, aren't they? What next?? Don't answer.....

[Teacher317]

This is my basic understanding of a fundamental difference in the beliefs of the Conservative and the Liberal. The Conservative believes in the Conservation of individual property rights and protection of those rights from encroachment by the public. The Liberal believes that property must be redistributed on an equitable basis. The Liberal believes that the public has the dominate right to determine how property should be used, that it must serve the general public's needs first and that individual use is only a subordinate privilege as suffered by the community. The Liberal believes that the community actually collectively owns all resources and that individual ownership is a privilege conditional upon community desires and needs.

That pretty well sums up my Property Law professor's basic premise, that Property Rights are not Natural rights, and can be limited and/or regulated by the government at will, with only a few Constitutional limitations (the Takings Clause inclusion of "just compensation", basically). I dared to comment that this seems rather antithetical to the notion of limited government and the Framers' ideals of the promotion of individual rights to unprecendented heights. I haven't been called on in class since then.

(Actually, I found this thread since I'm searching FR for some good Property Rights Movement news articles to post on the class discussion forum, since she brought up the topic today.)