Replies

You have NO " right " to buy something, just because you want it, when a national emergency ( W-A-R ) requires such a commodity. When, during WW II, servicemen took priority on trains, would you have said that YOU had the " right " to be on a train, instaead of some soldier ? How about the fact that silk and nylon were used for military purposes, but your mother/wife/daugfhter/girlfriend just HAD to have a pair of silk stockings, to make her feel good ? Yep, sure, you have a RIGHT to have that silk shirt / stockings/underwear ( ? ) far MORE than a pilot has the RIGHT to have a parachute ? Ye gods !

" PROPERTY " ? It is ONLY you " property ", AFTER you've bought it; NOT when you have an intention of buying something ! Talk about stretching / twisting words around; let alone facts / common sense. Sheeeeeeeeeeesh !

Okay, one for FDR and some for Lincoln. Your imagination and fears are robbing you , unneccessarily, of sanity. ; ^ )

You have NO " right " to buy something, just because you want it, when a national emergency ( W-A-R ) requires such a commodity....Yep, sure, you have a RIGHT to have that silk shirt / stockings/underwear ( ? ) far MORE than a pilot has the RIGHT to have a parachute ? Ye gods !

True, I have no right to buy something unless the seller chooses to engage in the transaction with me. What you're discussing is a situation where the government, who isn't a party to the transaction, stepping in and preventing the manufacturer/seller from using those resources, and taking those resources for itself in the name of "national security."

The government seems to be a parasite and an interloper in that instance. Is it the buyer's or seller's fault that the government has gotten itself into a war, and now needs to extract resources (or even citizens in the event of a military draft) from the private sector to go battle another government somewhere? Of course, this is a whole different topic for the purposes of this thread.