View Single Post
Old 06-08-2009, 07:33 AM   #25 (permalink)
shakran
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
There is no need for the government to hold title to the land.
So you're suggesting we let someone else own it, but not be allowed to do anything with it. Who's going to sign on for that deal?

Quote:
Even if the land was privately owned, the government could mandate how the land is used.
Only to a point. Private property is after all private property. If you had the option to buy 3 acres with the knowledge that you weren't allowed to do anything at all to it, why would you buy it? Plus, you're assuming the property owners will follow the governmental mandate. Get back to me when all factories voluntarily comply with EPA regulations, hmm?

Quote:
They could even mandate that the public have access to it by mandating public roads through the property or just taking some of the land to build roads.
So it's OK to sell the land to someone, not allowing them to do anything to it, and then steal some of it back in order to make a road? And you don't find that move against private property rights "very disturbing?"


Quote:
I find the move against private property rights very disturbing, don't you?
I don't want to own Yosemite. I certainly don't want a timber company to own it. I bet they'd just love to chop the sequoias down. I'm just fine with the government owning property. The National Park Service has held land in trust for the people so that the people could enjoy that land. Private corporations will not do that. Private individuals do not generally have the resource ability to do that. Your argument's logical extension is that I should be able to buy the White House, because otherwise it's a move against private property rights.

Quote:
And, are you o.k. with what Obama is doing, by accelerating the trend against private property rights? Isn't it shameful for him to use his bully pulpit to disparage those (i.e., bond holders) fighting for their rights, when their rights under the law conflict with what he wants?

Well, the only people who believe he's doing that are the ones parroting Limbaugh, the lunatic drug addict who wants Obama to fail. Find a new source.
shakran is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360