Activism Discussion: Imminent Domination

Imminent Domination
Posts: 8

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Dan Clore
2005-10-12 23:19:24 EST
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2340/
Imminent Domination
Progressives cannot allow libertarians to lead the fight
against the misuse of eminent domain
By David Moberg
October 12, 2005

In June the Supreme Court started the clock ticking on a
potential political time bomb. In Kelo v. New London, the
Court ruled five to four that local governments could use
their power of eminent domain to take private property,
including homes, to promote economic development. The
decision broke no new legal ground, but it did stir up
opposition across the political spectrum, yielding a
potential windfall for the right-wing libertarian movement
for "property rights."

Under the Constitution, government can take property for
"public use"--for projects like roads, schools and
hospitals--if it pays "just compensation." For more than a
century, courts have interpreted "public use" to include
public purpose or benefit, like clearing a slum or helping a
utility or railroad obtain right-of-way.

Over the past half-century or more, local governments have
used eminent domain to promote local economic development,
creating more jobs and generating needed revenue. While
everyone agrees that government can't arbitrarily transfer
one owner's property to another owner, the controversy
arises over what kind of public benefits, if any, can
justify such a transfer. From both left and right, critics
have accused government of abusing its power of eminent
domain by taking homes and small businesses from the less
affluent or less powerful and transferring them to big
corporations--much as Detroit did in 1980 when it razed the
working-class Poletown neighborhood and displaced more than
3,400 people to clear land for a new General Motors factory.
On the other hand, it's rare when eminent domain is even
proposed to take over, say, a factory being shut down by a
corporation and turn it over to community-worker ownership.

In Kelo, the court ruled that the economically depressed
city of New London, Conn., had the power to take and pay for
the property of a group of homeowners for a planned
development that included a waterfront conference hotel, a
marina, housing, and commercial and office space. But the
majority also emphasized that the government's power was
legitimate because there was a deep public need and a well
worked-out plan.

The right backlash

The lawyers for the homeowners came from the Institute for
Justice, a libertarian legal group that is part of the
property rights movement. Property rights advocates argue
that much government regulation, from environmental laws to
New Deal legislation, constitutes illegal "takings" of
private property without compensation. "The [Kelo] opinion
is written so that government can take property for anything
it feels like," argued Institute for Justice attorney Dana
Berliner. "With that decision we knew immediately there
would be some sort of backlash."

There was, and it went far beyond the libertarian right.
Some polls showed close to 90 percent of respondents hostile
to using eminent domain for economic development, with a
strong majority even critical of using eminent domain to
build roads. Legislators in more than two dozen states are
now planning legislation that would curb the power of state
or local governments to take private property for any
private economic development project (often with the sole
exception in cases of "blight"). Members of Congress have
introduced at least nine measures, including one denying
federal funds to any local government that uses eminent
domain for economic development.

The issue is pushed mainly by conservative Republicans and
libertarian right groups like The Castle Coalition (an
offshoot of the Institute for Justice). Grover Norquist, the
influential right-wing strategist who heads Americans for
Tax Reform, told The Economist that "twenty years from now,
people will look back at Kelo the way people look back at
Roe v. Wade," spawning a property rights movement as potent
as the anti-abortion movement.

The left backlash

Critics of eminent domain abuse also exist on the left.
Progressive politicians like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
have proposed restrictions on the use of eminent domain, and
the Kelo homeowners case drew support from the NAACP, AARP
and the respected urbanologist Jane Jacobs. Dating back to
the Poletown case, the subject of a Michigan Supreme Court
decision that the current state Supreme Court reversed last
year, consumer advocate Ralph Nader has also criticized
local governments for abusing their power to transfer
property of homeowners and small businesses to big corporations.

It's easy to find egregious cases, like the effort by
Atlantic City to take one woman's house to provide limousine
parking for Donald Trump (a move blocked by the courts), or,
only slight less outrageous, the current attempt of Long
Branch, New Jersey, to use eminent domain to clear existing
waterfront homes in order to build higher-priced homes. In
decades past, cities typically used their eminent domain
powers for dubious urban renewal projects--often labeled
"Negro removal"--such as the destruction of Boston's West
End working class Italian community for luxury housing or
Robert Moses' massive transformation of many neighborhoods
in New York City, especially in the Bronx.

Often the use of eminent domain is combined with tax breaks
and other public subsidies for factories, warehouses,
Wal-Mart and other big box retailers, and stadiums for
private sports teams--like the subsidies and eminent domain
powers used to build a stadium for George W. Bush's Texas
Rangers. As Greg LeRoy makes clear in his new book, The
Great American Jobs Scam, the public benefits of these
private developments are frequently exaggerated, and
corporations often take the tax breaks and fail to live up
to expectations--or even leave.

Defenders of the use of eminent domain for economic
development point to successful big projects, like
Baltimore's Inner Harbor, or unusual smaller-scale projects,
like Boston's Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, a
neighborhood nonprofit group that used the city's powers of
eminent domain to redevelop a blighted, poor neighborhood.
And even though eminent domain should be the last resort, it
is often necessary to avoid a single hold-out from blocking
a worthy public purpose.

But the property rights movement sees all uses of eminent
domain for economic development as abuse. It has an
absolutist view of property and a desire for minimalist
government, but government creates property rights, which
are always conditional and limited. The movement also makes
no distinction between rights of homeowners and those of big
corporations.

Distinctions with differences

It's possible to reform the use of eminent domain without
adopting the property rights movement strategy. First,
there's a need to recognize that local governments are
driven towards the abuse of eminent domain because of
current urban policy. Sprawl often drains resources from
central cities, and the lack of both metropolitan revenue
sharing and federal urban financial aid (typical in most of
Europe) leads local governments to seek revenues by raising
the value of their real estate--thus displacing modest homes
and businesses. Also, cities often mistakenly pursue
large-scale land clearance projects, pushed by developers
and corporations, rather than encourage economic growth with
infrastructure development that respects the existing built
environment, trains its workforce and builds on existing assets.

The process of using eminent domain for economic development
is in need of reform, such as more extensive and democratic
planning (especially from the affected neighborhood), more
rigorous demonstration of the public benefits that should be
the plan's primary objective (not simply increased tax
revenue or the private benefit of a new owner), and both
public regulation of the project and binding contracts for
private performance.

Finally, as Nader has argued, there's a need to recognize
that not all property, nor all uses of eminent domain, are
equal. Special safeguards are needed against abuses in
transfers from the economically and politically weak to the
wealthy and powerful, and it must be recognized that
people's homes are a different type of property from a
Wal-Mart store. Homes are often not just expressions of
property interests but of personal liberty and autonomy, as
well as freedom of association, that deserve more protection
(and above-market compensation).

The libertarian right, which is at odds on this issue with
the big-business conservatives who benefit from eminent
domain and tax breaks, clearly hopes that it can ride this
issue into battle against all regulatory restrictions on
property rights. The left must do more than simply join the
opposition to the misuse of government power on behalf of
corporate interests against homeowners and small businesses.
It needs to pursue comprehensive reforms that preserve
essential powers of local governments but make them better
serve the needs of their citizens.

David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on
the staff of the magazine since it began publishing. Before
joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in
anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for
Newsweek. Recently he has received fellowships from the John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation
Institute for research on the new global economy.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We├┐rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in
itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never
entered into any war, or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce
an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries.
-- The Treaty of Tripoli, entered into by the USA under
George Washington















Werner Hetzner
2005-10-13 09:39:06 EST


Dan Clore wrote:

> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2340/
> Imminent Domination
> Progressives cannot allow libertarians to lead the fight against the
> misuse of eminent domain
> By David Moberg
> October 12, 2005
>
> In June the Supreme Court started the clock ticking on a potential
> political time bomb. In Kelo v. New London,


> ...
> But the property rights movement sees all uses of eminent domain for
> economic development as abuse. It has an absolutist view of property
> and a desire for minimalist government, but government creates
> property rights, which are always conditional and limited. The
> movement also makes no distinction between rights of homeowners and
> those of big corporations.


Government should not create rights. All that means is that the rights
of some are stolen to benefit others.

Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea - anyone
who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. ----

Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement instead of
forced obedience?
Isn't it high time to join The Resistance?
http://www.ny.lp.org/choice
----
"
In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge
implicitly and explicitly two key truths:

The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges them.
They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we
are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the
only legitimate function of government is to secure them.

The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers,
not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully
enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and it
specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated. Our
rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are sacrosanct. Any
government which infringes upon them is engaged in an intolerable
usurpation.
"
www.badnarik.org
-----

A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was
not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your pursuit
of happiness was to be unhindered by government.

The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere with
your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the government
cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right" to health care
mean? It means that the government cannot stand in the way of your
pursuit of health care, or impede your obtaining health care. The
"right" to an attorney means that the government cannot prevent you
obtaining an attorney to represent you.

Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must supply
you with something. If your "right" to housing means that some slave
must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health care means that
some slave must supply you with health care, and your "right" to an
attorney means that some slave must supply you with an attorney, does
your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must supply you with a
loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to own guns mean that
some slave must supply you with guns?


Gary Popkin,

NYC
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Rights.shtml

---



>
>
> ...
> The libertarian right, which is at odds on this issue with the
> big-business conservatives who benefit from eminent domain and tax
> breaks, clearly hopes that it can ride this issue into battle against
> all regulatory restrictions on property rights.



Either property is yours or it is not. When other folks can tell you
what to do with your property it can hardly be considered yours. If I
get the government to take your house or your savings or your income
then it is no longer yours.



> The left must do more than simply join the opposition to the misuse of
> government power on behalf of corporate interests against homeowners
> and small businesses. It needs to pursue comprehensive reforms that
> preserve essential powers of local governments but make them better
> serve the needs of their citizens.


Wouldn't it be better to join with the use of government power? As soon
as government uses power to redistribute from some to others it misuses
power. Those who must bay become socond class citizens. Some pigs are
more equal than others by virtue of government power instead of
corporate power. Government should not be anyone's power. Power corrupts.
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Myth.shtml


Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement instead of
forced obedience?
Isn't it high time to join The Resistance?
http://www.ny.lp.org/choice

The Left is basically no differdent from the Right. It uses government
to force their values on others.


It was another close election. We find ourselves warring against each
other - - red states and blue; 'them against us'; Left vs. Right;
Republicans vs. Democrats. These forces are just about equal. Each seeks
to take, keep and expand the power to impose values on the other.
Campaign finance laws not withstanding, this election cost much more
than the last. Both sides spent as if in combat and more than many
countries spend on a real war. All else -- other ideas for example -- is
a distraction we can no longer afford in this new war between Americans.
Win at all cost! Tons of money, advertising campaigns, phone banks,
promises, defections, Get out the vote battalions, voter registration
shenanigans, vote fraud, hoards of pollsters, and armies of lawyers have
become our new reality. Except for that other war, the media covered
little else and ignored other candidates.

Why is an election so important? Is it because so much power has never
been so concentrated in so few? If power corrupts, what has happened to
our perspective? Cant there be more colors than just red or blue? We
keep getting evidence that politics as usual is dysfunctional. So why do
we allow ourselves to see no other choices? Is choice even possible
without diversity? What do you have when you have no choice? Cars arent
either red or blue so why must we all be limited by Republican or
Democrat rules?

Prohibitions, limitations and mandates now rule us all. Red voters hope
to impose their values on the blue and visa versa. The red forces will
limit, mandate or prohibit some things while blue cohorts would do the
same to others. No matter the outcome, one half of the electorate will
have gained more power to impose its values at the expense of the other
half. Isnt that expense becoming unbearable and unsustainable for all?

Should we be ruled by anyone? Should values be forced on us and choices
restricted by any party? Cant we try to liberate instead of regulate
each other? Wasnt America supposed to be about voluntary agreement
instead of forced obedience?

Libertarian Party of New York
http://www.NY.LP.org/choice
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html




Mr. Politically Uncorrect
2005-10-13 12:56:01 EST
There are all kinds of alternatives to the authoritarian use of eminent
domain. It is the nuclear option in the struggle for land, and indicates
a very high handed, almost aristocratic attitude of big business towards
a sacred idea of home.

In areas of blight the alternative is simple - use the property taxes -
stop welfare payment and take the land for back taxes. (I know taxes are
an anti-libertarian concept - but we are still living in the real
world here). The justification on the grounds that a corporation is
going to use it for public use is unsound, and 90% of Americans agree.
The purpose of the constitution, based on "We, the people" is to avoid
many of the errors of the British crown, so that an oligarchy of nobles
could not exploit the people as use the land as they saw fit. But in
America, we are seeing the growth of a new oligarchy, based on old money
and old greed.

This links to another issue of the Supreme court abusing its powers as
an interpreter of the Constitution. The contortions that they are doing
to make their private convictions fit into the language of the
constitution border on the absurd. It is now a tool of the rich.

Dan Clore wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2340/
> Imminent Domination
> Progressives cannot allow libertarians to lead the fight against the
> misuse of eminent domain
> By David Moberg
> October 12, 2005
>
> In June the Supreme Court started the clock ticking on a potential
> political time bomb. In Kelo v. New London, the Court ruled five to four
> that local governments could use their power of eminent domain to take
> private property, including homes, to promote economic development. The
> decision broke no new legal ground, but it did stir up opposition across
> the political spectrum, yielding a potential windfall for the right-wing
> libertarian movement for "property rights."
>
> Under the Constitution, government can take property for "public
> use"--for projects like roads, schools and hospitals--if it pays "just
> compensation." For more than a century, courts have interpreted "public
> use" to include public purpose or benefit, like clearing a slum or
> helping a utility or railroad obtain right-of-way.
>
> Over the past half-century or more, local governments have used eminent
> domain to promote local economic development, creating more jobs and
> generating needed revenue. While everyone agrees that government can't
> arbitrarily transfer one owner's property to another owner, the
> controversy arises over what kind of public benefits, if any, can
> justify such a transfer. From both left and right, critics have accused
> government of abusing its power of eminent domain by taking homes and
> small businesses from the less affluent or less powerful and
> transferring them to big corporations--much as Detroit did in 1980 when
> it razed the working-class Poletown neighborhood and displaced more than
> 3,400 people to clear land for a new General Motors factory. On the
> other hand, it's rare when eminent domain is even proposed to take over,
> say, a factory being shut down by a corporation and turn it over to
> community-worker ownership.
>
> In Kelo, the court ruled that the economically depressed city of New
> London, Conn., had the power to take and pay for the property of a group
> of homeowners for a planned development that included a waterfront
> conference hotel, a marina, housing, and commercial and office space.
> But the majority also emphasized that the government's power was
> legitimate because there was a deep public need and a well worked-out plan.
>
> The right backlash
>
> The lawyers for the homeowners came from the Institute for Justice, a
> libertarian legal group that is part of the property rights movement.
> Property rights advocates argue that much government regulation, from
> environmental laws to New Deal legislation, constitutes illegal
> "takings" of private property without compensation. "The [Kelo] opinion
> is written so that government can take property for anything it feels
> like," argued Institute for Justice attorney Dana Berliner. "With that
> decision we knew immediately there would be some sort of backlash."
>
> There was, and it went far beyond the libertarian right. Some polls
> showed close to 90 percent of respondents hostile to using eminent
> domain for economic development, with a strong majority even critical of
> using eminent domain to build roads. Legislators in more than two dozen
> states are now planning legislation that would curb the power of state
> or local governments to take private property for any private economic
> development project (often with the sole exception in cases of
> "blight"). Members of Congress have introduced at least nine measures,
> including one denying federal funds to any local government that uses
> eminent domain for economic development.
>
> The issue is pushed mainly by conservative Republicans and libertarian
> right groups like The Castle Coalition (an offshoot of the Institute for
> Justice). Grover Norquist, the influential right-wing strategist who
> heads Americans for Tax Reform, told The Economist that "twenty years
> from now, people will look back at Kelo the way people look back at Roe
> v. Wade," spawning a property rights movement as potent as the
> anti-abortion movement.
>
> The left backlash
>
> Critics of eminent domain abuse also exist on the left. Progressive
> politicians like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) have proposed
> restrictions on the use of eminent domain, and the Kelo homeowners case
> drew support from the NAACP, AARP and the respected urbanologist Jane
> Jacobs. Dating back to the Poletown case, the subject of a Michigan
> Supreme Court decision that the current state Supreme Court reversed
> last year, consumer advocate Ralph Nader has also criticized local
> governments for abusing their power to transfer property of homeowners
> and small businesses to big corporations.
>
> It's easy to find egregious cases, like the effort by Atlantic City to
> take one woman's house to provide limousine parking for Donald Trump (a
> move blocked by the courts), or, only slight less outrageous, the
> current attempt of Long Branch, New Jersey, to use eminent domain to
> clear existing waterfront homes in order to build higher-priced homes.
> In decades past, cities typically used their eminent domain powers for
> dubious urban renewal projects--often labeled "Negro removal"--such as
> the destruction of Boston's West End working class Italian community for
> luxury housing or Robert Moses' massive transformation of many
> neighborhoods in New York City, especially in the Bronx.
>
> Often the use of eminent domain is combined with tax breaks and other
> public subsidies for factories, warehouses, Wal-Mart and other big box
> retailers, and stadiums for private sports teams--like the subsidies and
> eminent domain powers used to build a stadium for George W. Bush's Texas
> Rangers. As Greg LeRoy makes clear in his new book, The Great American
> Jobs Scam, the public benefits of these private developments are
> frequently exaggerated, and corporations often take the tax breaks and
> fail to live up to expectations--or even leave.
>
> Defenders of the use of eminent domain for economic development point to
> successful big projects, like Baltimore's Inner Harbor, or unusual
> smaller-scale projects, like Boston's Dudley Street Neighborhood
> Initiative, a neighborhood nonprofit group that used the city's powers
> of eminent domain to redevelop a blighted, poor neighborhood. And even
> though eminent domain should be the last resort, it is often necessary
> to avoid a single hold-out from blocking a worthy public purpose.
>
> But the property rights movement sees all uses of eminent domain for
> economic development as abuse. It has an absolutist view of property and
> a desire for minimalist government, but government creates property
> rights, which are always conditional and limited. The movement also
> makes no distinction between rights of homeowners and those of big
> corporations.
>
> Distinctions with differences
>
> It's possible to reform the use of eminent domain without adopting the
> property rights movement strategy. First, there's a need to recognize
> that local governments are driven towards the abuse of eminent domain
> because of current urban policy. Sprawl often drains resources from
> central cities, and the lack of both metropolitan revenue sharing and
> federal urban financial aid (typical in most of Europe) leads local
> governments to seek revenues by raising the value of their real
> estate--thus displacing modest homes and businesses. Also, cities often
> mistakenly pursue large-scale land clearance projects, pushed by
> developers and corporations, rather than encourage economic growth with
> infrastructure development that respects the existing built environment,
> trains its workforce and builds on existing assets.
>
> The process of using eminent domain for economic development is in need
> of reform, such as more extensive and democratic planning (especially
> from the affected neighborhood), more rigorous demonstration of the
> public benefits that should be the plan's primary objective (not simply
> increased tax revenue or the private benefit of a new owner), and both
> public regulation of the project and binding contracts for private
> performance.
>
> Finally, as Nader has argued, there's a need to recognize that not all
> property, nor all uses of eminent domain, are equal. Special safeguards
> are needed against abuses in transfers from the economically and
> politically weak to the wealthy and powerful, and it must be recognized
> that people's homes are a different type of property from a Wal-Mart
> store. Homes are often not just expressions of property interests but of
> personal liberty and autonomy, as well as freedom of association, that
> deserve more protection (and above-market compensation).
>
> The libertarian right, which is at odds on this issue with the
> big-business conservatives who benefit from eminent domain and tax
> breaks, clearly hopes that it can ride this issue into battle against
> all regulatory restrictions on property rights. The left must do more
> than simply join the opposition to the misuse of government power on
> behalf of corporate interests against homeowners and small businesses.
> It needs to pursue comprehensive reforms that preserve essential powers
> of local governments but make them better serve the needs of their
> citizens.
>
> David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on the staff
> of the magazine since it began publishing. Before joining In These
> Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the
> University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. Recently he has received
> fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and
> the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy.
>

Werner Hetzner
2005-10-13 23:26:27 EST


Mr. Politically Uncorrect wrote:

> There are all kinds of alternatives to the authoritarian use of
> eminent domain. It is the nuclear option in the struggle for land, and
> indicates a very high handed, almost aristocratic attitude of big
> business towards a sacred idea of home.
>
> In areas of blight the alternative is simple - use the property taxes
> - stop welfare payment and take the land for back taxes. (I know taxes
> are an anti-libertarian concept - but we are still living in the real
> world here). The justification on the grounds that a corporation is
> going to use it for public use is unsound, and 90% of Americans agree.
> The purpose of the constitution, based on "We, the people" is to avoid
> many of the errors of the British crown, so that an oligarchy of
> nobles could not exploit the people as use the land as they saw fit.
> But in America, we are seeing the growth of a new oligarchy, based on
> old money and old greed.
>
> This links to another issue of the Supreme court abusing its powers as
> an interpreter of the Constitution. The contortions that they are
> doing to make their private convictions fit into the language of the
> constitution border on the absurd. It is now a tool of the rich.




We should never forget that government as a tool of power is against the
spirit of the Constitution and the idea America is founded on. It does
not matter if a majority of poor people takes your property or a
minority of rich people takes it. Stealing is still stealing no matter
who does it or how many are involved.

http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html


John D
2005-10-14 10:32:21 EST
Living just slightly outside the US gives one perspective on this issue.
Those with the heft are always able to shift those of slighter means. I'm
pretty sure once it becomes necessary to secure Canada's or Mexico's oil
resources, that it will become acceptable to buy territory without
permission of the seller.

-JD

"Werner Hetzner" <whetzner@mac.com> wrote in message
news:434F2566.9000608@mac.com...
>
>
> Mr. Politically Uncorrect wrote:
>
>> There are all kinds of alternatives to the authoritarian use of eminent
>> domain. It is the nuclear option in the struggle for land, and indicates
>> a very high handed, almost aristocratic attitude of big business towards
>> a sacred idea of home.
>>
>> In areas of blight the alternative is simple - use the property taxes -
>> stop welfare payment and take the land for back taxes. (I know taxes are
>> an anti-libertarian concept - but we are still living in the real world
>> here). The justification on the grounds that a corporation is going to
>> use it for public use is unsound, and 90% of Americans agree. The purpose
>> of the constitution, based on "We, the people" is to avoid many of the
>> errors of the British crown, so that an oligarchy of nobles could not
>> exploit the people as use the land as they saw fit. But in America, we
>> are seeing the growth of a new oligarchy, based on old money and old
>> greed.
>>
>> This links to another issue of the Supreme court abusing its powers as an
>> interpreter of the Constitution. The contortions that they are doing to
>> make their private convictions fit into the language of the constitution
>> border on the absurd. It is now a tool of the rich.
>
>
>
>
> We should never forget that government as a tool of power is against the
> spirit of the Constitution and the idea America is founded on. It does not
> matter if a majority of poor people takes your property or a minority of
> rich people takes it. Stealing is still stealing no matter who does it or
> how many are involved.
>
> http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Werner Hetzner
2005-10-14 16:01:05 EST


John D wrote:

>Living just slightly outside the US gives one perspective on this issue.
>Those with the heft are always able to shift those of slighter means. I'm
>pretty sure once it becomes necessary to secure Canada's or Mexico's oil
>resources, that it will become acceptable to buy territory without
>permission of the seller.
>
>-JD
>

There you have it. Actually, you don't have to go international. I
understand there is significant resentment in Newfoundland over what is
seen there as the Central Government's taking control of or stealing
Newfoundland oil.

Speaking about resentment, my sense from the little time I have spend in
Canada has left me thinking ideas of sessation are far more pronounced
in Canada than the blue-red political dicotomy here in the states.

Can you confirm that for me?


Hermes
2005-10-14 16:29:23 EST
Werner Hetzner <whetzner@mac.com> wrote in message:
news:<43500E82.9090006@mac.com>
>
>
>John D wrote:
>
>>Living just slightly outside the US gives one perspective on this issue.
>>Those with the heft are always able to shift those of slighter means. I'm
>>pretty sure once it becomes necessary to secure Canada's or Mexico's oil
>>resources, that it will become acceptable to buy territory without
>>permission of the seller.
>>
>>-JD
>>
>
>There you have it. Actually, you don't have to go international. I
>understand there is significant resentment in Newfoundland over what is
>seen there as the Central Government's taking control of or stealing
>Newfoundland oil.

Not anymore. Canada's offshore resources don't belong to the provinces (I
understand that none of the resources in the USA belong to the states).
There was a deal made to settle the issue. Originally Newfoundland was
receiving equalization payments and wanted the oil royalties on top of it.
No way).
>
>Speaking about resentment, my sense from the little time I have spend in
>Canada has left me thinking ideas of sessation are far more pronounced
>in Canada than the blue-red political dicotomy here in the states.
>
>Can you confirm that for me?
>
>
Only amongst a minority of loud mouths in Alberta's case (and a very partisan
poll by a separatist rag called the western standard), the election polls
don't bear it out because any political party that's stood for separation has
failed to get even 1% of the vote in Alberta. Quebec is another story, but
they're a completely different culture with a different language that dates
back before the first settlers were in the USA or Canada. It's unlikely that
they'll be going anywhere soon. Once again they fail to garner a majority
in any referenda that they've held.

Hermes
2005-10-14 16:35:46 EST
Hermes <hermes@gmail.net> wrote in message:
news:<1129321765.4137f6dd5fbe45111603d13a1bc9ffb6@teranews>
>Werner Hetzner <whetzner@mac.com> wrote in message:
>news:<43500E82.9090006@mac.com>
>>
>>
>>John D wrote:
>>
>>>Living just slightly outside the US gives one perspective on this issue.
>>>Those with the heft are always able to shift those of slighter means. I'm
>>>pretty sure once it becomes necessary to secure Canada's or Mexico's oil
>>>resources, that it will become acceptable to buy territory without
>>>permission of the seller.
>>>
>>>-JD
>>>
>>
>>There you have it. Actually, you don't have to go international. I
>>understand there is significant resentment in Newfoundland over what is
>>seen there as the Central Government's taking control of or stealing
>>Newfoundland oil.
>
>Not anymore. Canada's offshore resources don't belong to the provinces (I
>understand that none of the resources in the USA belong to the states).
>There was a deal made to settle the issue. Originally Newfoundland was
>receiving equalization payments and wanted the oil royalties on top of it.
>No way).
>>
>>Speaking about resentment, my sense from the little time I have spend in
>>Canada has left me thinking ideas of sessation are far more pronounced
>>in Canada than the blue-red political dicotomy here in the states.
>>
>>Can you confirm that for me?
>>
>>
>Only amongst a minority of loud mouths in Alberta's case (and a very partisan
>poll by a separatist rag called the western standard), the election polls
>don't bear it out because any political party that's stood for separation has
>failed to get even 1% of the vote in Alberta. Quebec is another story, but
>they're a completely different culture with a different language that dates
>back before the first settlers were in the USA or Canada.

(Meaning non-Francophone settlers of course)
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron