Skip to comments.Private Property and the Ground Zero Mosque
Posted on 09/02/2010 7:24:44 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
I was watching a video on the anti-mosque rally on youtube, and I was surprised to see people in the comment section invoking private property rights to defend the mosque.
First off its a bit odd for these people, broadly speaking, to be defending that. Where were they when American Renaissance meetings were shut down by anti-racist race terrorists? Where were they when Scientology meetups get harassed? Im sure if you looked you could find many other examples. If they dont want to defend private property, fine. But this selective invocation of principles is hypocrisy.
Second off, if you support property tax then you oppose private property. When a landlord makes you pay to live in a section, you pay him rent. This is because you dont own the apartment, you are renting, and so you pay rent. If you owned it, you wouldnt pay rent. Property tax is rent. So sorry, there is no private property in the US, its all rented from the state. And any invocation of private property is meaningless if you support property taxes.
Third off, obscenities are routinely banned. If someone made a building that displayed disemowelment or hardcore sex scenes, or flashing epileptic lights, who would be against shutting down that establishment? In fact this is done all the time. Okay, so things that are obscene to the local majority are routinely shut down, and clearly a mosque is an obscenity. This has nothing to do with 9/11. There is nothing inconsistent in advocating the use of force to destroy the mosque. Private property is complicated. It is a topic, not a single concise position.
(Excerpt) Read more at fringeelements.info ...
If they own the property, they have a right to build it there, period.
The article says that obscenities are banned; however, the middle finger is not banned but regarded as free speech. This is what the upcoming ground zero mosque represents. A giant middle finger to America of how Islam triumphed over us nine years ago.
True, but most people are saying they should not build it, even though they have a legal right to do it.
Yes and I agree. Who wants a mosque overlooking the biggest act of muslim islamofascist terrorism in history???? NOT ME. BUT I want the gov. to respect private property rights REGARDLESS. The Founding Fathers wanted small gov. only functioning to protect individual rights and private property rights. Think about it. If the gov. steps in and says no to the ground zero victory mosque (which I’m against) they’ll be able to say no to a church across the street from a gov.-run school or a crisis pregnancy center next to a planned parenthood abortion mill. THINK ABOUT IT. If the gov. steps in and says no to the GZVM then who knows what else theyll be able to stop.
Not necessarily. We can’t all just do whatever we want on our privately owned property. Consider zoning laws, protected wetlands, public accommodations, etc. Also consider the fact that church bells have been silenced on behalf of those in their communities who consider the sounds to be offensive. And the guy who got arrested for walking around nude in his own home.
Private property is the ESSENCE of capitalism and the free market. So liberals get church bells silenced so what? Are you saying we should sink to the level of libs and commies?
The ppl calling for the gov. to step in need to be careful about what they mean. Should the gov. be allowed to tell Christians where they can build a church or Jews where they can build a temple? Should the gov. be allowed to tell me I can’t build a treehouse in a tree in my backyard even when I own the yard? Do whatever u can to stop this but dont tell the gov. they need to get involved this is not something the gov. should be doing.
Would these intellectual cripples trot out the "private property" argument passionately if Osama bin Laden proposed to purchase a North American heaquarters building in New York and called it a mosque?
No reason to pursue the issue beyond that question, regardless of how it is answered.
Government should have kept out of it. Obama should have kept his big mouth shut. And Bloomberg is an actual ADVOCATE for this mosque - so much so - one might wonder if he wasn’t a part of their PR firm.
They’re already praying in this mosque. Is it up to city code?
I am amazed that there are so many individuals on FR who are unable to grasp the simple idea why a Supreme Court Justice once wrote, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Listen, private property is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and the BACKBONE OF CAPITALISM. Without private property we’d have communism or anarchy. I’M AGAINST THE VICTORY MOSQUE but NO ONE in the gov. should have say in this. It is a property issue.
I’m saying that laws should be enforced fairly and equitably. Is it OK that church bells are silenced but Muslim calls to prayer are not? Does that represent equal justice under the law? No.
Do u think the gov. should be allowed to tell a pro-life group they cant build a crisis pregnancy center two blocks away from a planned parenthood? So why do you think the gov. should be dictating what ppl should do in this case?
No church bells should be silenced by gov. actions but why then should PRIVATE PROPERTY be taken away by the gov?
“Should the gov. be allowed to tell me I cant build a treehouse in a tree in my backyard even when I own the yard?”
Maybe not, but the fact is that the government CAN and DOES do things like this all the time. If you happen to have a wetland area on your private property you may not build on it - you may not develop it - you may not disturb it in any way. So your argument holds no water here (pun acknowledged).
In the same way, do you think Christians and Jews haven’t had buildings regulated in the past? Do you think that doesn’t happen now? When new construction is considered, we have environmental impact statements to consider, and that’s only one thing to think about. A church or a synagogue can’t just be plunked down wherever someone thinks it’s a good idea to put one in.
The fact is that we simply can’t do whatever we want on our private property. Maybe we SHOULD be able to do that but we ARE NOT able to do that.
Keep in mind that there’s a Greek Orthodox church that has been waiting for permission to rebuild at Ground Zero. Are you as agitated about that as you are about the mosque?
From an email making the rounds: If it is true that the idea of a mosque near Ground Zero is to promote tolerance:
It has been suggested that a gay nightclub be open next door to the mosque.
Two names proposed for the club are;”The Turban Cowboy” & “You Mecca Me Hot”.
On the other side should be a butcher shop specializing in pork.
Across the street, a store that sells and displays ladies lingerie and bikinis on live models.
Private property should never be taken away by the government. But in this case, private property isn’t being taken away. In any case, it looks like the “owners” of the property don’t even own it yet.
Without private property there is no capitalism. THINK ABOUT IT. Do u think the gov. should be able to do what socialist countries do when they take all ur property? No. So why do u think the gov. should have say in this issue?
“So u admit u think the gov. should have the right to destroy our right to private property???”
NO! I don’t think the gov SHOULD have the right to take our private property - but the gov does it anyway. The gov also regulates what we can do on our own property. So - if the government can regulate me - or you - why can’t the government regulate the mosque builders? Why is one group of citizens treated differently from others? Private property is an important concept, but so is equal protection under the law!
Actually, I think this should be a community-related issue. But it’s not that, either.
SEE? This is another example why gov. needs to STAY OUT of private property. If I buy a piece of land with my hard-earned money ITS MINE NOT THE GOV'S NOT ANYONE ELSES. That's what the Founders envisioned and that's what America needs to go back to.
I couldn’t agree with you more!!
So if ur against the gov. taking private property why do u think the gov. should be allowed to get involved in the mosque issue? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical? u either believe in private property rights for all or u believe in it for no one and support communism and/or anarchy.
Well, in accordance with any and all existing zoning laws, and any other regulations that the local government may see fit to enact or enforce.
It's a local issue, so it should be up to the locals to deal with the issue.
Just my opinion....
“u either believe in private property rights for all or u believe in it for no one and support communism and/or anarchy.”
That’s just it. If every other American is held to one standard, that standard should apply to the mosque builders too. So what is that standard? Well, in the case of the church bells, it seemed to be that the bells were offensive to some people in the neighborhood, so the bells were not allowed to ring. In the case of the mosque, many people are finding the prospect of the mosque offensive. So why wouldn’t it be fair to keep the mosque from being built?
But you advocate the gov. getting involved in private property matters then?
>> If they own the property, they have a right to build it there, period.
>> THINK ABOUT IT. If the gov. steps in and says no to the GZVM then who knows what else theyll be able to stop.
Try building a pool in your backyard without a fence. Maybe you could slaughter goats in your living room. How about renting out a few rooms for prostitutes. Maybe you could park a half a dozens wrecks on your front lawn, or dump your household garbage along the property line.
Ah, forget all that. How about being a real capitalist and hire 2 dozens telemarketers to sell tobacco, alcohol, and ammo out of your garage.
Are you gonna’ stand up for these property rights, or simply stand in opposition to the sensibilities of the Country because it gives you the chance to “speak truth to power”?
“But you advocate the gov. getting involved in private property matters then?”
At the local level I think that would be fine. Obviously the feds have WAY too much power and, no, they shouldn’t be involved in dictating how private property is used. I do have a conflict there though, and that’s because I like the idea of natural preservation - I like the concept of preservation and national parks, but maybe that could be handled differently.
Anyway, remember the Kilo (sp) decision on eminent domain a few years ago? That was a terrible thing and of course I won’t support that type of personal property theft. However, the mosque is different. I don’t think anyone is suggesting the feds should deny the mosque builders the right to build their mosque, but, at the same time, they shouldn’t be anabling them.
There is a role for the feds to play, and that’s in defense. If this mosque is supported by terrorists that makes it a security risk, and that’s a completely different story. I’m not saying that’s the case, because of course no one knows, but here is where the government should NOT remain neutral.
Am I speaking to a conservative or Karl Marx? Don't give me the socialist "property is theft" garbage. Yes there are ppl who abuse their property but they have the RIGHT to OWN that property. Just b/c I own a house doesnt mean I'm going to start killing goats in that house and if I do kill goats in that house the state isnt going to take my house away.
Listen, I oppose the GZVM as much as you but private property rights triumph appeals to emotion. IT DOESNT MATTER WHO IS BUILDING THIS the fact remains that whoever owns this property owns it LEGALLY. I'll say it again without private property rights THERE CAN BE NO CAPITALISM. You wouldnt support the gov. telling a church they can't own a piece of land or a building if the church bought it legally SO WHY OPPOSE THE GZVM ON THE SAME ASSUMPTION????? in all of ur examples u use strawmen. I oppose the GZVM on PRINCIPLE but I don't want the gov. getting invovled.
If the gov. gets involved in this then they'll abuse their power like they always do and will take away more and more people's private property rights. THIS IS ABOUT THE VERY SURVIVAL OF CAPITALISM. Re-read Fringe Elements' blog posts on this very topic. I don't like all of his ideas but he has this right. Whether u oppose the GZVM or not u MUST OPPOSE GOV INVOLVEMENT.
>> Am I speaking to a conservative or Karl Marx? Don’t give me the socialist “property is theft” garbage.
A creative, but erroneous rendition of my post.
As a lifelong Capitalist, I really don’t a hysterical lecture about the virtues of Capitalism.
Your position on this issue is suspicious.
don’t need a
All im saying is this isn't the gov's place to get invovled. We need our private property rights more then anything or else we have no capitalism. Yes its wrong for the jihadis to be building near ground zero but its also wrong for the gov to be getting invovled by telling them they have no right to own that property or build there. This is economics 101.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.