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 it’s 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? I’m sure if you looked you could find many other examples. If they don’t 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 don’t own the apartment, you are renting, and so you pay rent. If you owned it, you wouldn’t pay rent. Property “tax” is rent. So sorry, there is no “private” property in the US, it’s 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 ...
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.
Shameless bravado.
>> 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.