Heads we win, tails you lose

[ChiRho]

Heads we win, tails you lose

Yet another government theft is justified:


In a twist on this summer's Supreme Court decision allowing a Connecticut city to seize private land and turn it over to developers, a New Jersey appeals panel has OK'd the taking of property from developers to assure the area remains as open space.

The decision by the three-judge state court, handed down Tuesday, allows the township of Mount Laurel, N.J., to take a 16-acre tract from developer Michael Procacci and his company, Mipro Homes, which planned to build 23 homes on the land.


So, if you remember the reasoning behind the Kelo case, government needs to be able to steal land from private land owners in order to collect more taxes. But the appeals panel is ensuring that a government can steal land because it wants to collect fewer taxes.

The central point has nothing to do with the various reasonings, of course. Those are just rationalizations meant to obscure the fact that the courts - government agencies - are trying to make sure that a government can do whatever it wants whenever it wants, for whatever reason.

This is not your grandfather's America.

-Vox Day (Vox Popoli, Aug. 5)

[SPALATIN]

Government is a reverse Robin Hood. They steal from the poor to give to themselves.

[ChiRho]

Government is a reverse Robin Hood. They steal from the poor to give to themselves.


But Scott, it's for the common good! They always know what is best for us, anyway.

:sigh:

[SPALATIN]

But Scott, it's for the common good! They always know what is best for us, anyway.

:sigh:

:scratch: nuff said

[ctobola]

Good point, Chi.

My major political epiphany came when I realized the folly of allowing government or business to decide what is best for us. That's what the whole American political system is about anyway, right?

-Cloy


They always know what is best for us, anyway.

[Flipper]

Eminent Domain...Manifest Destiny... It's all the same...

[ChiRho]

Eminent Domain...Manifest Destiny... It's all the same...

Eminent Domain...Manifest Destiny...War of Northern Aggression... Yep, it's all the same.

[ctobola]

Eminent Domain...Manifest Destiny...War of Northern Aggression... Yep, it's all the same.

Chi,

The "War of Northern Aggression" ...? Do you mean the "Rescue Mission to Save Abducted Africans from Forced Labor and Imprisonment by Southerners"?

:scratch:


-Cloy

[CSMR]

Good point, Chi.

My major political epiphany came when I realized the folly of allowing government or business to decide what is best for us. That's what the whole American political system is about anyway, right?

-Cloy
Business to a great extent free of decisions about what is best. It generally works for profit and can acheive this without having to claim that it's decisions are good, or good "for" anyone. However politicians have to claim that their policies are good to be voted in. Theoretically they can just say, I am going to implement these policies, withouit claiming they are good, and let people vote for what they want according to their interests; in practice they lose votes if they don't make such a claim. Perhaps the reason is that people want to be persuaded that their voting is right [edit for clairity], and so in order to be elected in a democracy politicians must appeal to the populace's desire for self justification.

[ctobola]

CSMR,

That may be the case in the UK -- where socialized medicine, government-owned media and other "leftist" structures are part of the status quo -- but here in the US, it's a different story... particularly with our current administration.

The ideal situation provides a healthy balance between government and business -- when things are no longer in balance (government siding with business or over-regulating business), everybody suffers.

Here are a couple examples...

I grew up hearing about the insane federal regulations that were imposed on my father's veterinary hospital. I also grew up knowing that I could have been one of those kids with the hooks where hands should have been -- my mom almost took thalidomide when she was pregnant with me. Somebody tried to make a lot of money with thalidomide -- that was business decision with bad results... no two ways about it.

A friend of my wife lost her husband after a train derailment a few years ago. In the community where this occurred, a single company owned the radio stations... and there was not a single person on duty at any of those stations -- it's more profitable to pipe in canned music from the coast than to have real DJs -- so when the cloud of ammonia engulfed the area, there was nobody on the air to tell people to stay in their homes... my wife's friend and her husband tried to get away from the cloud. He died, she was severely injured.
In the US, we formerly had rules that limited the number of stations a single company or individual could own. A number of the bozos in Washington DC who assume that handing power to business is always good are trying to erode the idea that broadcast stations should be required to demonstrate community service, responsiblity and accountability -- because being a responsible part of the community isn't always in line with making a buck.
Even though the American public overwhelming supports limits on broadcast station ownership, Tom Delay (one of the most notorious sleezeballs in Washington) has stopped legislation that would restore those limits. (What do we call attempts to stop the democratic process in order to control the government -- oh yeah, treason and racketeering.)

Tom Delay is also strongly pro-life -- when it's convenient. Many businesses put their sweatshops in Saipan becuase it's a U.S. territory: it allows them to stamp "made in the USA" on their products. Recent trips to Saipan by a number of investigative reporters and several U.S. Marshalls, along with representatives of the U.S. Department of Labor found a remarkably appalling situation -- the "housing" provided for the sweatshop workers (many come from rural areas) -- was surrounded by razor wire and heavily armed guards... once in, you were not allowed to leave. If you happen to be a female and you get pregnant, you have one choice -- abortion. (Having kids might get in the way of your productivity.)
And who has blocked legislation that would have outlawed this criminal activity? Yup, Mr. Delay -- slave labor and forced abortion are awful... unless they benefit the people who contribute to your re-election campaign.

Businesses will always do what needs to be done to make a buck -- some are more ethical than others. The US government has a responsiblity to regulate those things are needed and to stay out of those areas where regulation is unnecessary. Sadly, our political system seems to be divided between the ultra-conservatives who would allow business to kill without compunction and the ultra-liberals who would socialize all aspects of human life. Somewhere in between is a reasonable balance.

Excelsior! -Cloy




Business to a great extent free of decisions about what is best. It generally works for profit and can acheive this without having to claim that it's decisions are good, or good "for" anyone. However politicians have to claim that their policies are good to be voted in. Theoretically they can just say, I am going to implement these policies, withouit claiming they are good, and let people vote for what they want according to their interests; in practice they lose votes if they don't make such a claim. Perhaps the reason is that people want to be persuaded that what they are voting for is right, and so in order to be elected in a democracy politicians must appeal to the populace's desire for self justification.

[ChiRho]

Chi,

The "War of Northern Aggression" ...? Do you mean the "Rescue Mission to Save Abducted Africans from Forced Labor and Imprisonment by Southerners"?

:scratch:


-Cloy

Oh, the moral Northerners! I wonder which side was primarily responsible for transporting the cargo from the ports of Africa to the southern cotton fields? It couldn't be those righteous Yankees, could it? Tough selling "moral intentions" here. Apart from the moral issue of slavery, which I would wholeheartedly agree as evil, it does not change the fact that the southern states should have been able to peacefully leave the United States, just as easily as they joined. It wasn't Lincoln's moral issue to deal with.

[ctobola]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

...snip...
It wasn't Lincoln's moral issue to deal with.

[ChiRho]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

I am afraid that I do not share in your assumption that ol' Abe was that good nor honest. History does not tell us this (but certainly every Social Studies/History teacher since the first grade has...Ah, nothing like gubmint indoctrination), instead, we see slavery as federally legal until post-Civil War (1865). We read plenty of quotes by Lincoln that are not of the highest moral character (including his confession that he can (doesn't desire to??) do nothing about the slave practice (pre-CW), but he would never, ever allow secession). So, I do not buy into your belief that Lincoln's War was solely, or even mostly, based upon high moral integrity. I believe the principle behind the Burke quote has been twisted too many times in history to merely appeal to it and be justified for one's actions (think, Osama). Again allow me to repeat, slavery is not right, but neither is trading one form of slavery for another. Evil, for evil, is still evil.

[ChiRho]

CSMR,

That may be the case in the UK -- where socialized medicine, government-owned media and other "leftist" structures are part of the status quo -- but here in the US, it's a different story... particularly with our current administration.

The ideal situation provides a healthy balance between government and business -- when things are no longer in balance (government siding with business or over-regulating business), everybody suffers.

Here are a couple examples...

I grew up hearing about the insane federal regulations that were imposed on my father's veterinary hospital. I also grew up knowing that I could have been one of those kids with the hooks where hands should have been -- my mom almost took thalidomide when she was pregnant with me. Somebody tried to make a lot of money with thalidomide -- that was business decision with bad results... no two ways about it.

Cloy, I have a hard time seeing your point. Government, by definition, should be force. If the manufacturer of thalidomide knew of the risk and sold the product anyway, and this was proven (as was the risk), then he should go to jail. If he was intentionally careless and reckless, and this could be proven, then he should go to jail. This is when Force steps in. But, especially in the medical field, there is high risk. Each individual should realize that the final judge of what passes into one's body is oneself. And this decision should be scrutinized, especially if one is eating for two. With hind's sight, I bet those mothers would confess that the morning sickness, while unpleasant, was not that untolerable.


A friend of my wife lost her husband after a train derailment a few years ago. In the community where this occurred, a single company owned the radio stations... and there was not a single person on duty at any of those stations -- it's more profitable to pipe in canned music from the coast than to have real DJs -- so when the cloud of ammonia engulfed the area, there was nobody on the air to tell people to stay in their homes... my wife's friend and her husband tried to get away from the cloud. He died, she was severely injured.

Sorry, Cloy, as horrible as it is to lose a loved one, tradgedy happens and will continue to happen regardless of "proper government regulation." It has ever since the Fall. As Lutherans, we should be well accustomed to the effects of sin, temporally and eternally. The radio station is not to blame.

In the US, we formerly had rules that limited the number of stations a single company or individual could own. A number of the bozos in Washington DC who assume that handing power to business is always good are trying to erode the idea that broadcast stations should be required to demonstrate community service, responsiblity and accountability -- because being a responsible part of the community isn't always in line with making a buck.

I side with the "bozos". No one can force a moral deed. It fails to be moral when it is coerced.

Even though the American public overwhelming supports limits on broadcast station ownership, Tom Delay (one of the most notorious sleezeballs in Washington) has stopped legislation that would restore those limits. (What do we call attempts to stop the democratic process in order to control the government -- oh yeah, treason and racketeering.)

We are not a democracy. We are a republic. If the majority of people decided that Jews should be slaughtered, should we legislate it? To object or intervene in this legislation would be treason or raketeering?

Tom Delay is also strongly pro-life -- when it's convenient. Many businesses put their sweatshops in Saipan becuase it's a U.S. territory: it allows them to stamp "made in the USA" on their products. Recent trips to Saipan by a number of investigative reporters and several U.S. Marshalls, along with representatives of the U.S. Department of Labor found a remarkably appalling situation -- the "housing" provided for the sweatshop workers (many come from rural areas) -- was surrounded by razor wire and heavily armed guards... once in, you were not allowed to leave. If you happen to be a female and you get pregnant, you have one choice -- abortion. (Having kids might get in the way of your productivity.)
And who has blocked legislation that would have outlawed this criminal activity? Yup, Mr. Delay -- slave labor and forced abortion are awful... unless they benefit the people who contribute to your re-election campaign.

I am not a Delay advocate. I absolutely hate these non-state, yet occupied and protected territories. There should be no between status. Either a state or independent; a people should not be allowed citizenship, yet be exempt from all responsibilities. But the federal government currently legalizes and promotes the murder of people anyway, so why should this story particularly offend?

Businesses will always do what needs to be done to make a buck -- some are more ethical than others. The US government has a responsiblity to regulate those things are needed and to stay out of those areas where regulation is unnecessary. Sadly, our political system seems to be divided between the ultra-conservatives who would allow business to kill without compunction and the ultra-liberals who would socialize all aspects of human life. Somewhere in between is a reasonable balance.

Exactly right, but I think you mean something entirely different (judging by your arguments). Negative rights should be protected *. Postive rights should not be legislated. Oh, and that reasonable balance is right in the middle, it is called Libertarianism.

*"A negative right is a right, either moral or decreed by law, to not be subject to an action of another human being (usually abuse or coercion). Negative rights are sometimes contrasted with positive rights, which are rights to be provided with something by the positive action of another. The former proscribe action, while the latter prescribe action.

One example of a negative right is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which makes it unlawful for the government to restrict a person's speech. A law requiring another person to provide him with a microphone would codify a positive right." (Wikipedia)