You Now Belong to the State. Thank the Supreme Court
We intend to keep working the issue of the 6-23-2005 decision of the Supreme Court to abrogate our right to property and its wider meaning of wiping out all of our fundamental rights. We are working toward defining rights and deriving them from the facts of reality. For now, let us examine what is meant by "ownership" and "property."
The Encarta dictionary gives most of the proper defining elements of both terms, but we must clarify a few aspects.
"Public" and "community" property are fuzzy terms. Just ask yourself who it is that constitutes the owner known as "public" and "community"? If it is "everybody," then is it "anybody"? Legal scholars may argue this as meaningful, but you just try to sell "public" or "community" property and see what entanglements you start running into.
That brings us to what is really meant by "ownership" of "property." "Property" refers to tangible things, from intellectual creations such as songs, to so many palettes of "widgets," or even a candy bar you just bought. If you "own" it, you possess all rights to it. No one may use it in any way whatsoever, unless you authorize it, and you might collect a fee for anyone using your property (e.g., renting a room in your home).
Your ownership of something means that you possess total control over its physical possession, and what happens to that entity called "your property." Not only may you use it any way you want, but you may dispose of it at any time and in any manner you choose. You, as owner, have the sole right to sell, rent, give away, or utterly destroy whatever it is that you own.
Ownership without control is not ownership. What social-political system thrives on the notion of your "owning" something but with the state controlling how you use it, including its disposition? FASCISM. Fascism is a variant of socialism which practices the deception of having all property in private hands but under total state control. To repeat, ownership without control is not ownership.
The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on 23 June 2005 deemed that you may possess your "property," which you "own," with title free and clear, UNLESS civil authorities deem that your "property" may be taken from you by the initiation of force to fulfill objectives stated by the civil authority. This means: You own it, but you do not own it (at the same time and in the same respect). It may be taken from you forcibly at any time. Ergo, BOTTOM LINE = you do not own it.
On what basis may the civil authority take your property from you? It may do so when it deems that there is a "greater economic good" to be obtained from transferring title from you for your property to someone else. The standard for "who benefits" is the community, and the decision involves others but NOT you! That benefit may include all sorts of "benevolent" goals such as greater tax revenue, site beautification (according to the standards of the civil authority). and nuisance riddance. What constitutes a "nuisance"? Anything or anybody that stands in the way of the wishes of the group, such as the civil authority.
Well, don't you receive "just compensation"? Who determines what is "just compensation"?
Suppose, for just one, made up example, that you have lived on landed property handed down for generations, as deeded from the King of England centuries ago. Your property supported generations of your blood line as they forged colonies, then an independent country, and now a great republic, the child of the Enlightenment. Let us say that you house is no longer so grand, and you get by selling a few crafts and seasonal fruit from very old trees. You now, however, stand in the way of a great, new, upscale development of homes and businesses. The developers and customers will pay many-fold greater taxes to the civil authorities than you do on your now, somewhat meager "estate." You dearly love this venerable old place and its few acres, and you are proud of it. You refuse to sell. The civil authorities take you to court, and the court finds for the civil authority because you are standing in the way of the "community good." Law officers force you off your property at gunpoint. The civil authority cuts you a check, one that meets what it considers "just compensation." Like the owner of the New London, Ct., home, you find that the check is pitifully small in monetary amount, but you realize that even if the check was for trillions, nothing could compensate for the loss of that which you have loved, that which will now be asphalted over.
That is the first "practical" result of this SCOTUS decision of 6-23-2005. Many persons will feel the pain from this fascist takeover of their property. Ownership, without control, is not ownership.
As you sit in your new tract home, in some development, somewhere, pining the loss of your beloved heritage, you begin to realize the morality involved in this action. You begin to realize that the "community" became the value overriding your value as former owner. Your "good" counted for nothing. The benefit to the community counted for everything.
This is the morality of altruism, an allegedly positive attribute of people. You begin to see it for what it really means. You were "sacrificed" for the community. Their alleged "good" counted; yours did not. You were too small to be anything but a cog in the service of the community.
You spent all of your savings, and borrowed against all that the "civil authorities" were offering you as "just compensation" for your property. However, the judge said that the needs of the many overrode the needs of any individual. He glibly quoted the 23 June 2005 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States as his precedent. He cited "community rights."
Rights? What rights? The community has rights--the city, the county, the state, and even the federal government--all of these groups have "rights," because the Supreme Court declared such? Since when, you ask? By what Constitutional right, you ask?
You cannot awaken from this Orwellian nightmare, because it is not a nightmare. It is your new life. You scream in protest. You yell that you are you, a sovereign individual, that you have rights, and these rights supercede the state. The judge looks at you, snickers, and wisecracks that such ideas as yours are arcane. Only the state has rights, the judge says, so shut up and take your medicine. This will teach you to get in the way of the greater good. In fact, if you continue to protest the sovereignty of the state in all matters, you will be held in contempt of court and sentenced to prison.
Everybody chatters about "rights," including you, but everyone talks about something without ever defining it, when they chatter about "rights."
You now realize: Whatever country you just woke up to, this is not the same country you were born into. An old quotation from Rousseau comes to mind, but now in the real context, "Everywhere man is in chains." You realize that you now belong to the government. These are your new chains. This cannot be "right," you realize.
RIGHTS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS--what are they? Where do they come from? How come it is right for someone to take my property but not right for me to keep what I owned with title free and clear because government says the community has "rights"?
You begin to realize, if they can do this to my means of supporting my life, what can they do next? Did we not fight a Revolution about such issues?
"Ownership" (from the Encarta dictionary):
3. law: right to own something: the right to own, possess, or use something
6. something at somebody’s disposal: something at the disposal of a person, a group, or the public community property
"Property" (from the Encarta dictionary):
1. right of possession: the legal right of possessing something
The Encarta dictionary gives most of the proper defining elements of both terms, but we must clarify a few aspects.
"Public" and "community" property are fuzzy terms. Just ask yourself who it is that constitutes the owner known as "public" and "community"? If it is "everybody," then is it "anybody"? Legal scholars may argue this as meaningful, but you just try to sell "public" or "community" property and see what entanglements you start running into.
That brings us to what is really meant by "ownership" of "property." "Property" refers to tangible things, from intellectual creations such as songs, to so many palettes of "widgets," or even a candy bar you just bought. If you "own" it, you possess all rights to it. No one may use it in any way whatsoever, unless you authorize it, and you might collect a fee for anyone using your property (e.g., renting a room in your home).
Your ownership of something means that you possess total control over its physical possession, and what happens to that entity called "your property." Not only may you use it any way you want, but you may dispose of it at any time and in any manner you choose. You, as owner, have the sole right to sell, rent, give away, or utterly destroy whatever it is that you own.
Ownership without control is not ownership. What social-political system thrives on the notion of your "owning" something but with the state controlling how you use it, including its disposition? FASCISM. Fascism is a variant of socialism which practices the deception of having all property in private hands but under total state control. To repeat, ownership without control is not ownership.
The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on 23 June 2005 deemed that you may possess your "property," which you "own," with title free and clear, UNLESS civil authorities deem that your "property" may be taken from you by the initiation of force to fulfill objectives stated by the civil authority. This means: You own it, but you do not own it (at the same time and in the same respect). It may be taken from you forcibly at any time. Ergo, BOTTOM LINE = you do not own it.
On what basis may the civil authority take your property from you? It may do so when it deems that there is a "greater economic good" to be obtained from transferring title from you for your property to someone else. The standard for "who benefits" is the community, and the decision involves others but NOT you! That benefit may include all sorts of "benevolent" goals such as greater tax revenue, site beautification (according to the standards of the civil authority). and nuisance riddance. What constitutes a "nuisance"? Anything or anybody that stands in the way of the wishes of the group, such as the civil authority.
Well, don't you receive "just compensation"? Who determines what is "just compensation"?
Suppose, for just one, made up example, that you have lived on landed property handed down for generations, as deeded from the King of England centuries ago. Your property supported generations of your blood line as they forged colonies, then an independent country, and now a great republic, the child of the Enlightenment. Let us say that you house is no longer so grand, and you get by selling a few crafts and seasonal fruit from very old trees. You now, however, stand in the way of a great, new, upscale development of homes and businesses. The developers and customers will pay many-fold greater taxes to the civil authorities than you do on your now, somewhat meager "estate." You dearly love this venerable old place and its few acres, and you are proud of it. You refuse to sell. The civil authorities take you to court, and the court finds for the civil authority because you are standing in the way of the "community good." Law officers force you off your property at gunpoint. The civil authority cuts you a check, one that meets what it considers "just compensation." Like the owner of the New London, Ct., home, you find that the check is pitifully small in monetary amount, but you realize that even if the check was for trillions, nothing could compensate for the loss of that which you have loved, that which will now be asphalted over.
That is the first "practical" result of this SCOTUS decision of 6-23-2005. Many persons will feel the pain from this fascist takeover of their property. Ownership, without control, is not ownership.
As you sit in your new tract home, in some development, somewhere, pining the loss of your beloved heritage, you begin to realize the morality involved in this action. You begin to realize that the "community" became the value overriding your value as former owner. Your "good" counted for nothing. The benefit to the community counted for everything.
This is the morality of altruism, an allegedly positive attribute of people. You begin to see it for what it really means. You were "sacrificed" for the community. Their alleged "good" counted; yours did not. You were too small to be anything but a cog in the service of the community.
You spent all of your savings, and borrowed against all that the "civil authorities" were offering you as "just compensation" for your property. However, the judge said that the needs of the many overrode the needs of any individual. He glibly quoted the 23 June 2005 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States as his precedent. He cited "community rights."
Rights? What rights? The community has rights--the city, the county, the state, and even the federal government--all of these groups have "rights," because the Supreme Court declared such? Since when, you ask? By what Constitutional right, you ask?
You cannot awaken from this Orwellian nightmare, because it is not a nightmare. It is your new life. You scream in protest. You yell that you are you, a sovereign individual, that you have rights, and these rights supercede the state. The judge looks at you, snickers, and wisecracks that such ideas as yours are arcane. Only the state has rights, the judge says, so shut up and take your medicine. This will teach you to get in the way of the greater good. In fact, if you continue to protest the sovereignty of the state in all matters, you will be held in contempt of court and sentenced to prison.
Everybody chatters about "rights," including you, but everyone talks about something without ever defining it, when they chatter about "rights."
You now realize: Whatever country you just woke up to, this is not the same country you were born into. An old quotation from Rousseau comes to mind, but now in the real context, "Everywhere man is in chains." You realize that you now belong to the government. These are your new chains. This cannot be "right," you realize.
RIGHTS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS--what are they? Where do they come from? How come it is right for someone to take my property but not right for me to keep what I owned with title free and clear because government says the community has "rights"?
You begin to realize, if they can do this to my means of supporting my life, what can they do next? Did we not fight a Revolution about such issues?
posted by George Mason @ 6/26/2005 09:45:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home