Thursday, June 23, 2005

Supreme Court Rules Private Property A Myth!

I've talked frequently - not sure if I've blogged it though - about what I call "The Myth of Private Property" based on the reality that we don't actually own anything real. We just have the obligation to pay taxes on the spot of land we think we own. Don't believe me? Try not paying your property taxes and see just how long you still "own" something.

Well, the Supreme Court Ruled that cities may seize homes under eminent domain, except it's not being used to gather parcels to build highways or some such, but to transfer the property to another private entity that can bring in more tax money to the town.

So, if you live someplace that a Wal-Mart or something wants to build, your friendly public servants will bumrush you off what you foolishly thought was YOUR land and give it to the company. Nice.

Who voted for govt. theft power? (In)justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.

Who voted for the people? Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist.

Once again, fascist liberals believe in the government having endless power over us. Some choice, eh?


Anonymous said...

Let's see. Seven justices appointed by Republicans, 2 appointed by Democrats. Yeah, that's some liberal court. Just because a justice wants to keep abortion legal does not make that justice liberal. Anyway you look at it, this decision came from the Republicans.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Did I say anything about Democrats or Republicans? No, I didn't, did I? I spoke against fascist liberals and if you wish to ascribe that tendency to the Democrats, you're welcome to it, but unlike a lot of poor dupes, I do not believe the Stupid Party to be any less liberal than the Seditious Party - they just pretend to be less socialist.

Thanks for playing, playa hater.

Anonymous said...

So, a Supreme Court decision that benefits real estate developers? I don't think so. Let's face it, large developers reap the true benefits of this legislation as they can now have the government do their bidding (literally). Sounds more like crony capitalism than any sort of liberalism. That's ok, though, keep looking for the liberal boogeyman while the moneyed elite rob you blind. Good sheeple.

Spare me the Dirkisms, all they do iss reveal how little original thought your mind possesses.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Um, "sheeple"? You're the one trying to deflect attention from the fact that the most reliably liberal members of the SCOTUS revealed their fascist hearts and belief that government should have unchecked power.

George Soros made his fortune breaking the Bank of England and used that money to try and buy an Election for the French candidate. If he was a Republican, you'd be screaming even louder than you are already. But, since he's on *your side*, it's OK that he's a billionaire robber-baron cuz he's YOUR billionaire robber-baron.

There are some complexities that are currently undiscussed about condemning property, like what about urban wastelands like Detroit where there may be one or two houses surrounded by acres of desolation. If someone wanted to redevelop these foresaken tracts, should a few holdouts prevent that. Mileage will vary, but when we're talking about seriously abusive back-scratching, it's more clearly defined.

As for "crony capitalism", isn't that just code to defend crony socialism? Convince the ignorant masses that they're doomed to the untender merciless Enrons of the world without the caring embrace of Uncle Sam. Vote Dem and be safe and sound...all the while getting ready to administer the Unlubed Fist® to these very same constituents.