Is Our Property Ours?

[ClayBarham]

The rift between left and right, liberals and conservatives in America boils down to whether society is based on the supremacy of community interests or of individual self-interest. Nowhere is this more in focus than the concept of private property. Can there be private property, individual ownership of property, in a society based upon community interests being superior to individual interests? Every socialist or communist ruled nation has prohibited individuals from owning property, as, for the most part; all property belongs to the state. The private ownership of the means of production has always been an enemy of the socialist state. In America, however, private property has always been seen as a sacred right of each citizen individually or corporately.

The right of individuals to own and do with their own property as they see fit, as long as it does not harm their neighbors, has been viewed as a legal foundation since America began almost 400 years ago. It is only now, in recent years, that private property in America is questioned. Questions about the propriety of property have risen because many in today’s America believe our nation should move from one of individual freedom and prosperity, to community interests as defined by elite who care. It is for the purpose of equality of outcome, position and wealth, that modern American liberals want private property eliminated as an inherited right.

No one can deny that Americans are all unequal. Whether it is inequality in age, experience, intelligence, physical health, education or just plain excitement over pursuing a dream, vision or idea, none of us is equal. What we earn from what we do, and what we accumulate as a result, furthers the inequality. Where we are equal is in the rights we enjoy and our equality before the law. One of those rights has always been an ability to earn, keep and use property of all kinds to secure our prosperity and enjoyment of life.

There are many, however, who trade on their own envy of those who have, and anger at not sharing in what others have earned, whether they have or have not tried equally to become prosperous and failed. The envious and angry in society appeal to the elite for their compassion and support, to control society and punish those who have lived well in doing, accomplishing and taking up the opportunities presented to them to achieve and succeed. The elite know that the corruption and elimination of private property is the best step to conquer America and create, in its place, a community-based system where they rule and all others follow in a forced equality of outcome. The elite desire to rule, and their army are the discontented and disenfranchised, to which they appeal.

[Elrathin]

Please show me how liberals and not conservatives are doing what you describe Clay. Give examples of how conservatives are for propery and liberals are not.

The problem with property rights has not been a liberal or conservative thing, but rather a big corporation issue. The big corporations want to come in and claim the land as public domain. Greedy politicians are the problem and that is neither a conservative nor liberal problem, but a corruption problem.

[Truth_and_Power]

No your property is mine. all mine.

[Scorpion]

Clay, I'm getting the sense that you're advocating some sort of socialist revolution wherein we adopt Robin Hoods mantle of robbing the rich to give to the poor.

If so, you're forgetting that the rich have guns and power.

[ClayBarham]

Nope, Robin, if alive today, would be running against Hillary as a good liberal Democrat, to take from those who have and give to those who have not, less the heavy commissions to operate the system.

I am pointing out that individual freedom and private property go hand in hand, and when you take away the right for an individual to have, hold, alter or use property, you are denying him his individual choice and freedom, and again, I add that none of us are to use our property to harm, like the physician is not supposed to do harm with his skills.

[PatrickHenry]

Eminent domain is being misused. The Kelo v. New London case in the Supreme Court was one of ten thousand like it.

And Clay, you are right that we do not own our property. Try not paying your "property tax." It is actually rent on "your" property and you will be evicted.

However I disagree that all socialist societies disallow private property.

Then again, it may depend on your definition of a socialist society...

[Shintao]

The rift between left and right, liberals and conservatives in America boils down to whether society is based on the supremacy of community interests or of individual self-interest. Nowhere is this more in focus than the concept of private property. Can there be private property, individual ownership of property, in a society based upon community interests being superior to individual interests? Every socialist or communist ruled nation has prohibited individuals from owning property, as, for the most part; all property belongs to the state.

Not so. Germany is my socialist example. The people buy & own their land there, and what I find unique about this,.. they pay a one-time property tax when they buy the land, and that is the end of taxation.

As you know under capitalism you are never through paying property taxes on land. Even personal property is only devalued to lower taxes to some minimal amount. ie. cars/boats/planes/[hr]The right of individuals to own and do with their own property as they see fit, as long as it does not harm their neighbors, has been viewed as a legal foundation since America began almost 400 years ago. It is only now, in recent years, that private property in America is questioned. Questions about the propriety of property have risen because many in today’s America believe our nation should move from one of individual freedom and prosperity, to community interests as defined by elite who care. It is for the purpose of equality of outcome, position and wealth, that modern American liberals want private property eliminated as an inherited right.

I don't think it is a Liberal thingy, but a rich thingy............

Abuses of Eminent Domain
In recent decades there has been growing concern about the manner in which some states and units of government exercise their power of eminent domain. Some governments appear inclined to exercise eminent domain for the benefit of developers or commercial interests, on the basis that anything that increases the value of a given tract of land is a sufficient public use. Critics respond that this is absurd, and that there are few properties, no matter how upscale, which could not be made more valuable if developed in a different manner. They also note that if a developer is unable to purchase the property on the open market, it is unlikely that the landowners will truly be offered the value of the property through condemnation proceedings. The governmental response to that point is that the law of eminent domain arose from the experience that some property owners are unwilling to negotiate a reasonable sale price, and such unreasonableness should not provide a basis to extort an above-market price or to prevent the completion of a public project.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/eminent_domain.html


Pardon me for taking a few classes on social welfare & actually remembering a lil bit of it. But I did learn that socialism goes back to the pilgrims, and cited example after example was shown in the text that marked the travel of American socialism. While there have been some individual movements, they are truely few and far between. Your constitution was based on socialism, such as raising troops, general welfare, boarding troops in homes, Great American projects built with corporate welfare. Clay, it is all around you and has always been, even in our darkest hours of the Great Depression, every war. Individualists just didn't build all our public buildings, public roads, public utillities, etcs. Individualists used them or maybe held a socialist welfare government contract to build. Some of the first welfare came in the form of orphan & widow relief for deceased soldiers. One of the first gov. grants was for Lewis & Clark.

In any event I don't want to labor the point & I guess we agree to disagree. Eat snowflake!

[ClayBarham]

You pick out all the current wrongs in America, such as outrageous taxes, and you equate that with "capitalism." Are you saying a nation where individual freedom should be the norm, along with a free market, is socialism? We obviously read different books, and went to different schools together.