Galt's Gulch

Short Video: Statists real frustrated that rich man fights eminent domain

Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago to Politics
17 comments | Share | Flag

They truely care little for the poor but hate the rich.
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/p6hcZzJrsTw

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by jimslag 5 years, 10 months ago
    The lady's comments infuriated me. "Common people come and complain, please don't take my land and we take their land, but this guy has the money to fight them and he is going to win". I guess us normal people have no recourse against the government because we do not have the money and cannot stop them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago
      Eminent domain takings cannot generally be stopped even by property owners with the means to fight it in court. It has to be fought politically, if it can be stopped at all, which apparently is what this owner did.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 10 months ago
    Your assessment is correct...the hate the rich more than they care about the evil of emanate domain in the first place. They could of saved tax payer dollars by offering a fair price to the easement in the first place...something they Never do and that is why we find them and the whole process suspect.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 10 months ago
    Awwww! It's so frustrating that someone has so much money he can't be ground down beneath the bullying boot hill of eminent domain.
    It was a liar known as Slick Willy who said, :I feel your pain." He also called taxes "contributions."
    Methinks eminent domain is what statists think We The People should gladly contribute to in the spirit of good citizenship.
    Don't you know that socialism is a cause that's bigger than little you and your little perceived wants and needs?
    Just ask Stalin.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ pixelate 5 years, 10 months ago
    The petty tyrant that wants to steal the owner's property is completely lacking in self-awareness. How else could one espouse such a horrendous level of conceit, arrogance and hostility? These people are true monsters and must be exposed for their nature ... they are parasites.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 10 months ago
    No benevolent motive can ever be attribute to a rich man unless he has been haunted by four ghosts. It has become commonplace for villains to be in business. Dope dealers, murderers, and felons of all kinds are given a certain degree of sympathy, but never, ever, the rich head of a business firm. It matters not the type of firm, retail, service, wholesale, media, entertainment. Even if they perform some altruistic task, it is attributed as being profitable to them in some arcane manner.Check out current movies, books, news items -- I rest my case.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 10 months ago
    Jefferson's original text for the Declaration of Independence declared a "right to life, liberty, and property," but he was persuaded to change it to the nebulous "pursuit of happiness." That was the birth of statism, as statists believe in collective ownership of property, and the state's right to dictate the use of all property.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago
      The Declaration referring to the more general pursuit of happiness instead of private property was not the "birth of statism". The right of private property was taken for granted and continued to be supported. No one supported "the state's right to dictate the use of all property". Explicitly endorsing the individual's right to pursue his own happiness for his own life on earth was an implicit statement of ethical egoism that includes the right of private property, and was a major rebuke to the otherworldly religious duty ethics of sacrifice. Collectivist statism was a result of the European counter-Enlightenment and its importation into this country in the 19th century.

      Eminent domain should not have been included later in the Constitution, even in the limited form intended as a narrow exception to the acceptance of private property taken for granted. But if it had not been, with private property rights not explicitly protected, it would be much worse today. Private property would be routinely seized without even payment as we have seen in the constant expansion of eminent domain powers beyond anything originally contemplated, together with the constant expansion and acceptance of regulations taking control of private property while allowing the owner to keep the deed so that the taking does not have to be paid for. If the founders of the country had foreseen what was coming they would have put explicit protections of private property rights into the Constitution.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 10 months ago
        As frequently as Locke, and Cicero the Roman philosopher, two of Jefferson's sources of thought, emphasized how vital the recognition of private property was to freedom, I don't think his intent was to assume everyone would know how important it was. The Declaration was intended to be a "throwdown" of a gauntlet to a monarch who regarded ownership of all elements of the empire as belonging to the crown.

        As with all things regarding the launch of this new nation, compromise was the unfortunate watchword. Some of the colonies were fearful of the anger of the crown, and hopeful that a peaceful departure could take place. Telling people who still adhered to principles of the monarchy that a radical (and complete individual ownership of property was radical at the time) solution was necessary to freedom made them uneasy. Several colonial representatives were insistent that if the word "property" remained in the Declaration, they could not sign.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago
          By the time the Declaration was drafted, the congress had already chosen to break with Britain. That is why they commissioned the Declaration to be written.

          The signers of the Declaration did not say they would not sign if the word 'property' was in it. Some of them balked at Jefferson's original inclusion of opposition to the British slave trade.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago
      Since collectivism requires goverment ownership of people and property, that would have been a knife in the back of collectivist progression in America. They would have had to have practiced their unconstitutional utopia horrors elsewhere.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 5 years, 10 months ago
    She uncloaked. ..."If it was an average person we'd just take their property...boohoo..."

    These people are reptoids...haha!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo