Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aerosappy who wrote (6945)	2/24/2002 11:19:58 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 206104

Aero, Yes, the problem is at its base a philosophical one. Western civilization has been built on the foundation of the rule of law, and the rule of law's fundamental purpose (outside of criminal law and prosecution which had the dual purposes of protecting society and instituting social policy--you murder, you hang) has always been to protect property rights. Contract law gives consistency and confidence to business transactions, tort law gives consistency and confidence to protection in our property and ourselves against negligence and intentional harm (damages in both cases are almost completely property based, you run your car over my foot, you pay, you run your car into my kitchen, you pay). The other dynamic which has fueled our uniquely successful American civilization has been the power of democracy. We the people decide, by our votes, and when we get around to it, and when we get it right, exactly how we will be governed. The reason we don't have "gun control" is not because of some "right to bear arms" in some amendment somewhere, but because the people will not vote for it. I may want stricter gun control and be convinced we need it now, but because we are (supposed to be) a democracy, we won't get it until we actually vote for. In abortion, the judiciary has run around the idea of democracy (clearly matters of abortion law should be determined in state legislatures, it is nowhere presumed to be a federal right) and decided, dictatorially, that they would foist upon the people a "privacy right" which somehow exists in the law even thought everyone involved acknowledges that it is a sham. Where am I leading? Well, the power of administrative law (either federal or state and local) to regulate out of usage someone's property because they (without legitimate law) have decided that it would be good for the community or society in general is in absolute conflict with the takings clause ("no property shall be taken without just compensation") and must be challenged in the courts. Because without strict construction of this issue, everyone's property will be at risk to government administrators. Trees are good for everybody's air, right, let's just take a lot of private land by legislating away their right to cut trees. Clean air is good, let's just legislation that you may only drive your car on Monday and Wednesday if your license plate is even, and on Tuesday and Thursday if your license plate is odd. Not because there's any emergency, but because we value clean air that much. There is a word for environmental administrative activities which do not compensate property owners for the property they take: theft. If people don't recognize and fight for anyone's property rights (farmers with cattle, cemetery owners, developers), then eventually there will be no precedent to protect anyones (read: your) property rights. Kb