By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.
-The Southern Manifesto, Cong. Rec., 84th Cong. 2d Session, Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956)
‘This was an activist court that you saw today. Anytime the Supreme Court renders something constitutional that is clearly unconstitutional, that undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court. I do believe the court’s credibility was undermined severely today.”
-Michele Bachmann (R. Minn.), June 26 2012
Most people are familiar with the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al., 349 U.S. 483 (1954), in which a unanimous Supreme Court summarily outlawed public school segregation by tersely declaring, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” 349 U.S. at 495. But many people do not know that Brown involved a consolidation of cases from four states. The “et al.” in the style refers to decisions on similar facts in Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. And the response of Virginia to the ruling in Brown provides an interesting comparison with the actions leading to the current government shutdown.
In 1951 the population of Prince Edward County, Virginia was approximately 15,000, more than half of whom were African-American. The county maintained two high schools to accommodate 386 black students and 346 white students. Robert R. Moton High School lacked adequate science facilities and offered a more restricted curriculum than the high school reserved for white students. It had no gym, showers or dressing rooms, no cafeteria and no restrooms for teachers. Students at Moton High were even required to ride in older school buses.
Suit was filed in federal district court challenging the Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating segregated public schools. Although the trial court agreed that the school board had failed to provide a substantially equal education for African-American students, it declined to invalidate the Virginia laws, concluding that segregation was not based “upon prejudice, on caprice, nor upon any other measureless foundation,” but reflected “ways of life in Virginia” which “has for generations been a part of the mores of the people.” Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337, 339 (E.D. Va. 1952). Instead, the court ordered the school board to proceed with the completion of existing plans to upgrade the curriculum, physical plant and buses at Moton High School. When the plaintiffs took an appeal from the decision, the Democratic machine that had for many years controlled Virginia politics under the firm hand of Sen. Harry Byrd had little reason to believe that “ways of life” that had prevailed since the end of the Reconstruction era would soon be declared illegal.
When the Brown decision was announced, the reaction in Virginia was shock, disbelief and anger. Reflecting the prevailing attitudes, the Richmond News Leader railed against “the encroachment of the Federal government, through judicial legislation, upon the reserved powers of the States.” The Virginia legislature adopted a resolution of “interposition” asserting its right to “interpose” between unconstitutional federal mandates and local authorities under principles of state sovereignty. And Sen. Byrd organized a campaign of opposition that came to be known as “Massive Resistance.”
In August of 1954 a commission was appointed to formulate a plan to preserve segregated schools. Late in 1955, it presented its recommendations, including eliminating mandatory school attendance, empowering local school boards to assign students to schools and creating special tuition grants to enable white students to attend private schools. Enabling legislation was quickly adopted and “segregation academies” began forming around the state. Subsequent legislation went even further by prohibiting state funding of schools that chose to integrate.
In March of 1956, 19 senators and 77 house members from 11 southern states signed what is popularly known as “The Southern Manifesto,” in which they declared, “Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.”
Throughout this period the Prince Edward County schools remained segregated, but when various court rulings invalidated Virginia’s various attempts to avoid integration, the school board took its final stand. It refused to authorize funds to operate any schools in the district, and all public schools in the county were simply closed, and remained closed from 1959 to 1964.
There are striking similarities between Sen. Byrd’s failed plan of Massive Resistance and Republican efforts to prevent implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There was widespread confidence among conservatives that the Supreme Court would declare the Act unconstitutional. When that did not occur, legislators such as Michele Bachmann, quoted above, attempted to deny the legitimacy of the Court’s ruling. Brent Bozell went further, denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as “a traitor to his own philosophy,” hearkening back to the days when southern roadsides were replete with billboards demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
The House of Representatives has taken over 40 votes to repeal the ACA, quixotic efforts pursued for reasons known only to John Boehner and his colleagues. And in accordance with the Virginia legislative model, the House has attempted to starve the ACA by eliminating it from funding bills. Following the failure of these efforts, Republicans have elected to pursue the path ultimately taken by the school board of Prince Edward County and have shut down the government.
Even the strategy followed by Republicans is largely a southern effort. Approximately 60% of the Tea Party Caucus is from the South. Nineteen of the 32 Republican members of the House who have been instrumental in orchestrating the shutdown are from southern states. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the current impasse is characterized by the time-honored southern belief in nullification theory as a proper antidote to disfavored decisions by a congressional majority.
In reflecting upon the experience of Virginia many years later, former Gov. Linwood Holton noted, “Massive resistance … served mostly to exacerbate emotions arrayed in a lost cause.” Republicans would do well to ponder the wisdom in that observation.
DavidM: the right to own property is what gives great freedom for a person to choose their destiny.
No, it isn’t. People can make all the choices they want without owning any property. Freedom has nothing to do with property ownership at all.
I am not opposed to property ownership. It just is not a necessity of being free. A friend of mine has been renting for 20 years, and is happy doing that. He doesn’t want to own or maintain a house, EVER. He gets a new place about every five years or so.
DavidM says: I view it as a tool which empowers a person to forge a path for himself.
Feel free, your view of it does not change the facts.
DavidM says: When a person has clear expectations concerning his investment of time and money, he has the ability to make wise choices and get a good return on his investment.
Except a person can have clear expectations of something without owning it. I have clear expectations of Social Security; I do not have to own it to have that. I have clear expectations of companies that I have contracted with, I do not have to own them to hold those expectations.
Expectations can be clear by contract or other binding agreement (like specifications in law). Ownership is not a necessity in determining control. If the State passes laws that prevent you from burning trash on your lawn, you can modify your expectations. If the State has a law on the books that says you cannot build a structure on your land taller than 45 feet, you can have a clear expectation on the feasibility of installing a wind turbine.
This is a silly discussion, ownership is a good thing, but nobody has to own property to be free. People without it have all the same rights and privileges as people with it; in fact people that do not own houses are far more free to relocate or change jobs than people that do.
Tony C wrote: “Ownership is not a necessity in determining control. If the State passes laws that prevent you from burning trash on your lawn, you can modify your expectations. If the State has a law on the books that says you cannot build a structure on your land taller than 45 feet, you can have a clear expectation on the feasibility of installing a wind turbine.”
As I explained before, regulations decrease ownership. This is why people who believe in free enterprise object to extensive government regulations. You argue tautologically by giving examples of government removing true ownership as reasons why property ownership is not necessary. The point is that government regulations decrease liberty and freedom by decreasing private ownership of property.
A lease is basically a decreased form of ownership. As long as you have enough income to increase the wealth of your lessor, and as long as his rules do not conflict with what you want to do with the property he is leasing to you, it can be workable. Sure. But the greatest freedom comes through true private ownership.
Do you own your car or do you lease your car? Do you own your house or lease your house? Do you own your computer or lease your computer? Do you own the furniture or lease the furniture in your home? Ask yourself why you don’t just lease everything you own. The freedom and liberty that comes with ownership should be self-evident. I am not objecting to the concept of leasing because it is the right choice in many situations, but private ownership has rewards in liberty and freedom that ought to be recognized in a democratic republic like we have which is built upon the concept of liberty and freedom.
Bron: Here DavidM and I are thinking about the average person whose life would be made better by receiving a few acres and you are talking about selling to the highest bidder. Which would be the multi-millionaires you denigrate all the time.
Man, you cannot help but lie to make your point, can you?
I do not denigrate multi-millionaires, I don’t have a problem with people being rich. I have a problem with people getting rich by exploiting others. I can only conclude that in your mind it is impossible to get rich without exploiting others, so you fail to see this distinction, that I abhor wealth achieved through crime but do not mind wealth created by adding value.
One ideal, for me, is the wealth created by entertaining. A stand-up comic can get wealthy benignly. He doesn’t have to oppress anybody, people will pay to be entertained, but nobody’s life is ever in danger for a lack of it. Singers, musicians, actors, sports stars: It is the perfect example of a transaction you can walk away from if you think it costs too much, and if they make a billion dollars, they did not have to exploit anybody, coerce anybody, oppress anybody, endanger anybody, or harm anybody in any way.
I roll my eyes at Jim Carrey, but I do not begrudge him his $25M per picture. Obviously a very large number of people find him hilarious. Good for you, Jim, you found a truly lucrative niche in making very silly faces, and I freely admit you do that better than anybody else.
I have said all that many times, even to you, and yet, you think I abhor the rich. So I conclude you think cruelty is a prerequisite for getting rich; you just cannot imagine win-win transactions producing that much profit. Is that why you advocate policies that allow cruelty?
Bron says: the average person whose life would be made better by receiving a few acres
The average person’s life would be made better if education were free, if medical care were free, if they knew they could walk away from an exploitive employer without going hungry or losing their home.
Yet you do not advocate for those things. What it is about a “few acres” that is different? By selling the land (or leasing it, or allowing its use in a renewable contract for a royalty share of the income it permitted or produced) and using the funds to strengthen the social safety net, we do more for all people, we raise the average, instead of doing more for one specific individual to the exclusion of all other individuals.
A professional farmer can do more with a few acres than a novice farmer (or somebody that will just grow a lawn and a flower bed). Regardless of what is done with the land, professionals will make better use of it than the “average person” would, which should (by the laws of supply and demand you are so fond of) increase the value of the land to them, and the price they are willing to pay, or the royalty or lease payment we receive from the land. Since those can be used to fund education or health care or public transportation or police protection for all citizens, we benefit all citizens equally, which is only equitable since they all owned the “government” land in the first place.
I repeat, isn’t it YOU that has repeatedly said the government should not be picking winners and losers? Why aren’t you violating your own principles by claiming they should give away land to some individuals but not others?
Tony C wrote: “Yet you do not advocate for those things. What it is about a “few acres” that is different? … I repeat, isn’t it YOU that has repeatedly said the government should not be picking winners and losers? Why aren’t you violating your own principles by claiming they should give away land to some individuals but not others?”
The difference, Tony, is that giving someone ownership in land enables them to determine their own destiny. It is like the proverb, “give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”
It is not about picking winners or losers, but giving a poor person a big step up. You claim the land would run out, but it did not run out when the government did it before. The governments are constantly acquiring new land all the time, something which you ignore. When someone dies with no heirs, the State government gets the land. A good social program would incorporate giving another person the ability to forge out his own destiny by giving him a place to live.
Speaking of reality, you render your property rights finite in any system where by you avail yourself of the courts to settle disputes involving property (which usually involve two or more parties asserting some form of superior ownership). You have the choice of obeying the court’s order on the matter at disposition – even if it is against you – or face contempt of court. Finite property rights are a consequence of having a judiciary with subject matter jurisdiction over any kind of res.
The essence of the is/ought fallacy is that the person arguing from ought isn’t arguing based in reality but rather a projection of how they think reality ought to be.
The reality is that property ownership is not deemed fundamental in American jurisprudence.
There is a fine line between fantasy, wishful thinking and stupidity.
Tony C:
no, he isnt, a fundamental right of a free man is the right to own property, in this sense land.
You may not agree with DavidM, but he isnt stupid.
You need to grow a pair and remember you arent in a classroom where students have to listen to your pontifications for a good grade.
Tony C:
“But the land belongs to the people, and if it could be better used by an individual, then perhaps we can sell the land to the highest bidder and use the revenue to offset taxes that fund aid budgets for food or something like that.”
Here DavidM and I are thinking about the average person whose life would be made better by receiving a few acres and you are talking about selling to the highest bidder. Which would be the multi-millionaires you denigrate all the time.
I am wondering if you might be a shill for the Kocks and George Soros and Warren Buffet?
As usual, you cant help yourself and your pretentions of superiority and patronizing attitude for the masses comes out.
Scratch a liberal and it always does. You people are nothing but busy bodies trying to force your views/will on the rest of us “poor rubes”.
I wrote: “If Freedom (and Income) can be had without actually owning any kind of real estate or income producing property, it is obviously not dependent upon it.”
DavidM says: Based upon this logic, there would be no reason to abolish slavery. Consider how a slave experiences some level of freedom under the care of his master. Based upon your logic here, freedom for him is not dependent upon abolishing slavery or making him a freeman.
God you are stupid. A slave is not free if he cannot choose his job or leave his employment. Freedom does not admit slavery as a subset. The slave is not free because by definition he does not have choice, his choices are constrained by somebody that views him as property.
Do not confuse “standing permission to engage in certain activities” with “freedom,” they are not the same thing; and you are conflating two different definitions of the word in a misleading way.
By my view, nobody is property, ever. Therefore slavery is prohibited.
Tony C wrote: “If Freedom (and Income) can be had without actually owning any kind of real estate or income producing property, it is obviously not dependent upon it.”
DavidM wrote: “Based upon this logic, there would be no reason to abolish slavery. Consider how a slave experiences some level of freedom under the care of his master. Based upon your logic here, freedom for him is not dependent upon abolishing slavery or making him a freeman.”
Tony C wrote: “God you are stupid. A slave is not free if he cannot choose his job or leave his employment.”
My point was about the logic you used, that partial freedom without property allegedly implies that there is no relationship between freedom and the right to own property. Your response here is about as strange as an atheist calling upon God.
A modicum of freedom can exist without the right to own property, but especially in a capitalist society, the right to own property is what gives great freedom for a person to choose their destiny. For some strange reason, you seem to view property ownership as some kind of a status symbol, but I view it as a tool which empowers a person to forge a path for himself. When a person has clear expectations concerning his investment of time and money, he has the ability to make wise choices and get a good return on his investment (I’m talking about investment of his labor, not financial per se, although money equates with labor).
For some people in society, they will always make bad choices, and property ownership will not do anything for them. Society ought to provide these individuals with their basic necessities. This also would apply to people who are intellectually deficient, such as the mentally retarded. They do not have the rational capabilities to make good choices that would empower them.
I once helped two brothers that I picked up homeless in a park. For two years, we trained them in all the basics, from how to bathe themselves daily and comb their hair, to how to shop. Then they were assisted in buying a house. They were moved in and worked as bag boys in two different grocery stores. They were taught extensively how to manage their money. They were basically forced to budget and taught the importance of property ownership. They were working toward the goal of owning their own home. In five years, the home was turned over to them free and clear. They had paid for it. Problem is that the IQ of the older brother was about 70. After having worked so hard, who could have imagined that they would take on a roommate who persuaded the older brother to mortgage the house again so that he could buy a new car. That’s what he did, and it was only a matter of months before he lost the home. You would think after being forced to work so hard at a minimum wage job to secure housing free and clear that they would value it, but the truth is that their intellect just wasn’t developed enough for them to make wise choices. That experience taught me a big lesson about the need to evaluate a person based upon his intellectual ability and not to assume that they have understanding. It took great sacrifice to help them, but it all was squandered by one appeal of a bad roommate. Some people should perhaps not have the liberty that others have. I imagine some would scream at me for saying such a thing, but experience has taught me that not all people are equal in their intellectual abilities to make wise choices. Such is basically a liberal lie.
Bron says: Why not give people that land?
Why should some citizens receive a boon from the government that other citizens do not?
Don’t you rail against exactly that all the damn time?
All land has some market value. I do not want the government involved in any for-profit enterprise (at least with its own citizens as customers or competing against them). But the land belongs to the people, and if it could be better used by an individual, then perhaps we can sell the land to the highest bidder and use the revenue to offset taxes that fund aid budgets for food or something like that.
If you want to help the under-privileged, sell the land with a zero-down, inflation-interest loan, and discount the price based upon need. Somebody can settle the land, make it economically productive, pay it off in (say) 50 years, and work themselves out of poverty.
Giving some limited amount of land away is not fair play, it is not treating all citizens equally. The government picks winners and losers. Why should that be? Not only is it unfair, it is the perfect breeding ground for corruption and political favoritism and profiteering.
Even if it is by lottery, even if it is unfair temporally (past citizens got a gift of land but future citizens did not, or people over 18 got a gift but those under got nothing).
What is owned by us all should plausible benefit us all, not just some few individuals.
DavidM: Your adjustments make no difference, 650 million acres is 650 million one-acre-giveaways, and that is a finite number of giveaways, so eventually the government runs out of land to give away. Unless it forces the recycling of land previously given away, in which case the land isn’t really “owned,” because it will be at risk of being taken away. Perhaps after death, but that is still not “owned.” The finite resource is depleted.
DavidM says: Clearly you are not ashamed to be guided by prejudice.
That was a logical argument. The utility of listening to people I have already concluded lie constantly to protect themselves is nearly zero. I am not ashamed to prioritize my time using logic; my time is finite.
Tony C:
“As is typical for those of your ilk, you are short sighted to the point of idiocy. 650 million acres?”
The US government owns a good deal of the land mass of the US including a large part of Alaska.
Why should the government own any land that isnt a national park? Why should they own land at all? Maybe for the congress and the white house but why do they need to own the land their office buildings are sitting on?
Why not give people that land? We did it once before in our history.
DavidM: Most of these sites in the search engine
Maybe. Not all of them; some of them have quite a bit of research published. The lies are not elusive, they funded lies about climate change and Obamacare and political candidates. They admit they funded them. They may not admit they are lies, but I think they are objectively liars.
I will not read a site written by people I think are liars about why they aren’t liars, I think it will be full of lies and not worth my time in the least.
Tony C wrote: “I will not read a site written by people I think are liars about why they aren’t liars, I think it will be full of lies and not worth my time in the least.”
Clearly you are not ashamed to be guided by prejudice.
DavidM says: There is plenty of land, but you favor the wealthy government to hoard and keep it all instead of letting the poor have some.
As is typical for those of your ilk, you are short sighted to the point of idiocy. 650 million acres? If they gave them ALL away (and they can’t) they would be gone within one generation; there are 310 million people in this country right now, most of whom do not own a single acre. And half the acres they own are worthless junk. and 20% of the acres will be consumed in roads and rights of way to access them.
DavidM: Just change the meaning of lease to be the same as ownership so you can win the argument that property owners doesn’t mean anything.
No, it illustrates the point that ownership already means nothing. If the government owns the land and leases it, it can still (by your lights of ownership) as the owner dictate what can and cannot be done with the land (the equivalent of zoning laws, for example, or preventing crops from being grown that would absorb an unsafe level of toxic chemicals). It could do all of the things you complain about government doing with “private property.” But the current essence of ownership (under restrictions) would be maintained.
As I said, I don’t endorse this method, but it isn’t insane. Your insistence that ownership is somehow magical and sacrosanct is insane. Ownership is a state of being, states of being do not make money. Usage makes money.
DavidM says: but the concept of private ownership being the basis for a free society is still in front of your face.
No it isn’t, you cannot even explain it. The basis of a free society is the freedom to do as one wishes (without harming others). It has absolutely nothing to do with private ownership at all. Private ownership doesn’t grant you the right to do as you wish with the property, and frequently in today’s environment you cannot. There are zoning laws, pollution laws and many more. Yet people still prosper within those restrictions, and make money from land, not because of “private ownership” but because they have the right to use the land within certain restrictions.
Your development argument falls flat too. The government could allow development to offset lease payments; e.g. build a million dollar house and you don’t have to pay the next million dollars worth of lease payments. You build as you see fit, the house will be professionally appraised, and that will count toward your lease payments. Maybe with interest!
Do you want to build a mall? Go ahead, same deal. It really costs you nothing in the long run, so it is an even better deal than buying the land and building the mall. The country buys the mall from you, and you only operate the mall you built. Owning it doesn’t matter, the right to operate it at a profit is what matters.
Your argument is religious in nature, you are attaching magical significance to “private ownership” when it is economically meaningless. They NYC residents that lease gain 100% of the economic benefits of ownership and control of their apartments; at least 100% of what they care about. So their five million can be invested in an income stream that earns them MORE per month than their lease payment on an apartment that would cost them five million, which would be the optimal use of their money, especially when the liquidity and the ability to redirect their investment capital is taken into account. Buy the apartment and you are stuck with the apartment and a fixed rate of return equivalent to your lease payment. Plus repairs and an investment that could take a year or more to convert to cash, and might plummet in value for several years due to an economic downturn.
I am not opposed to private ownership of property, it is a fine and useful thing. It just does not really have anything to do with freedom or liberty, those can be manifest without owning any house, land or any major object (other than money) at all. People can school where they want, live where they want, eat and shop where they want, do what they want for work and entertainment, and be more free than WE are in the USA without private ownership of real estate or any other income producing property.
It is possible to be rich and happy owning nothing but an intangible income stream, without actually owning any of the underlying property that generates the income stream. (Much like Paris Hilton’s Trust Fund, which is not owned by her at all. She is just perpetually entitled to an allowance derived from the income it produces.)
If Freedom (and Income) can be had without actually owning any kind of real estate or income producing property, it is obviously not dependent upon it.
Tony C wrote: “As is typical for those of your ilk, you are short sighted to the point of idiocy. 650 million acres? If they gave them ALL away (and they can’t) they would be gone within one generation; there are 310 million people in this country right now, most of whom do not own a single acre. And half the acres they own are worthless junk. and 20% of the acres will be consumed in roads and rights of way to access them.”
Sorry, but I tire of your incessant ramblings that are replete with factual errors and really have little meaning to the discussion at hand. It seems your primary point is just to make digs at insulting me. Most people own their own land already (64.5% of Americans own their land, with almost 30% owning it free and clear), so bring the 310 million down to 110 million. You also fail to account for how government acquires new property all the time. Add to this the fact that many of the poor will not want the land if it was offered to them for free. They don’t want responsibility. Furthermore, conditions can be established such as improvements to the property, living on property for a certain amount of time, etc. There was a time when the federal government did give away free land to encourage people to populate the western part of the country. They never ran out of land, but they do not give away land anymore. Instead they hoard land or sell it like a for-profit enterprise. Some cities and local governments still give away land. Following is one example in Kansas:
http://www.marquetteks.org/land.html
Tony C wrote: “it illustrates the point that ownership already means nothing. If the government owns the land and leases it, it can still (by your lights of ownership) as the owner dictate what can and cannot be done with the land (the equivalent of zoning laws, for example, or preventing crops from being grown that would absorb an unsafe level of toxic chemicals).”
All you are doing is using the present conditions we suffer under to make the point that I previously made. Government regulations reduce ownership. In the past you argued that they don’t, but now you argue that government regulations make ownership meaningless.
All I mean by private ownership of property is the right of a person to property. Consider the situation where you did not have ownership. Suppose society owned everything. You wake up one morning ready to get in your car to go to work, but wait, your car isn’t there. Your neighbor wanted to go to the beach for the day so he took your car. So you decide you are going to use your cell phone to call someone, but your cell phone is not where you left it. Turns out that another neighbor broke the phone he was using and so he came over and took yours. Now you are trying to figure out where you might be able to find a phone. You go into another room in your house, and there is a strange family living there. Their home got too messy to live in, and they liked how clean and nice your home was, so they moved in. You get the idea. Ownership allows you to have control and possession of things so that you can determine your own future and enjoy the fruits of your labor. You can change names, call it a lease, call it something else, but the meaning of ownership is still there. The idea is that you have the right to things that are yours, to use them as you see fit, and to count on them being under your control. This concept of private ownership of property is a rational basis for freedom and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Tony C wrote: “Your insistence that ownership is somehow magical and sacrosanct is insane. Ownership is a state of being, states of being do not make money. Usage makes money.”
Here we go, when you can’t win an argument, claim someone is supporting magic or religion. There is nothing magical at all. It is simply a rational understanding of how society works, the proper role of government, individual rights, etc.
The role of ownership is that you might enjoy the fruit of your investment of labor. I could work for somebody else, but I don’t because owning my own business gives me more freedom. I do not do what others tell me to do. I determine my own destiny in my career and workplace. Furthermore, I more fully enjoy the fruits of my own labor.
Everybody assumes that if someone owns their own business, they have lots of money. It is not always true, but that is a common assumption. One reason is because when a person is responsible, faithful and honest in his labor, he builds up an equity in his company that ultimately starts paying him more money. It takes a lot of time, but people in the community begin to trust you and their repeat business continues such that a person working for themselves rather than for someone else will ultimately do better. Business owners often employ other people, and sometimes the fruit of their labor enures to the benefit of the business owner. Think of it like a government tax if you like. The point is that ownership is what gives these benefits, and so liberty and freedom and economic success is tied to private ownership of property. This is not to say that one cannot earn money without ownership, nor that they might not experience some level of freedom without ownership. Children in a home basically have no private ownership, other than what a parent allows, and their liberty is likewise restricted by the will of the parent. Nevertheless, they could earn money, and they could in some ways feel free and able to pursue happiness. But they experience much more when they come of age, leave their home, and they are able to use their rational mind to determine their own destiny.
Tony C wrote: “If Freedom (and Income) can be had without actually owning any kind of real estate or income producing property, it is obviously not dependent upon it.”
Based upon this logic, there would be no reason to abolish slavery. Consider how a slave experiences some level of freedom under the care of his master. Based upon your logic here, freedom for him is not dependent upon abolishing slavery or making him a freeman.
DavidM: I think they are liars, both explicitly and by funding others to tell lies. That is just one of the reasons I hate them. You asked for reasons, I stated them. If you want a sampling, type “Koch Brother Lies” into a search engine; there will be 8.6 million hits for you to read.
Tony C wrote: “I think they are liars, both explicitly and by funding others to tell lies. … If you want a sampling, type “Koch Brother Lies” into a search engine; there will be 8.6 million hits for you to read.”
Just like the elusive lies Fox News allegedly tells, can’t seem to find one. Most of these sites in the search engine are just left wing hate mongers who traffic in hatred of everything that is on the right. It is easy to accuse someone of lying, but it is more difficult to prove it. They use invective language without much facts, language like saying that they pay to spread lies or they spread their religion of free markets.
The Koch brothers actually make some effort to set the record straight and expose the lies being told by the left wing about how the Koch brothers supposedly lie. You can find it here:
http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/
DavidM: Why would government have to lease land to its citizens? The government should lease land FROM its citizens.
Why should citizens get land for free that rightfully belongs to all of the citizens of a country, both present and future? That is not equitable, one person gets a boon and everybody else suffers a loss. Further, the future citizens of the country have been stripped of their share of the property without their consent and against their will, they are born into a situation of being without property.
DavidM says: I would like to see each poor person who owns no land receive at least an acre to do what he wants with it.
Sure, because we have an INFINITE amount of land to give away, so for all time all future generations upon reaching the age of majority should be gifted for free with an acre of land!
Of course we do NOT have an infinite amount of land to give away, so as people die they will have to forfeit their land so it can be given to somebody else. Which means of course they never really owned it, did they?
Then there is the problem that some land is nothing but useless salt scrabble, and other land is fertile, and other land contains gold mines or oil or diamonds or other natural resources. So let’s just make that another lottery to be corrupted by government to direct valuable land to important people and junk land to poor people. Congratulations, Tony, you own an acre of the Mojave desert (and don’t disturb the sand mites, dude, they are a protected species).
On the other hand, if the government did own the land (and I do not advocate this system, it is just a hypothetical exercise) and everybody were tenants paying the government a royalty on any income produced on or by the property (including zero if no income were produced), then it doesn’t make a difference how many people we have; the market will determine who owns the lease. We would let people sell their leases like they sell their land; what the market will bear. The lease payments are the equivalent of an income tax, tied to the land instead of the individual.
There is no reason that couldn’t work.
I don’t have time to answer the rest of your post, but it is entirely refutable; ownership is meaningless in and of itself, and affords nothing that cannot be achieved by contract.
As to why multi-millionaires lease or rent instead of buy, when they can easily afford to buy the whole building, surely you comprehend they must have their reasons and aren’t just suckers as you imply; they receive a benefit that is worth the difference to them. That includes the option of liquidity, simplicity, and doing something different relatively quickly. Accumulating money and income streams is far, far more liquid than accumulating hard property that can be difficult to unload and can decrease dramatically in value due to market fluctuations.
Contrary to your thinking, one size does not fit all.
Tony C wrote: “Sure, because we have an INFINITE amount of land to give away, so for all time all future generations upon reaching the age of majority should be gifted for free with an acre of land!”
You don’t need an infinite amount of land because there is not an infinite number of people. The federal government alone owns 650 million acres. Add State and local government and government land ownership is even higher. There is plenty of land, but you favor the wealthy government to hoard and keep it all instead of letting the poor have some.
Tony C wrote: “We would let people sell their leases like they sell their land; what the market will bear. The lease payments are the equivalent of an income tax, tied to the land instead of the individual.”
Just change the meaning of lease to be the same as ownership so you can win the argument that property owners doesn’t mean anything. Some people think that is smart. I think it is a useless exercise of the mind.
Tony C wrote: “…ownership is meaningless in and of itself, and affords nothing that cannot be achieved by contract.”
If you want to invent new ways to describe how a person has full control of his property, that is your prerogative, but the concept of private ownership being the basis for a free society is still in front of your face. You just refuse to think logically about it.
A lot of people in this forum hate the Koch brothers for some unstated reason.
I am not one of them. I hate the Koch Brothers because I think they are liars, manipulators, corrupt, and ruthless exploiters of humanity. See? Stated reasons.
Tony C wrote: ” I hate the Koch Brothers because I think they are liars, manipulators, corrupt, and ruthless exploiters of humanity.”
What lies have they told?
Bron: I don’t understand.
I believe all men are created equal.
I believe men are born with inalienable Rights (in the Finnis sense).
I believe governments can only derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
None of that is incompatible in the least with my additional belief in Democratic Socialism, mixed with Capitalism.
If all men are created equal, they deserve an equal start in life.
If men have inalienable rights, one of those should be freedom from exploitation of their desperation.
If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, it obviously cannot be 100% of the government or they will have no power at all. That is implicit in the idea they have ANY power. Therefore, it must be the consent of less than 100%, which is some form of majority, and if enough people give the government the power to implement Democratic Socialism, then it is a just power.
You are complaining about something you added to Coolidge, or assume Coolidge meant.
DavidM says: Private ownership allows these individuals to reap the fruit of their own labors.
Another silly, too absolutist assertion.
There are many people in New York earning well into the six figures that do not own their residence (they lease it), do not own a car (they use taxis or limo service or subways), they do not even own their furniture (it is leased or the landlord owns it).
As a former consultant I, personally, can work indefinitely out of hotel rooms and apartments, out of leased offices, using leased cars, and with personal possessions I can fit in a few suitcases. I DO happen to own a home and cars, but they do not actually contribute to my income in any way.
The same can be true of a farmer, or oil baron: You don’t have to own the land to work it. The USA does not sell offshore oil property, it leases it and takes a percentage of the revenue generated by the oil companies, which are getting rich (because we charge too little).
Private ownership of real estate is in no way a necessity for either capitalism or prosperity. Nor was it in 1776. Certainly leasing and rents were known phenomena, and although I haven’t researched it I presume government leasing its owned lands was not unknown to them either; certainly government owning land was not unknown to them.
Your ability to “plan ahead” can be assured by law to the same extent your current ownership itself is assured by law. Namely, that if the government leases you land for life at a fixed one-time payment (the same as your current purchase price), nobody can take it from you for life. You wouldn’t have to own it. Or, like an apartment, a lease might be automatically renewed every year for the life of the renter.
It is not necessary for capitalism, either. If people can earn excess money, they can invest the excess money in businesses, with risk, to either earn a lot more excess money or lose their investment.
For example, an area of project finance used to build billion dollar infrastructure projects (like a toll road) with 9 and 10 figure investors (like Sovereign Wealth Funds) works precisely like that; the infrastructure never belongs to the investors. Their $500M investment goes toward building the facility, and what they get is their proportion of the income generated by the facility. That may be a dam or a toll road owned by the public, selling electricity or collecting tolls from the public, with defined profits going to the investors. (It is similar to a perpetual loan, but the capital is not paid back and the returns can be in excess of 10% per year, with very little capital risk).
Private ownership of property and the income from property or ability to plan and develop property are all easily separated, so much so that it is quite common to do so. Truckers don’t have to own their tractors, common drivers do not have to own their cars, even hotel operators do not have to own their hotel (sometimes arrangements are made so the property owners are paid a fixed rent and the operator collects the rest).
You do not have to “own your body and brain” to operate them for income; and not owning them does not mean somebody else owns them. I don’t own the sun or the wind, and nobody else does either, but we can all use them to generate energy that is worth money if we wish (but check your zoning laws first, so you don’t infringe upon the rights of your neighbors).
Tony C wrote: “There are many people in New York earning well into the six figures that do not own their residence (they lease it)… Truckers don’t have to own their tractors…”
I never said that a person could not earn income without owning property. I said that owing property was related to freedom and liberty, and a byproduct of that is reaping the benefits of his labor. He basically builds equity in that which he owns. None of this implies that others cannot earn income unless they own. It is ridiculous for you to claim that this was my intent.
These people who lease everything could have more benefit by owning. Instead they share their benefit with the actual owner of the property. Any improvements go to the owner, not the lessee. I have a cousin who is a millionaire who practices this religiously. He buys everything cash. He owns five multi-million dollar homes, several cars including a ferrari, boats, a jet airplane, a fully loaded RV, etc. That’s how he gets ahead. I know many people who own multiple properties, and they get ahead by leasing it to others. They earn enough to pay their retirement annuity. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that the people who lease the property could get ahead better by owning it instead. Surely there are exceptions where a lease might be more attractive, such as if someone plans only to be in the area for a short time. However, in most situations, ownership creates not just liberty and freedom for the owner, but also economic benefits, especially in regards to the equity built up in his property.
I observe the same thing just comparing common middle class people with people who rent their homes. Renters move much more often. When they move, it is a hassle and a set back. They lose days making the move. I have employees that take off work in order to move, causing less productivity at the office. Renters have less freedom to make decisions about their home. There exists similar problems with people who go into debt for cars or whatever and have their cars repossessed when they can’t make the payments.
Ownership is liberating, plain and simple.
Tony C wrote: “… if the government leases you land for life at a fixed one-time payment (the same as your current purchase price), nobody can take it from you for life. You wouldn’t have to own it.”
Why would government have to lease land to its citizens? The government should lease land FROM its citizens. If the government did own land not for environmentally protective purposes, it should find ways to give it free to its citizens. I would like to see each poor person who owns no land receive at least an acre to do what he wants with it.
In any case, taking your scenario of a lifelong lease from the government, it is still hindering the individual from reaping what he has sown. If he increases the value of the property through his labor, through building upon it, and through efforts to get others to settle nearby in a way to benefit what he is doing with the land, such a trucking companies, or construction companies, or whatever, the individual does not benefit because he cannot sell his land or divide his land up for his children or do anything he wants. His options are limited. His freedom and liberty is restricted because he has no ownership. The increased equity goes to the government when he dies.
One of the worse aspects of leasing is that he will never think creatively about how the land might be best put to use. When he owns it, he often becomes more creative because the property is in his power and he will benefit from his creativity.
DavidM:
Progressives understand that, they just like being the ones doing the giving with other people’s money. And now some republicans are doing the same thing.
Here is a good quote from Calvin Coolidge:
“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”
Funny how Coolidge said that in 1926, just 7 years later we were in the grasp of an administration subverting those founding principles to enable the growth of government on such a scale as the world had never seen.
Bron wrote: “Funny how Coolidge said that in 1926, just 7 years later we were in the grasp of an administration subverting those founding principles to enable the growth of government on such a scale as the world had never seen.”
One of Charles Koch’s favorite presidents was Coolidge. President Coolidge reduced taxes from 73% to 24%. Coupled with the work of his predecessor, federal expenditures were cut in half. Coolidge chose not to run for another term even though he could have. When Hoover replaced him, federal spending was doubled and taxes were raised back up to 63%, ushering in the Great Depression. Following Hoover, Roosevelt’s New Deal prolonged the Depression, which is pretty much the same tack that Obama has taken with his Obamacare disaster.
A lot of people in this forum hate the Koch brothers for some unstated reason. Jealousy or envy I guess. I like the Koch brothers. They make a lot of sense.
DavidM says: I don’t know if you realize it, but you are responding to something Gene H said as if it was something that I said.
No, I was responding to your invocation of Natural Law and Natural Rights and other statements which I inferred from your writing are based upon property rights you consider inviolable; which I believe comes from seeing “life” as a property, and conflating the inviolable right to life with property.
DavidM says: I don’t disagree with that,
Which means my inference was correct.
DavidM says: So while you say that people don’t have a price, that comes from your experience rather than history.
No, I am fully aware people have been bought and sold and surrendered their liberty for a price. I do not base my claim on either history or experience, I base it upon logic and my philosophy.
DavidM: but because Gene mentions him,
Not because it was Gene, but because Gene provided what I consider a relevant excerpt of a viewpoint he attributed to Finnis. I am adopting the viewpoint Gene attributed to Finnis, it is a compromise I can live with. Whether Finnis actually HAD that viewpoint is somewhat immaterial to me; the viewpoint that “natural rights” can be described as self-evidently equitable principles is fine with me, I will use “natural rights” and use that definition. That does not make either Gene or Finnis Oracles in my view, it means that Gene has (once again) contributed to me something of value I can use. If I read your Finnis missive, I did not get anything of value out of your interpretation of Finnis. I grasped something of value from Gene’s.
DavidM says: My argument is that freedom and liberty is derived in the concept of private ownership of private property.
My argument is that you are wrong.
DavidM says: If what I have in my power to use might be taken away at any moment, I cannot plan to do anything.
Except your society has mostly prohibited that event by mutual agreement; and strongly limited (by law) the circumstances under which your property can be taken away from you for the common good.
Which makes your argument fall apart.
I’ve got to run, I have a meeting.