From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jul 01 2005 - 00:20:04 BST
Hi MSH,
> On 30 Jun 2005 at 10:19, Platt Holden wrote:
> I hate to correct you, but it wasn't corporations who petitioned for
> the right to take your property and your freedom. It was local
> governments in order to increase their tax base, and the courts who
> gave local governments permission to do so.
>
> msh:
> This is a classic example of focusing on the "shadow cast by big
> business," rather than the shadow-caster itself. A little research
> easily reveals the ever-present incestuous relationship between
> government and private wealth.
So, you believe there's an incestuous relationship between government and
private wealth, meaning I presume that there should be no such
relationship between the two? We agree! Let's work together to get the
government's iron-fisted hand out of our pocketbooks!
> Here's a brief summary of the origin
> of this case:
>
> "In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant next to Fort
> Trumbull and the City determined that someone else could make better
> use of the land than the Fort Trumbull residents. The City handed
> over its power of eminent domain—the ability to take private property for
> public use—to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private
> body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development. As the Fort
> Trumbull neighbors found out, when private entities wield government’s
> awesome power of eminent domain and can justify taking property with the
> nebulous claim of 'economic development,' all homeowners are in trouble.
You bet. The key move here was "The City handed over its power of eminent
domain." I don't know why you can't see that legalized government force
is the culprit here. Without the threat of a soldier or policeman with a
gun, Pfiizer wouldn't be able to "take" property from homeowners. They
would have to buy it at a price set by homeowners on a the open, free
market. If you're interested in your freedom, you ought to focus on who
has legal authority to knock on your door and take you away in cuffs.
> http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/
>
> Here's more...
>
> "The controversy began in 1998 when pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a
> plant next door to the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Shortly thereafter, the
> City and its ally, the NLDC, determined that someone else could, in their
> opinion, make better use of the land than the existing home and business
> owners in Fort Trumbull. So the government and the NLDC began to condemn
> these properties and kick out the owners. The new development will
> supposedly enhance the new Pfizer facility. In fact, in December 2000,
> Pfizer guaranteed a $2 million dollar line of credit for use as working
> capital by the NLDC."
>
> http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/12_20_00pr.html
Ditto my sentiments above.
> msh:
> Please note the last sentence above: "...Pfizer guaranteed a $2
> million dollar line of credit for use as working capital by the
> NLDC."
That doesn't change the basic issue -- the use of government force against
disarmed victims.
> The point Arlo and I have tried to make regarding political
> philosophy is that a simplistic clinging to the red-herring false-
> dichotomy of "Liberals" vs. "Conservative" is a sure way to halt
> meaningful discussion.
Nothing false about the difference between liberals and conservatives as
anyone familiar with the history of the U.S. knows. It's a useful
generality when discussing politics, just as are the terms Communist,
Socialist, Fascist, Nazi, Anarchist, etc. Why anyone who turns to
government to cure social ills doesn't like to be called a "liberal" is a
mystery to me. If they truly believe in the perfectability of man, they
ought to be proud of their efforts to improve life through government
dictates. Conservatives on the other hand say government retards hopes for
a better life. Just look at Africa for a current example. Government
banned DDT. Result: Millions dead and dying of malaria.
>Today, particularly in the US, politics is
> about wealth, which means power, which means accumulation of more
> wealth. To call the Supreme Court's decision a "liberal" decision,
> to blame it on "the liberals," is to engage in regressive fantasy.
Talk about unsupported opinions! If you ask me, politics today is about
redistribution of wealth from the producers to the moochers. It was only a
matter of time before such redistribution would be turned on its head, as
is the case with the Supreme Court decision we both abhor.
> I will be happy to pursue this line of reasoning, and to show the
> connection to the MOQ and the Moral Society. All I ask is that
> divergent opinions be supported by evidence and argument.
Forge ahead. Don't let me stop you. I know many will be interested in your
idea of a Moral Society and how you intend to achieve it while taking into
account human nature and holding dear the MOQ ideal of freedom.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 00:18:30 BST