Blogs I Follow
Blogs I Follow
- NEORENAISSANCE MAN
- Book 'Em, Jan O
- Lucas Le
- Gourmet Tommy
- Safira's Journey
- Rhythm In Life
- Little Fears
- Celestial Priestess's Fourth Density Journal
- Classy Puppies
- simple Ula
- History Present
- Truth Disclosed
- Madison Richards
- Michelle Lambert
- STUDENT CRACKPOT NEWS UK
- Ricardo Sexton
- An Obvious Oblivion Blog
- Faisal khan
- Emily Padilla
- Fun Wunderlust
- Just Wunderlust
- Wild Puppy Dogs
- Immortal words. Mortal me.
- The Lovely Cats
- ♥Drops of Human♥
- Cute Animal Lover
- Electric Music of the Muses ©️
- Marvelous Dogs
- AMERICA ON COFFEE
- Gyms and Fitness
- Cats Being Cats
- Paradiso con due dita...
- With love
- Cafe Book Bean
- When Timber Makes One Still
- Agape: Lifestyle Blog
- NEW BIRTH !!!!!@ InclusionChurch
- Cartea cu desene
loshame on Power concedes nothing without… Robin Porter on The Nora DeBolt collection and… Brenda on The Nora DeBolt collection and… Marcia on Hallmark Channel creates Chris… Jessica on Hallmark Channel creates Chris…
- 77,284 hits
- 2nd Amendment
- Computers and Internet
- Food and drink
- Gold, Stocks & Finances
- Health and wellness
- Life Liberty Property
- Movies & the Arts in Iowa
- News and politics
- Radio/TV/Internet & communications
- Sports & Games
- Stocks & Finances
- Upcoming Events
The downside to having a government run educational
system that is in the crapper, is that it becomes
ridiculously simple for the government to pull the
wool over the eyes of the citizenry, because they
have made us all, so impossibly stupid.
The Supreme Court rules that local governments
can take property for whatever reason it jolly well
pleases, and the citizens do not revolt?
The Communist Manifesto is full of language showing
that dear old Karl knew the importance of Property
to a free man, and why he had to break that connection.
That’s what the gist of Natural Law is, your first
property being your body, your second your money
and possessions, and thirdly your land.
The honest legal system, where property rights would
be respected and supported, could only have come
out of the system we had in this country, that type
of law known as Common Law. Where it would be stated,
that the purpose of government was to secure these
rights of Life, Liberty, and Property.
Here is where it gets a little fuzzy for me. I am told
that the Rockefeller Foundation in about 1957, was
instrumental in replacing the Common Law taught in
our law schools, with Torte Law. Whatever the details
of this may be, people have indeed become oblivious
to government encroachment on the rights of property.
One of the best examples of this ignorance of property,
is an example often brought up by economist Walter Williams,
and is seen here in Iowa quite often the last few years.
Since time began, the 2 types of land property fell into one of
two basic types of ownership, Private, or Public. Private property
being that land being owned by an individual or group of
individuals. And Public property being that land owned by
a City, County, State, or Federal government.
Private land did not necessarily mean "private", in the sense
the owner did not want people on his land. Any number of business’s
most certainly do want people on their land, malls, amusement
parks, restaurants, bars. Business usually does want the "public"
on their land, but it is still "private" property, because it is not owned
by the government. And just because private property
desires to have "the public" on its land, that does not
turn it into "public" property. There is a big difference between
"public", and "the public".
And, land owned by certain corporations, say a farm or a factory, is
private in both respects, it is private in the sense it is owned
by a group of individuals, and it is private in the sense the owners
do not want "the public" running willy nilly over their property.
As regards Public Land, the aspects are once again similar. Public
land is owned by the government, and sometimes "the public" is wanted
on the property, like a Social Security office, and sometimes
"the public" is not wanted on the government land, say a military
base. But in both cases, the land is publicly owned.
And throughout recorded history, that worked pretty well. Until
Socialists came along. Two of the most devious phrases in history
are, "its for the children", and, "we owe it to our seniors".
For "the common good", can justify all kinds of badness.
Here in Ames, we are familiar with tobacco Nazis. They have come
up with a phrase known as, "public places". This nebulous and
nefarious phrase didn’t exist in a legal sense 100 years ago.
Ames was a leader, and now the entire state of Iowa, has used
this now legal term, "public places", to determine the use of
land for the owner.
It would have made sense for the government to regulate cigarette
smoking on government land, everyone theoretically has a right/need
to go to a Social Security office for example. But the government
had absolutely no business regulating cigarette smoking at bars
and restaurants. People do not have a right/need to go to a
restaurant or bar. They have a choice. And in a free market, there
would have been restaurants for those who smoke cigarettes, and
restaurants for those who don’t. That’s what capitalism was supposed
to be, a system of voluntary agreements between individuals. You
as a business, either had what someone wanted, or you didn’t.
Now the government is more and more, making those decisions for us.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(the above is an excerpt from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution)