It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Where do right wingers stand on property rights?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   
So long as the land owners are compensated at market value, I'd not have an issue what so ever. If it's just yanked away, issue.

It's one of the reasons I'm not a huge fan of the Wall...because of the doubts I have about fair compensation.




posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: soundguy

Globally or locally?

Where do you stand on Aboriginal land rights?

Who has the right to dwell upon specific tracts of land?



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: soundguy

What better way to protect property than a big wall?



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   
So if I am understanding you correctly. You’re okay with being forced to relocate on a national whim? You understand that you aren’t truly free unless you live in potters field, lol?This country has no future, I swear. seagull



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I have only a cursory understanding on that matter. I do not feel as though I can make an intelligent statement on aboriginal property rights. My first thought on the matter is; native peoples should always be granted “first right” as it pertains to riches and recusal of taxes. reply to: Sublimecraft



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I love watching the Republican's dance around this issue, this is entertaining

thank you OP



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I love watching the Republican's dance around this issue, this is entertaining

thank you OP



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   
It’s a pleasure my good man. Happy new year!


a reply to: toysforadults


edit on 1-1-2019 by soundguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: soundguy
It’s a pleasure sure my good soul. Happy new year!


a reply to: toysforadults




originally posted by: toysforadults
I love watching the Republican's dance around this issue, this is entertaining

thank you OP


I have to wonder what it is you two are trying to accomplish here.

It certainly doesn't seem like you want a discussion on how the government should handle property rights at all. You're too busy trying to pigeonhole and troll the board.

Thanks for letting everyone know though.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
So long as the land owners are compensated at market value, I'd not have an issue what so ever. If it's just yanked away, issue.

It's one of the reasons I'm not a huge fan of the Wall...because of the doubts I have about fair compensation.


And what if the owner doesn't want to sell? Take it anyway, forcefully? Edit: I mean with compensation, not just land-grabbing without payment.
edit on 1/1/2019 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Arbitrate in court.

Sometimes there is a greater need to the nation than to the owners.

This is where arbitration and just compensation come in. Let the system work.

The way some are discussing this issue is leaving all the facts out that change the circumstances. Sometimes it's appropriate and sometimes it isn't.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah




I mean with compensation, not just land-grabbing without payment.


If the government was doing this it would be grounds for war.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 05:09 PM
link   
My point is, it is all about freedom and rights. Where does blind allegiance begin and insanity take over? Seems most “internet” right wingers take the tack of, non land owners. Have no depth of understanding. Perhaps one day, when they actually own something, they will grasp the magnitude of such silly endeavors, like the wall. Once upon a time the land owners in this country only paid property tax for a standing army. How far we have fallen. Sad. to: projectvxn



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




Sometimes there is a greater need to the nation than to the owners.


so where does this idea begin and end?



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: soundguy

I am a right leaning centrist, and as such, don't really represent a true so-called 'right winger', personally.

But I know my right leaning centrist views are that if I am having deed to the land, and must be forced to pay taxes on such land, I should have dominion over said land.

That means - zero eminent domain.

An outside entity can always bid to buy me out of eminent domain, but I should always have the last right of refusal.

I wish my beliefs could be reality … but justice the way I see it is not practiced in the USA currently. Perhaps somewhere else in the world is more just?


edit on 1-1-2019 by Fowlerstoad because: rephrased last paragraph



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults




so where does this idea begin and end?


This is where a good conversation can be had, actually.

We do need to reform how eminent domain works. It should only be upon strict scrutiny and the narrowest of circumstances by which government could exercise its power of eminent domain.

Eminent domain just to expand a highway or make an addition to a privately owned airport should never be allowed. Protecting the nation's territorial integrity is a wholly different affair.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: soundguy


You're oversimplifying this issue in order to castigate right-wingers as if they don't own property.

This position is illogical and not a good place to speak from. This would be like saying that left-wingers don't have kids and therefore have no say in scholastic policy. We all know that's not true.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: soundguy
My point is, it is all about freedom and rights. Where does blind allegiance begin and insanity take over? Seems most “internet” right wingers take the tack of, non land owners. Have no depth of understanding. Perhaps one day, when they actually own something, they will grasp the magnitude of such silly endeavors, like the wall. Once upon a time the land owners in this country only paid property tax for a standing army. How far we have fallen. Sad. to: projectvxn



First off, you assume that a matter of national security is insanity and the property of right wingers... when Democrats wanted the exact same thing not 10 years ago.

Secondly, all tax payers now pay for a standing army. So don't know where you are going with that....

Unless you are pointing out the ever-forward Progressive march of increasing taxation, in which case I completely agree with you.

Get the Progressives out... pronto!

Third and finally, the easy solution for this is allow those who want a wall to get one built, those who do not, then don't.

Once Billy Bob and Betty Mae get tired of the illegals going through their property and not their neighbor's and they start to worry about their kids, possessions and livestock let's see what happens.

Entirely up to them, right?


edit on 1-1-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Eminent domain has to exist in some form or another or else we would never have proper infrastructure and utilities. Even if 99% of the population wanted a water pipeline or overpass, one landowner could force them to burrow under a mountain or some other nonsense.

That said, it has been abused terribly and should be more clearly defined at the federal level. It should always be voted on with the voting limited to those affected by the "improvement" (users and landowners). It should always be compensated by fair market value + an inconvenience fee (maybe 20 % ?), and it should never ever ever be used to put land into private development.

Is it perfectly fair? No, and it can't really be made so, but sometimes the greater good has to be maintained at some level and REAL infrastructure can't be held up by some straggler. Land use can't have no rules/restrictions whatsoever or the guy next door could just turn his yard into a bio-nuclear waste dump with no restrictions. Nobody who supports property rights thinks this either.

To infer (OP) that anyone who thinks eminent domain is an OK premise is somehow against, or hypocritical, about property rights is absurd. It is an unfortunate but necessary solution to a very complex problem.



posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Where do I stand? On the side of common sense.

If Eminent Domain did not exist, there could be no roads. In order to get form one place to another, someone would have to cross another's land. That someone else could easily lay down a layer of gravel and a put up a gate and charge a fee, pretty much whatever they wanted, for someone to cross. Personally, I don't think that would be a good idea, having to stop several times every mile to pay someone to open another gate. As far as that goes, someone could also decide they don't allow Cadillacs, or they only allow Fords to pass, or maybe only green cars. Or maybe they don't allow cars at all... only horse and buggy.

Most land would be useless... because it would be too expensive to just get to it. So we have Eminent Domain so the government can put in roads that everyone can travel. It benefits all.

Not far from me there are two extremely sharp curves in the road where it swings right for maybe a few hundred yards, then back left again. The two curves are 90 degrees, and the safe speed is 15 mph... and I don't mean the posted safe speed, either. I have seen people wipe out at 25 mph... beyond that, you pretty much have to drift the curves.

Why is the road like that? Well, it seems back in the days of yore, the county decided to put our road in. They bought up as much land as they could, and tried to use Eminent Domain for the rest. Back then the government wasn't as powerful as it is today, and one of the landowners decided that they would follow the property lines to not break up his land, and enforced it with a bunch of shotguns. So the government was stopped from making the road straight and today we have this dangerous set of curves that I traverse several times a week.

Back in the day when TVA was toying with damming up the river and providing power, many of the farmers who lived along the river were holdouts. They had lived on those farms for ages untold, and refused to sell out, despite them having to rebuild the places every few years when the river would swell from heavy rains and wash everything away. In the end, TVA forced the sales through Eminent Domain. Today that river no longer swells to a raging deluge every few years... instead it is a series of lakes connected by hydroelectric dams. The properties along the river are safe from flooding (outside the flood plain; it is illegal to own property in the flood plain, although those who own adjacent land are permitted to use it with the understanding it can flood at any time and they have no claim for damages if it does). The river is now a wildlife refuge which has some awesome fishing (open to anyone with a permit). We have fairly inexpensive and totally green power from those hydro dams. In short, the whole county has benefited from TVA damming the river.

That's my personal experience with Eminent Domain. In the first case, failure to allow Eminent Domain created a problem that has existed for over 100 years, and which likely will exist for at least another 100. In the second case, Eminent Domain gave the county cheap electricity, a more stable environment, and some of the best wildlands anywhere around.

Now, that said, I consider land as precious. Before the government should be able to take any property, they should have to demonstrate a serious need for it, and a need that cannot be reasonably accomplished any other way. Under no circumstances should land ever be taken for anything that is private enterprise. Private enterprise should have to negotiate with the owner for it. Personally, I think the government should be required to pay double the value if they have to acquire it through Eminent Domain, but that's not likely to happen.

I know what this thread is about, and it ain't Eminent Domain. If taking the property of a citizen is a bad thing in the minds of the pundits, then we wouldn't have criminal forfeiture before conviction, and we would never hear of private land developers going through the government to enforce Eminent Domain to acquire property for developments, both of which I consider a travesty of injustice. No, it's about someone who wants open borders so badly they will use any excuse to try to justify why the borders cannot be enforced. But a southern border wall is a government project that has serious national security implications if not built. That is the original intended purpose of Eminent Domain, and as such is proper.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join