Tuesday, June 12, 2007

It IS His Land!

It IS His Land!

******************

I’m probably gonna tick some of the readers of this site off with what I’m about to say, but here goes, anyway: The land that Flight 93 fell to earth upon… BELONGS to the LANDOWNER! Yep! Simple as that! It’s his to do with what he will… or as the case may be, what he will not!

All I know about the fracas surrounding the attempt to acquire that piece of land is what I have read in the papers and seen, and heard, on TV. Admittedly, it was not much. But the fact remains, IT IS HIS LAND!

A man’s right to his property, and to do with that property what he will, was established as far back as the Magna Carta when King John of England was “forced to acquiesce” to his fellow Englishmen’s rights to hold property. Later those exact same rights were brought to America and incorporated into our US Constitution. There they remain… even today. As a matter of fact, our Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: that government must not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law are derived directly form the Magna Carta. With the addition of the Bill of Rights, to our US Constitution, specific protections for property rights were added, including the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment as well as five other clauses, indicating that the protection of property rights was a major concern in the crafting of the Bill of Rights.

There is an excellent article posted at:
http://prfamerica.org/SieganSynopsis.html by the Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc. The Article is by: by Professor Bernard H. Siegan. We recommend it.

For a very long time in this country, one could not vote if one did not own land. There are times, these days, when I feel there was a certain carelessness when this was changed. There are American citizens voting today who have no clue what, or for whom, they are voting. An owner of land, of property, has proven, already, that he has some responsibility about himself; else wise he would not be the holder of that piece of real estate.

There is one fact that remains constant: the landowner OWNS that piece of land! He can set any price he wants for the land, or, no price at all. If the would-be buyers want it… they can pay his price.

Unfortunately, experience has taught us that standing against an emotional wave is nigh unto impossible. So, I expect, in the end, the landowner will either have to sell the land, or suffer the weight of public rage, fueled by emotion, until he buckles.

It has been just a short time ago that the American public was all up in arms over the Supreme Court’s ruling for the right of Public Domain… for a city’s right to condemn a piece of property just so they could claim it, develop it, and increase that town’s tax base. I, too, think that is a horrible way to treat property and land owners in America. It very close, indeed, to what King John, of England, was doing when the landowners revolted and the Magna Carta was forced upon the King.

Then, there is the argument of what is MORAL in this matter. I won’t go there… except to ask, whose morality will be the standard used to judge the eventual outcome of this matter.

Seems to me, the landowner is well within his rights to ask whatever price the market will bear for his land.



Longstreet


Filed under:

5 comments:

  1. There are American citizens voting today who have no clue what, or for whom, they are voting. An owner of land, of property, has proven, already, that he has some responsibility about himself; else wise he would not be the holder of that piece of real estate.
    **********************************
    I agree with you, until you get to this point, but I disagree with this part, civil rights, such as voting should never be trumped by property rights. That is a common thing for the political right (wrong) in this nation. As far as the farmer maintaining ownership of his land I totally agree. I own my home, I have a family member who lives in a neighborhood where some white trash hoodlum got ran over, he was lying (stoned out of his mind) in the street at 5:00 am in the winter when it's dark out, and for about 6 month's the corner was turned into a hill-billy shrine, candles, wreaths, mice infested stuffed animals, beer bottles, joints and drug paraphernalia left and a drunken "mother" who for no better reason than trying to comfort herself for her failed attempt at parenting would show up drunk at 3:00 am and scream at the top of her lungs. A true testimony to classlessness whit trash if I ever saw one.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Two things, Frank.... One, don't confuse Hillbillys with White Trash. They are quite different. Some of the finest people I have ever met, in my life, could be referred to as "Hillbillys" and some did so proudly. White Trash is another matter entirely and the name itself identifies them.

    On the property rights thing... in so far as the priviledge to vote is concerned... and voting is NOT a constitutional right... I did not mean to imply that my feeling was absolute on that. If you wll look at the sentence just above the one you quoted, I believe I said: "There are times when I feel..."

    Lemme see if I can clarify it this way.... ever seen a van full of Mentally Retared people bused from their group home to a polling place to vote? I have. My point is that I feel there ought to be some kind of NATIONAL standard applied which would qualify one as a voter other than age and citizenship.

    Now, I know that raises hackles, but all one has to do is look at the people we (both sides) elect to office and right away, you have to ask yourself if the American electorate are ALL idiots?

    As always, best regards!

    Longstreet

    ReplyDelete
  3. The landowner should set the price - it's his land.
    You've got a "slippery slope" problem with voting rights - who decides where to draw the line...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wha Wadna Fecht for CharlieJune 12, 2007 at 5:28 PM

    “….ever seen a van full of Mentally Retared people bused from their group home to a polling place to vote?”

    I have also witnessed this – but on closer inspection I noticed they were not citizens casting their ballot - they were the politicians seeking election.

    ReplyDelete
  5. *********************************
    Yeah that's what I saw too, as long as you were talking how you feel Longstreet, then here's a litmus test for voting, I'll get flamed over this one, If you agree with ME on matters then you can vote, if not, "get back on the bus retard". (kidding, I was going to say that was the bus for Fred Thompson supporters) and Charlie
    *********************************
    I have also witnessed this – but on closer inspection I noticed they were not citizens casting their ballot - they were the politicians seeking election.
    ***********************************
    You must be a trained observer....

    ReplyDelete