Forums

[mafeki]

I was reading this PDF that you guys may or may* not find interesting however I'll quote what I'm talking about.

Most of our problems in the United States can be traced to a blatant disregard
for private property. Examine the quote of another American president,
Theodore Roosevelt: “Every man holds his property subject to the general
right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare
may require it.” 5
If I own a piece of property, I control what happens to it. If the community
has the “right” to regulate my property whenever it wishes, then I do not truly
own the property. I am merely occupying it through the generous will of the
majority. Both statements cannot be true at the same time.

Pretty interesting a president that a lot of people* praise yet has a point of view a lot of people would look at in disgust.

[-Alex]

Pretty interesting a president that a lot of people* praise yet has a point of view a lot of people would look at in disgust.

I'm not sure a lot of people would look at regulations in disgust. I think a lot of people like zoning rules, city planning, and the like to regulate what a building can look like - because that's something that's seen by everyone on and off the property.

But yes, technically if I were to fully own a property, I could do whatever I want, with no homeowners association to complain about me bringing down property values of the neighborhood or laws to break about structure and safety.

[mafeki]

Glad you brought that up, but I'm curious if you read that PDF. Most people are probably used it and don't understand what's going on with them and how they shouldn't be paying taxes if they actually owned their land.

[-Alex]

No, I was commenting more on your perspective and the specific quote on property regulation rather than Michael Badnarik's whole point of view.

To comment on his chapter in this book, I'd say that I disagree with his view on rights. He decides to define a right as something you can do without permission, and can't be revoked. Which, for one thing, directly contradicts his statement that rights imply a responsibility. If you're irresponsible with your right, you couldn't lose that right, or else it's a privilege, right?

I don't think he makes a consistent point. He touches on a lot of points, but doesn't follow through. He asks,
Does a six-year-old child also have the Right to keep and bear arms?" And his answer is that he wouldn't allow a child to have a loaded gun. He doesn't mention the right, he doesn't explain why it would or wouldn't. It honestly sounds like a high school paper.

[mafeki]

Yeah, I suppose what I think would be more distasteful is people who praise him if they fully understood how that was a socialist view. I like to use creative wording.

Rights and responsibilities are as inseparable as the
heads and tails of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. I
have a right to wear a gun on my hip, but I also have the responsibility to make
sure that no one is injured by it. Furthermore, carrying a gun does not give me
a right to your property. I only have a right to my property, not to yours.
It is a widely held position that a six-year-old child has the right to life.
I have never personally met anyone who has argued otherwise, but do not
assume that this is a universal proposition. Does a six-year-old child also have
the right to keep and bear arms? Very few of us—not even I—would allow
a child to walk around with a loaded firearm. That’s because a child does
not have the mental capacity to grasp the possible consequences and implicit
responsibilities of using a gun.

I agree but he sorta gives a reason though, you can infer that he thinks that people with little mental capacity shouldn't have a gun. As far as not explaining how you lose rights in this country once you're identified as a criminal, I think that goes beyond the scope of this book if I remember correctly it's for schoolchildren.[1]


On an irrelevant note I just realized I totally forgot how to do citations.....