I'm not sure what to make of this...

[Ted the dog]

This is on CNN today:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html">www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/2...index.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I'm not a home owner and I've never heard of this law before...but it sounds pretty crappy to me. I get that their "official goal" is to generate money for individual cities and communities and all that, but who's actually making the calls on when and where and how neighborhoods can be chosen for development? and on top of that, who's making the call on who gets the development deals? the local governments? I dunno...that's just ripe for some crooked-ass manipulation, IMO.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Starman]

JaySuS!<br><br>And SO goes the onward consolidation of power by well-connected elites and the further usurption of individual liberty and personal autonomy, as the 'State' assumes ever-greater authority for itself to arbitrate between different competing interests.<br><br>The 'reason' given for these 'eminent domain' condemnations, to provide for increased tax-revenue and for the public's 'greater good' -- OhMyGaWd! & WhAtHeFu?<br><br>How many contradictions and hypocracies, inconsistencies and absurdities can the organs of gummint, ie Executive, Legislative and Judicial, spew before the ediface of seriously flawed reasoning they have created to 'stand' on becomes the quicksand quagmire that will swallow the corporate pimps and their criminal clients? On the one-hand, 'they' reduce and eliminate tax-revenue from corporate monopolists and their tax-avoidance schemes, refuse to eliminate the convenient tax-avoidance gimmick of offshore banking and shell-companies which amounts to many tens if not hundreds of billions of annual tax-liability dollars by international corporations doing major business in the US gone uncollected, and recklessly squander public funds in myriad unaccountable ways (while levying an enormous involuntary debt to future generations, shifting liability from mega-corporations and the wealthiest segment of society to the poor and working lower-middle-classes) ...<br><br>Of course, this 'decision' is a thinly-disguised consolidation of power into fewer-and-fewer hands;<br><br>"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."<br><br>(O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.)<br><br>And so it goes ...<br><br>The case for transformative, revolutionary, creative and progressive, non-violent Anarchy, to restore self-rule autonomy and liberty and social justice, becomes more improved and stronger every day.<br><br>Starman<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Connut]

This is incredibly scary. Now, for whatever reason, your local government can seize your property, not just the feds. So be careful not to piss anyone off. Has anyone read "1984 " recently? What Orwell wrote about is literally happening now. Strike back by joining Don Croft's move to raise the level of consciousness. You can find him at <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://educate-yourself.org/">educate-yourself.org/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br>Keep up with the three Gs - Grub, Guns, and Gold! <p></p><i></i>

[Ted the dog]

pretty scary, huh? Think about what this means...this means that in the same way that Bush can sign over development contracts in the middle east to his buddies at Halliburton, some local, "lower on the totem pole" version of Bush can do the same for some local, "lower on the totem pole" version of Halliburton.<br><br>Jesus...and I live in Los Angeles. we're already being bludgeoned to death with strip malls...god only knows what's going to happen now. <p></p><i></i>

[heath7]

what's really scary about this is that the dissenting votes were from the 'bad' guys; Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist (O'Conner always seemed somewhat sensible). <br><br>As with the medical marijuana decision a couple months ago, its the supposed leftists on the court who support this bad idea. It seems we're screwed no matter which side of the aisle makes decisions these days. <p></p><i></i>

[human]

i dunno, sounds not as bad as it may seem.<br><br>they are defering power to the states, 8 states already have laws that make what is going down in this particular case illegal...<br><br>essentially, its up to the local governments...<br><br>citizens could stop this in theory by passings local laws...<br><br>or if somebody comes to take your house, you could always shoot them in the face..<br><br>one<br>human? <p></p><i></i>

[human]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>It seems we're screwed no matter which side of the aisle makes decisions these days.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>ding ding ding! we have a winner!!<br><br>just... its nothing new.<br><br><br>political "power" has always = we will kill you otherwise..<br><br>just gotta call their bluff.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[human]

damn, i really gotta sign in...<br><br>i would edit the above, now i find myself doing this again...<br><br>sorry heath7, i apologize, i didnt mean to be as rude as i came off above...<br><br>i was busting chops, & still working on internet communication vs. translinguistic intention..<br><br>jokes = frustration. laugh > cry.<br><br>my bad...<br><br>serious things.<br><br>one<br>human?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[heath7]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>they are defering power to the states, 8 states already have laws that make what is going down in this particular case illegal...<br><br>essentially, its up to the local governments...<br><br>citizens could stop this in theory by passings local laws...</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>While the states can make their own laws, by hearing the case and forming and opinion, the justices made the issue federal. If they were truly deferring to states' rights, they would've slapped the case back down to the state level. Instead these 'liberal' judges chose to set the precedent, advocating land confiscatioin so that some rich bastards can get richer. <br><br>...I'll bet none of these greedy SOBs would ever think of inviting the landowners to be partners. These developers are nothing but bullies using the law as their leverage. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=heath7>heath7</A> at: 6/25/05 2:58 pm<br></i>

[wolf pauli]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html">www.freestarmedia.com/hot...erty2.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Press Release<br><br>"Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land. ..."<br> <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

This consolidates even more power in the hands of those with a lot of money--as if they didn't have too much already. In other words, a poor property owner has less property rights than one with money. Can you imagine the abuses this will result in? Someone who has made known their Dem political leanings will be fair game. And we go to war to "give freedom" to other countries? Wow. We're picking up speed down that slippery slope. <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

Sorry, staman (?), you took the words out of my mouth --and brain. <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

Here's an easy poll on the subject:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.etbj.com/">www.etbj.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[wolf pauli]

A good example of a poorly constructed poll. Opposition to the Court's ruling in this case needn't stem from the belief that "Americans have the right to own land", yet that's the only dissenting option the poll provides. <br><br>As Sandra Day O'Connor noted in writing for the minority, the problem with the ruling is that it's bound to lead to inequitable results -- a fact that has nothing to do with the alleged sanctity of the prevailing system of land ownership. Whether by design or sheer myopia, the poll encourages the idea that opposition to the latest court-sanctioned form of inequity requires a commitment to something even more inequitable, misguided and dangerous.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

"...requires a commitment to something even more inequitable, misguided and dangerous."<br><br><br>Explain, please. <p></p><i></i>