3 Responses

  1. In first-year law school courses on “Property” you learn there’s no “absolute” in “fee simple absolute,” you quickly learn that there is no such thing as a nsupposed exclusive, extreme and total “right” in a parcel of land or any other tangible thing. The fraudulent and ignorant misrepresentational notions of “the movement formerly known as Tea Party” are so far off the beam as to be laughable if they weren’t so pernicious.

    What a person holds in respect to “property” is not some simple-minded “king of his castle,” absolutist “right.” Rather, it’s a bundle of rights, circumscribed by ancient doctrines and relationships (e.g., no sending your sewage onto your neighbor’s “property,” and other practical impositions of the Golden Rule) and of course all those constantly shifting laws and regulations that are often justifiable as checks on unbridled greed and abuse, and inevitably are also warped and biased and abused by those with power, including the rich folks who whine the loudest about the supposed horrors of “government compulsion” yet send their little back-door men to neak in with money-stuffed envelopes to add “suggested legislative model language” to “facilitate” stuffing personally profitable statutes and ordinances and rules into the “rights” bundle. And are among the first and worst, when it comes to siccing the “brown-shirted Code Enforcers” on their neighbors.

    Without correlative duties and obligations, there’s no such thing as “rights.”

    If you follow the fracking saga, or the planning for the Keystone pipeline, or the history of the railroads, or downtown redevelopment in any urban area, you know how stuff like “eminent domain” and regulatory capture works.

    Madison fertilized the TP convention on “property” himself:

    This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    There’s no such thing as that kind of “exclusion.” Before feeding the rather Top-Predator notions of “rights,” according to the the Norquist/Koch Right, one might ask for a little careful exegesis of the conundrum and violent interface that Madison kind of feather-dusts over:

    In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

    Emphasis in the original.

    And what is that “juster meaning” morsel supposed to convey, again? That the current huge lobbying to force EPA to “save our economy” by “leaving alone OUR right to burn OUR Clean Coal (sic, ha ha),” and the push to burn all the natural gas and “let nature take its course” as all the sovereign individuals in our combusto-consumer culture keep on with all the behaviors that are killing the planet (slower than the spoilers need to worry at all about, of course), is A-OK? Because under the spoils system, the Reds by consistency of effort have managed to pack the Supreme Court with “business-friendly” people, who have painted over all the principles inscribed on the barn door except “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”?

  2. Owning outright land, water, air and fire is total blasphemy. There must be a market mechanism for fair monthly/yearly rates for utilizing these four sacred elements.

Comments are closed.