How do you explain something that you don't quite understand yourself? How do you break a topic down that most people are clueless about, when you are still in the beginning stages of learning it yourself?
I use to be a trainer and still am at times and I have been told that I am really good at it. I believe the reason I am so good at it, when I am, is because of the way that I think when I'm in the process of learning a new topic. I have a tendency to ask a lot of questions and am not satisfied until someone explains something to me in a very basic level where I can understand it from the ground up. I have learned that if I can understand nearly any topic at it's most basic level, then I can much better teach it to someone else.
What does all of this have to do with the topic at hand, you ask?
The past couple of years, particularly after supporting Fred Thompson and reading his and Thomas Sowell's writings, the light bulb has finally gone off over my head. I am finally learning just how much our freedom is related to our ability to own property. I am finally learning that the less government has the ability to interfere with what we earn and how it is spent, the more we are able to achieve. Not only does more government interference with our earning ability stifle us from being able to reach our goals, it also interferes with our being able to stay motivated to do the hard work that is needed to get to where we want to go.
In essence, the more government taxes us, regulates how business is conducted, passes legislative mandates in all areas including healthcare, the tighter the handcuffs that keep us from pursuing happiness. And in reverse, the less government interferes by lower taxes, less regulations, less mandates, the higher we can soar to where the sky is the limit.
I realize that to most of you reading this, you are probably thinking 'well duh'. But to me and I believe to most Americans, it is not something that we have grown up knowing. Which brings me back to my first point.
I tried explaining all of this to my son and it was apparent that I was not making a bit of sense or at least, if I was, I was not keeping his interest. While I can attribute some of his non-interest to his age, I believe a bigger part of it is that I simply don't understand economics enough myself to be able to use the right words to convey just how important all of this is to our freedom.
Not only am I wanting to explain this to him, I am wanting to explain this to others that I know that don't keep up with current events the way we do here at RightNation. This is where you come in. I am hoping that some of you who are more knowledgeable in this area can help me to better understand it in a very basic level so that I can tell others.
I remember a few years ago when another poster on this board was constantly talking about the relationship between fiscal conservatism and freedom, I accused him of caring about nothing but his pocketbook. Now, I'm finally starting to understand and wish like mad that there was a way to open the eyes of our fellow citizens.
In the end, when I was trying to explain all of this to my son and I realized I was getting nowhere, I finally just said it all boils down to taking from those who work, like us, and giving what we earn to those who don't, who are lazy. Now how do I go from that to explaining the biggest government power grab in our history via the so-called 'stimulus package'?
Elusively yours,
ilja
You are asking a few different things here, but I want to address the private property rights portion. Private property rights are the cornerstone to our republic. Forget about the rule of law, those come after the establishment of rights. Being a stakeholder in the USA has deep implications.
Look at owning a piece of property in our country like owning stock in a business. Our land is arguably the country's greatest asset. When we own something, it is to our and the country's benefit to make the most of it, to develop it, to increase it's value. It's a win-win for all parties involved.
Think about a nation where no one owned any property. What incentive is there to do anything to it other than make it livable if you happen to need to survive (roof over your head, a place to make a meal, etc theoretically covered by your local Big Brother). Communism ideally has no one owning anything, only having it given to it's citizens by the state, thus having that control over the citizen to take it away at any given moment. They own the land so they make all the decisions about it, you just do what they say. Depending on how aggressive the communist state is, a person would live in constant uncertainty and fear.
In a country where one can own a piece of property, or have a 'stake' in it, they have the freedom to do as they wish with the rights. If you are a renter, how much do you really care about keeping the property up? A passive desire at most because you don't benefit directly from putting money (capital) into your (rental) place. Being an owner, you have the maximum incentive to keep your piece of land up, to make it more valuable to you, to put capital into it and perhaps at some point, cash in on your investment. It builds wealth. The government has learned to take advantage of this in many ways, one being property taxes. If your property is worth more, the government benefits from it as well. That's also why, in recent history, you have HOA's that have standards for appearance of properties, they, the local gov't and least of which the property owner benefits from a properly maintained piece of property...as I said, a win-win for all involved.
We own a house (actually we own the mortgage, the bank owns the house), but we also own a rental property at a resort. The whole idea was to enjoy it one week per year, but to eventually sell it for a profit to put our boys through school. We have an important stake in keeping it up and to maximize our future benefit. We put money into it, we pay a marketing company to rent it out...we are motivated property owners.
For the government to take control of all property is to take total control of it's people. If that were to happen, people would be nothing more than a dependent, something that NEEDS it's government to survive. This is an incredibly dangerous government to live under, and besides survival, what is there to live for (leaving spiritual considerations aside).
In actuality, we really don't "own" property per se (we can't take it with us), we just have rights to it and pass those on either through selling the rights, or passing them on to someone in our passing. When the Kelo decision came down, that's why there was a backlash in the conservative community. Sure, the gov't has the right to "take" certain property rights away from people (for fair market value) if the rights are needed for utility easement, road construction, etc, but the key is they are to pay fair market value for those rights. In Kelo, the local gov't could take property from a private owner if they could draw an increased tax amount from the property developed in a different way (ie a shopping mall or apartment complex). This is a scary proposition to property owners who, for example, own a valuable piece of land in the heart of a city or business district. If this is there life's work as a business, the government should NOT have the right to swoop in and take it from someone for those reasons. How do you place a value on all the future business someone can do at a place such as this?
Our founders understood that the people needed a stake in the new republic they were trying to construct. They needed a way for people to buy into the concept of the new republic, and allowing them full rights to property was the way to seal the deal. It's gives people a stake, it builds wealth, and the government also benefits from it primarily by the increase in value (building the overall wealth) and later as a way to use that value to build the community through property taxes. If I'm not mistaken, most property taxes go toward state and community needs and not federal - a proper separation. Your schools, fire and police protection and perhaps some infrastructure capital are funded as such.
It's a lot of rambling and I probably have made a error or two, but I hope the spirit of property rights is explained for you.
Part of the problem is that generation after generation has been indoctrinated with the leftist myth that freedom is not ownership but the lack thereof. This concept has been preached by everyone from Emerson and Thoreau in the 1800s to people like Jack Kerouac and John Lennon in more recent times. People just don't want to open their eyes and realize that this IS a myth, and that those who have preached it rarely practiced it themselves and even when they did they were abject failures at it.
People instead want to persist in the delusion that the epitome of "freedom" is the waldenesque "simple life". Nevermind that, to the extent that Thoreau even lived at Walden at all, he was doing it on someone ELSE's property - his friend Emerson's. As its debatable whether he even lived there at all for the years he writes about, or whether he merely visited the place for a day or two from time to time.
Yet, this delusion persists.
I may be slightly off point, but property ownership and the "rights" associated with it are one of my big hot buttons. I live in a community that has a large immigrant population. They generally do not own property. Let's say, theoretically of course, that they had the privilege of voting in our elections. How is it right that anyone not owning property has a right to decide if I should pay additional taxes as a property owner. I pay for all the little perks that local and state officials place on the ballot to benefit them. Every election we vote in another bond proposal to pay for social handouts for the people who never have to pay for them, simply because they outnumber the people who have to fit the bill. If politicians were responsible enough to control their appetites for government "candy" things would not be as out of control as they are now. The left is not deluded that they are free. In fact, they are the only ones that are - free to propose irresponsible social programs and hand out our hard-earned money. I think it is time to challenge Kramer v. Union Free School District (1969).
There can be no personal property rights in a socialist utopia. Everything exists to serve the state, and the all knowing leaders will determine what you need. If the state leaders determine that you have more than you need then it is their duty to take it from you and redistribute it to those who are more worthy.
This post has been edited by leftcoast, right winger: Feb 16 2009, 05:22 PM
I live in a area that is full of rentals. The main reason the houses are rented out is because the owners if they tried to sell the properties would not get what they originally put into them because the area has gone downhill. I rent my home. I care about my home. In the spring I am going to put grass seed down that is resistant to dogs since my dogs have torn up the lawn, but most people who rent are not like me. They rip up the property because it is not theirs so they do not lose anything if it gets destroyed, they just move somewhere else. The instant an area starts getting a large number of rentals in it it usually starts going downhill because people do not have the incentive to take pride in the land. Whenever you own something it is more valuable.