Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Rush Limbaugh's Ears
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] You know that, for some reason, I'm enjoying this a lot more without Jeff's participation? You Canadians seem to be a lot better at expressing your ideas than American liberals. [i]It is clear that Canada's constitution allows all citizens access to all services (private or public), and no citizen shall be denied access due to discriminatory reasons.[/i] Which is totally contradictory to the concept of private property. The concept of private property, by definition, is that if I own something, I can do whatever I please with it, be that give it away, hoarde it, trade it for goods or services, or burn it. So long as I am not harming someone else, I can do whatever I please. And if that means chosing not to give money to certain persons in exchange for whatever good or service, even for an incredibly stupid reason, that's my right, too, by the definition of private property. This anti-discrimination law impairs my right to do with my property what I please. It thereby takes control of that property away from me to a degree. Control IS ownership, regardless of what any papers might say. Therefore, a government that does not allow discrimination in private matters violates the private property rights of any involved party. And before you ask, no, discrimination does not constitute harm. Harm is defined as injury to one's person, or damage to or impairment of the value of one's property. Discrimination does neither of these things. [i]I don't see how PERSONAL property is violated in this case. The HRC does not confiscate property if it finds you participated in discriminatory affairs.[/i] Lack of control is effective confiscation, as above. [i]Ya know, I bet the issue of property is your biggest beef with the government...[/i] Yup. Socialism, in its purest form, requires that the government own everything. Thus, no private property, thus no way to guarntee that you won't be opressed. Any government regulation on private property beyond its use to do direct harm is a step towards that failed system. [i]I fail to see how HRC, Medicare, and other government infrastructure programs are invasive.[/i] HRC, or rather the constitutional clause that provides its authority, interferes with the rights of property owners to the free exercize of their property. Medicare simply leads to massive taxes, as well as (depending on the system) interfering with private practitioners. How much do you pay in taxes to cover your free health care? How much more money would you have, and therefore power to persue your own goals, if you didn't have to pay those taxes? [i]I need to ask, are there property taxes in the States?[/i] On most local and some state levels. Why? ALL taxes are, strictly speaking, property confiscation, not just property taxes. [i]Speaking of which, doesn't your government expropriate land from others to build government buildings?[/i] You mean steal? No. They buy it at full market value (or higher) and if they don't, large stinks occur. It's relatively rare that anyone doesn't agree to sell for the price they're offered. One example, though, is that some idiot three blocks down from me was offered probably twice what his house was worth for his land, so they could build a library there. He didn't sell, God only knows why. So they built the thing three blocks further away, in a flood plain. But they didn't steal his house, by any means. [i]However, if you are providing a service, you are obligated to serve all citizens of society.[/i] No, because it's your labor, and your property. :) [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3