(no subject)

Jul. 4th, 2005 10:23 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
"The Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) in Botswana is a vast, arid, yet immensely rich area, which for tens of thousands of years has been one of the chief hunting-grounds in southern Africa for the Bushmen.

They are small, hardy, intelligent and gentle people, who have eked out a life for themselves while the rest of humanity developed along completely different lines.

Bushmen is the term they themselves use.

They speak a series of remarkably intricate languages, involving a variety of clicking sounds. And they can live comfortably in terrain where you and I would die of thirst within two days.

But there are diamonds under the CKGR - potentially an important source, controlled by an offshoot of the gigantic De Beers organisation.

The Botswana government decreed that the Bushmen should be moved out of the reserve, and onto relocation sites outside, and this started in 1997. Their villages were pulled down, and they were expelled. It was often an ugly process."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4480883.stm


--------------------------

So, basically, the forced removal of Bushmen (which is just like the things that happened to indigenous people the world over as their conquistadors came to take their communal wealth) is similar in process to what has recently been ruled by the US Supreme Court. America gets it's just desserts? There's value in that land there, sorry folks, ya gotta go for the big corporation...

And they whine. Yes, I am disappointed with that ruling, but only insofar as I stand against it universally. Most of the people in the US who are affected by it don't even think about the consequences of such rulings as it pertains upon our own impact upon the rest of the worl. In other words, they weren't looking, they said they didn't give a shit. Hey, there's diamonds in them thar hills, and why not take it, who cares if a few bushmen get kicked out. It's good for our life here in the god-blessed United States of America!

Now you reap the shit that you had sown. You are now like the American Indians, the land of whom we took under pretenses of fairness and justice, all for the shit that we can exploit underneath that land. Just like is going to happen to you "middle-class" white america. Yeah, I feel bad for you, but maybe you'll get your head out your ass and start thinking of all the people to whom we did these very same acts that you now protest so strongly.
http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Press Release

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) 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.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.


On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the

Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire-scotus.html?incamp=article_popular_4
------
In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
---------

(no subject)

Jun. 23rd, 2005 01:55 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
Now, I'm not a fan of private property... but this is a question of 2 private battles.
----------
"WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a deeply emotional case weighing the rights of property owners and the good of the community, that local governments can sometimes seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.

In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.

The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales."
-------
I remember posting about this case earlier. Now, I hate private property, but I REALLY hate commercial private property. Again, I'm sure that this is a case where I'll end up agreeing with the (real) conservatives.

*sigh*

The march towards the incestuous relationship between capital and state continues ever on. Excelsior!
A woman sits by her demolished home in Harare



About 200,000 people have been made homeless, the UN says

Police in Zimbabwe have fought running battles with residents of one of the oldest townships of the second city, as they demolished illegal structures.

The BBC's Themba Nkosi says that Makhokhoba in Bulawayo was the centre of resistance to colonial rule.

One woman stripped naked in protest after police destroyed her shack.

A police spokesman said that more than 20,000 structures had been destroyed and 30,000 arrested in the three-week nationwide operation.
Original Post, my reply and other replies are here

Which was a mistaken post to my journal instead of a reply. I had received this reply and my reply is further below. Any comments are appreciated. :)

------- (Their response to my initial post) ----------
However, the biggest problem that I have with that is that it leads certain individuals (i.e. those with property) to have more rights than others (i.e. homeless people).

The state of property ownership doesn't grant you rights. You have the same natural rights whether you happen to be a billionaire or a homeless person with nothing but the clothes on your back. You have the same rights if you're living naked on a tropical island all by yourself.

Whether it is fundamentally fair that a wealthy person can obtain a prestigious and skilled attorney to escape or lessen punishments to which a homeless person would be subjected after their public defender fumbles the ball--and the even thornier question of whether we should do anything about this fundamental unfairness--is a separate issue. But it is not that the wealthy person has any mysterious "wealthy-person-only" rights that the homeless person does not.


------- (My Reply) ----------
I guess there's a few points of contention in our discussion that would need to be clarified. I have a feeling we approach things from different angles on at least two points.

1) The nature of "rights": That is to say... "What is a right?" I shall limit it in this context to the issue of privacy (which is really what I meant to say.) Privacy is not a "right" in the US Constitution, though we cherish it an awful lot. That said, assuming that we do appreciate and honor it as a right, there is still a discrepency. It naturally follows that if someone has property to live on, they have a certain amount of privacy which a homeless person, without that property, does not have. You can talk semantics and say they still have that right. But de facto denial of granted rights essentially means NO right.

It would be as if I were to give you a thousand dollars, and then told you: You just can't spend it. You can have it all you want. But what good is it if it can't be put into use? Now, seeing as how I used the term "right" instead of "privacy" you are correct. In theory we have public defenders who are supposed to be as skilled as expensive attorneys... Of course we all know that's completely not true. I'm not going to argue that with you.

2) The other issue I am curious to know about is the question of the origin of rights. If, as you say "we all have the same rights" (you use the term natural right, which appears to be taken from a more Constitutional, perhaps Libertarian (as in the party) point of view. Pleas correct me if I'm wrong.), where are these rights derived from? The founding fathers were Deists and appropriately used their reasoning to derive a set of rights based upon their philosophical premise.

I tend to follow Mao's statement that "power flows from the barrel of a gun." This is the source of "right." Not from a personal ethics (Theory) standpoint, but from a political and sociological standpoint (Praxis.) If we have different view of the origins of right, then we may never come to agreement. So be it.

3) What are these rights of which I speak? The issue of privacy, as I noted, is not guaranteed in the constitution. I add my own rights to what I perceive as sociological rights that are to be granted (ie: they are not natural, since I don't believe that they are ordained by "nature and nature's god.") These rights are the right to necessities of survival (Food, Shelter, Clothing, (clean) Water) And also the right to improve ones condition (this includes Education, Communication and Transportation. Especially the right to education, and higher education at that.)

I note that these rights are not to be construed as being equal in terms of ownership. There should be a minimum standard for all, but people don't automatically have a right to big designer name clothes, or a nice mansion.

Since my philosophy is always evolving and my knowledge is quite limited, I will not say that this is complete truth, even though I feel a moral conviction towards it's rightness. I am still working on how this applies in terms of distribution. Does a rich person have a right to better health care than a poor person? Do they have a right to make billions of dollars? My personal stance is "no." I am interested in hearing alternative POV's, but right now, I think wealth disparity and the feudalism that we still live in is quite dangerous to an individual's rights. I could also touch upon the issue of Maslow's Hierarchy, and how that it serves our corporate/feudal system to limit satisfaction of these basic needs (as animals and social creatures.) It makes more "holes" to fill.

Profile

symbioidlj: (Default)
symbioidlj

November 2015

S M T W T F S
1 234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 08:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios