Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Dec 12, 2005 in At TMV | 0 comments

Chipping away at our liberties, in the name of “what is best for the community”

Via Boudicca’s Voice comes a reference to how the system of government in the United States is beginning to resemble that of China in terms of ignoring property rights in favor of what is “best for the community.” From Ogre’s Politics & Views:

What a damn nightmare. As many as 6,000 people may become homeless, directly because of direct government action. Why? So some politicians can line their pockets with cash — I kid you not.

The situation, if you’re not aware of it, is that the mayor and government of the “city” of Riviera Beach wants to use eminent domain to kick 6,000 people out of their homes (where most have been for OVER 40 years) so he can give the land to other private individuals — developers who will build an aquarium, condos, a mall, and a yacht club.

While watching, I took some notes. Hannity, when speaking to the mayor, said at least 10 times, “So, you’re going to kick people out of their homes to increase your tax base?” The mayor would not respond. The mayor FINALLY said, in response to that statement, “We will rescue them.” Why? “For the good of the community.”

Welcome to Amerika, 2005. People have no rights at all. If you do not have the right to own property, you simply cannot have any other rights. Free speech? Sorry, you can be arrested for standing in the wrong place, since you cannot own land, so that right is gone.

Freedom of religion? Sorry, if you are in a church the government doesn’t like, they can take it from you and demolish it, because you have no right to own property.

Right to bear arms? Nope. If you cannot own property, government can, quite literally, take anything away from you that you own.

How about the right to be secure in your own property and “their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?” Nope. If you cannot own property, then this right simply does not apply. The government can just claim that your house is their house, and they can do whatever they like in their own house.

Boudicca’s view carries great weight because she is someone on the scene:

Now, as a person who lives 15 minutes from Riviera Beach… let me give you my 2 cents.

It is not a blighted community. There are parts that are. It is where our ghetto is located. Our crack houses and whores, drug dealers and general all around low life DO live in Riviera Beach. Parts of it.

BUT, there is much about Riviera Beach that is NOT all that. There are those old fashioned Florida concrete block homes, nestled close to the intercoastal. Nothing big and gaudy. Homes that are kept pristine with grown in landscaping.

And those homes… those homes my friends… are the ones the government in Riveira Beach REALLY wants. Forget the subsidized housing, the run down vacant rat shacks that harbor folks that are so strung out their worst fear is the DTs, not the rodents. Forget that.

Those are the EXCUSE. Those are the EXCUSE the government needs to get their hands on the Golden Chalice. Coastal Land that they can build upon… Claim other people’s land as their own, shuffle them off somewhere with a pat on the head saying, ‘See, we’ll look out for you’, moving them into some inner city apartment that has no family memories, no past Christmas dinners or children’s growth measurements on a door frame.

They use the ghetto as the excuse to develop land they have no right to develop.

This is exactly why I am suspicious of the promotion of business interests over the rights of the individual, which is what I perceive is the agenda of the non-religious component of the Republican Party. While I cannot truck with a lot of what the Democratic Party advocates, I find the wholesale invasion of privacy and undermining of fundamental rights undertaken by the Republican Party for reasons related to promoting business interests, along with imposing a morality through government combine to make a double-barreled threat that is far too often overlooked.

In other words, I am not pro-Democratic, I am anti-Republican, until they demonstrate they are NOT a threat to our liberties.

UPDATE: While the government officials involved in this particular case include Democrats, I am using this issue to illustrate why I distrust the Republican Party, which does promote business interests over individual rights. I am not saying the Democratic Party is immaculate when it comes to these types of issues; however, in general the Republican Party is not very concered with protecting the rights of individuals when they come in conflict with business interests.

Cross-posted to Random Fate.