Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Unwitting foot-soldiers in this thinly veiled Libertarian crusade"
That's how Fifth Circuit Court Judge Jacques Wiener described his colleagues in a snarky and clumsily written dissent in Severance v. Patterson, which deals with a challenge to Texas's Open Beaches Act by the libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation. Homeowner Carol Severance claims that the law violated her property rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Here's Judge Wiener:
[T]he real object of these Californians' Cervantian tilting at Texas's Open Beaches Act ("OBA") is clearly not to obtain reasonable compensation for a taking of properties either actually or nominally purchased by Severance, but is to eviscerate the OBA, precisely the kind of legislation that, by its own declaration, the Foundation targets. And it matters not whether Ms. Severance's role in this litigation is genuinely that of the fair Dulcinea whose distress the Foundation cum knight errant would alleviate or, instead, is truly that of squire Sancho Panza assisting the Foundation cum Don Quixote to achieve its goal: Either way, the panel majority's reversal of the district court (whose rulings against Severance I would affirm) has the unintentional effect of enlisting the federal courts and, via certification, the Supreme Court of Texas, as unwitting foot-soldiers in this thinly veiled Libertarian crusade.
Complete decision here (pdf).
It's true, the Pacific Legal Foundation is committed to defending property rights against government abuse. Just like the NAACP is committed to safeguarding civil rights. But what are the chances that Judge Wiener would dismiss the NAACP's efforts in Brown v. Board of Education or Buchanan v. Warley as "Cervantian tilting"?
|4.24.09 @ 4:14PM|#
WANTED: Unwitting foot-soldiers for a thinly veiled Libertarian crusade. Must own property. Horses and lances provided. [no drug test required]
JP|4.24.09 @ 4:14PM|#
1. I don't think he understands what "cum" means. (No, not that
meaning. The regular meaning.)
2. Damon is right. Our great country is teeming with organizations
that help fund cases in line with their underlying philosophies. I
assume Judge Wiener does not have a problem with the ACLU or the
SPLC?
Alan Vanneman|4.24.09 @ 4:16PM|#
I think it's the Judge's weiner that displays Cervantian tilting. On the other hand, when the Texas Legislature passes "open beaches" legislation, you know property rights are in trouble. Let's hope Ms. Severance has her twelve-gauge pump and thirty-ought-six in working order.
Renfairster|4.24.09 @ 4:17PM|#
WANTED: Unwitting foot-soldiers for a thinly veiled Libertarian crusade. Must own property. Horses and lances provided. [no drug test required]
What does a foot soldier need with a horse?
|4.24.09 @ 4:18PM|#
I don't think he understands what "cum" means. (No, not that
meaning. The regular meaning.)
It means "with", and I don't even know what to replace it with, his
writing style is so stilted. Wow. Maybe "vis-a-vis"?
Stretch that metaphor, Wiener! Stretch that metaphoric hole!
Paul|4.24.09 @ 4:19PM|#
I want to comment on this, having a bit of an opinion on open
beaches, public access/right of way to them, but the whole issue is
so muddled, I can't get my head around it. I just downloaded the
"openbeaches.doc" file from the TOBA site, and it rables on for
3,000 words about people with disabilities, race, sex, color,
religion(!). Then they reprint Title II of the ADA (Americans with
Disability Act), then they ramble on about hypothetical scenarios
of some disabled person with a walker or a Rascal(tm) trying to get
from one section to another...
Frankly, I'm confrused.
Mike M.|4.24.09 @ 4:20PM|#
What an awesome name, Jacques Wiener.
On the serious side, I have to say I find it a little disturbing to
hear a federal judge using his power to criticize a political
movement in a way that almost suggests that it is illegitimate. It
seems very inappropriate to me, and I think he should be careful
about going down that road.
Paul|4.24.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Ms. Severance has her twelve-gauge pump and thirty-ought-six
in working order.
No self-respecting Texan would ever have a 12 gauge pump. It'd be a
break-open...with the hammers.
JP|4.24.09 @ 4:22PM|#
It means "with", and I don't even know what to replace it
with, his writing style is so stilted. Wow. Maybe
"vis-a-vis"?
Yeah, I dunno either. I suspect the word he (or his clerk) was
reaching for may have been "qua."
|4.24.09 @ 4:27PM|#
The judge's decision is along the lines of the completely dopey
asinine, and mysteriously overpraised by secularists, decision in
Delaware(?) that overturned the mandated teaching of "intelligent
design" (ID) and did so NOT on the sound legal basis that ID was
bad or unproven science by any courtroom standard (which indeed ID
was -- bad science by legal standards) but instead overturned the
required teaching of ID because the mandated ID teaching
constituted establishment of religion. It was so found to have been
so because a fundamentalist religious agenda/movement was behind
it.
Same type of debased reasoning by the dissent here -- we judge the
merits of a decision by whose agenda/movement it advances.
Stupid in the ID case, stupid in dissent here.
JP|4.24.09 @ 4:31PM|#
The ID case was in Pennsylvania. The court's reasoning there made sense because the First Amendment bars the advancement of religion in public schools. Judge Wiener's reasoning, however, is retarded because there's nothing about the goals of libertarians that means their organizations can't seek to have certain laws overturned.
|4.24.09 @ 4:34PM|#
"What does a foot soldier need with a horse?"
After a few weeks in the crusade you can level up to a horse.
Duh.
|4.24.09 @ 4:49PM|#
matthew h
Were you dropped on your head as a child? The only thing these
decisions have in common is they both uphold the
constitution.
The first amendment prohibits the establishment of religion.
The fifth amendment prohibits the taking of property without just
compensation.
|4.24.09 @ 4:50PM|#
I know I'm kinda retarded and stuff and my writing is convoluted as hell. Did I read this right? Did this Weiner disagree with a case of law because of the political beliefs of someone involved? If so, that's Delta Burke sized douchebaggery.
JP|4.24.09 @ 4:56PM|#
Did this Weiner disagree with a case of law because of the
political beliefs of someone involved?
Pretty much, yeah. He doesn't actually say that that's the reason
why he's dissenting, but he does say that it provides the
"framework" for his dissent.
|4.24.09 @ 5:01PM|#
Yeah, I dunno either. I suspect the word he (or his clerk) was reaching for may have been "qua."
There's the
other Latin cum (the conjunction, rather than the preposition),
but that doesn't quite work either, at least in the native Latin,
but it's slightly closer.
However, the judge's usage is considered standard in English, see
for example here. It's not
how the Romans would use it, but the meaning of "along with being"
in English has been around for 150 years.
robc|4.24.09 @ 5:01PM|#
His "actual" argument is that the easement took up 100% of her property, she just didnt realize it. And the state would only use part of it (which could be all 100% sometimes) at any given time but that part will move around. But she should just deal with that. No takings involved, its ALL the states land to begin with.
T|4.24.09 @ 5:15PM|#
No self-respecting Texan would ever have a 12 gauge pump.
It'd be a break-open...with the hammers.
Screw that. I'm a self-respecting Texan and I don't have a
break-open anything. If it won't hold at least 5 rounds of 12 GA, I
got no use for it.
Fluffy|4.24.09 @ 5:20PM|#
Same type of debased reasoning by the dissent here -- we
judge the merits of a decision by whose agenda/movement it
advances.
I don't think there can be any dispute that the majority opinion in
Kelo was motivated first and last by the desire to avoid
creating a precedent future libertarian litigants could employ to
expand the protections of the 5th Amendment. Literally every
pre-decision discussion of the case I saw contained some variety of
"Oh noes! If we rule for the plaintiff, those scary libertarians
will come get us!" The majority merely sat down and said to
themselves, "What kind of bullshit do we have to write down herre
to justify making sure libertarians lose?"
Fluffy|4.24.09 @ 5:31PM|#
Actually, I just read the dissent, and here's the really
interesting thing:
If we take the dissent logic seriously, the passage of the OBA in
1959 gave the state a blanket easement over every piece of
property in the state, because it gave the state an easement
over the beach below the vegetation line, and if the vegetation
line moves the easement moves with it - so if the Gulf of Mexico
encroaches to El Paso next year, no one who "instantly" owns brand
new beachfront in El Paso gets to say that the state is taking
their property.
This seems ludicrous to me. Legislation which takes all property
everywhere away from everyone in the state pre-emptively, the
taking being actualized if some future condition changes, would
seem to me to violate the principle of substantive due process.
It's like passing a law pre-emptively declaring everyone guilty of
murder, and telling individual defendants they can't defend
themselves against individual charges of murder later because of
this pre-existing law.
Rimfax|4.24.09 @ 5:48PM|#
I'm just glad that he didn't say anything that I could agree with. That would have been embarrassing to have such a dipshit advocating for my side.
Paul|4.24.09 @ 5:55PM|#
Screw that. I'm a self-respecting Texan and I don't have a
break-open anything. If it won't hold at least 5 rounds of 12 GA, I
got no use for it.
You might say you're a self-respecting Texan, but sayin'
it don't make it so. For instance, I'll bet there are vegans that
don't drink that would claim they're self-respecting
Texans...
Only two kinds come from Texas, and frankly, good sir, I don't see
any horns on you...
|4.24.09 @ 6:01PM|#
It's time to stop applying logic and just accept that whatever
the government does is right and legal.
Besides, if it's illegal today, they'll use their Wayback Machine
tomorrow and straighten everything out.
|4.24.09 @ 6:30PM|#
Were you dropped on your head as a child?
Yes, and I still turned out smarter than you.
The only thing these decisions have in common is they both
uphold the constitution.
In effect, yes, but not necessarily in reasoning.
The first amendment prohibits the establishment of
religion.
Bet you got all A's in school!
The fifth amendment prohibits the taking of property without
just compensation.
Actually it prohibits the taking of property for public use without
just compensation. (Can take for penalty witout compensation for
example.)
Anyway, my point stands, ID should have been overturned as unsound
science on Daubert and related grounds, with the establishment
clause maybe thrown in as a rhetorical cautionary nail in the
coffin ("this also could lead to...."), and not by arguing
dipshittedly, as happened in that Pennsylvania case that teaching
ID would to steal the dissent language in this one here, make one
"unwitting foot-soldiers in this thinly veiled
cristofascist/fundamentalist crusade".
Brian Sorgatz|4.24.09 @ 6:55PM|#
If James Bond were gay, Judge Wiener would be one of his love interests. I'm just saying.
Mad Max|4.24.09 @ 7:31PM|#
'ID should have been overturned as unsound science on Daubert
and related grounds'
Daubert involves the Federal Rules of Evidence, which don't bind
local school boards - not even under the nationalist constitutional
interpretations we've been getting from the Supreme Court.
MNG|4.24.09 @ 8:35PM|#
"Whasamatta, Judge - ya got somethin' against liberty?"
WTF? How can an opinion which would enable more folks to the
freedom to use the beaches be seen as "against liberty?" Against
these mystical "property rights" that are much loved around here,
maybe, but liberty? Are more folks choices restrained or opened up
by this decision?
Propertarians, embrace the term. C'mon, you know you want to.
MNG|4.24.09 @ 8:39PM|#
Fuck your idea that you can tax the rest of us to support a police force to enforce your claims that this land is "yours" and anyone acting differently should be removed by government force. You pro-government pricks.
Stormy Dragon|4.24.09 @ 9:45PM|#
It's like Joseph Heller wrote an episode of Law & Order. You can challenge an unjust law in court to have it overturned, but the fact your were willing to spend thousands of dollars to get the law overturned show you have a personal issue with the law and thus your case fails.
Mad Max|4.25.09 @ 12:06AM|#
MNG,
You're right, the right to private property in land is just a bunch
of mystical nonsense. The
Ukrainians in the 1930s didn't have private property in their
farmland, and they did fine. The government was even able to
address the Ukrainian obesity epidemic.
JB|4.25.09 @ 2:38AM|#
Whereas Jacques Wiener loves government abuse. He likes being
abused in every orifice he has twice over.
Someone should beat the living fuck out of this fucking piece of
shit shit-licker. I will cheer when that happens.
MNG|4.25.09 @ 10:08AM|#
Yeah Max and property rights did wonders for those same Ukranians during serfdom!
alan|4.25.09 @ 12:01PM|#
Screw that. I'm a self-respecting Texan and I don't have a
break-open anything. If it won't hold at least 5 rounds of 12 GA, I
got no use for it.
Not being a Texan and having no need to prove my manhood or
overcompensate for a lack thereof, I have to say, I don't care what
kind of gun is in my hand, anything that lets me smite a
motherfucker is a vast improvement over my dainty little hands.
MNG|4.25.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Actually Max I should think there was a lot about Stalin you would like. He banned abortion and would certainly have been against gay marriage...
J. B. Babcock|4.25.09 @ 3:19PM|#
WTF? How can an opinion which would enable more folks to the
freedom to use the beaches be seen as "against liberty?" Against
these mystical "property rights" that are much loved around here,
maybe, but liberty? Are more folks choices restrained or opened up
by this decision?
Propertarians, embrace the term. C'mon, you know you want
to.
Yeah Max and property rights did wonders for those same
Ukranians during serfdom!
Were these comments written by a PHD in political science, or
someone with 6 credit hours in the subject from a community
college?
Anyone buying it?
J. B. Babcock |4.25.09 @ 3:48PM|#
Against these mystical "property rights" that are much loved
around here, maybe, but liberty? Are more folks choices restrained
or opened up by this decision?
There is a lack of awareness in this remark that he is expressing
an outlier position whereas the libertarians are arguing about
encroachments on long establish principles at the foundation of
Western law.
Yeah Max and property rights did wonders for those same
Ukranians during serfdom!
What defines a serf is limited property rights, and given, the
czars were absolute monarchs and not 'capitalsit robber barons' the
nudge at libertarians here is just stupid.
A PHD would fear coming across as a ignoramous by expressing either
of these statements. I realize to the extent that graduate level
studies are suppose to be filter on the ignorance in a subject for
those that are enrolled in them, they have failed to some degree
but it is not possible to this degree.
MNG|4.25.09 @ 4:55PM|#
There most certainly were property rights in the days of the
czars, and that was my point, that the existence of those rights
did not help the serfs much...
"There is a lack of awareness in this remark that he is expressing
an outlier position whereas the libertarians are arguing about
encroachments on long establish principles at the foundation of
Western law."
I'm not sure what you're getting at, in fact I'm not sure you are
sure what you are getting at, but my point is that the denial of
the beach access rights in this case may be seen as a victory for
the property rights of those who own coastal land but, as it will
cut off many from exercising choices they once could have, is
hardly a victory for "liberty."
But I'm guessing you are trying to say something about property as
a right, a natural right or something. And yes that is an idea
often found in Western law, but so is the idea that this "right" is
a positive right only, a simply utilitarian right that cannot and
should not override the general welfare.
"Were these comments written by a PHD in political science, or
someone with 6 credit hours in the subject from a community
college?" And the veritable fount of insight and substantive
argument you've generated indicates what level of "schooling" for
you? Beauty school drop-out?
I know what my own education is dude, get bent.
MNG|4.25.09 @ 5:03PM|#
But of course you're going to say that under serfdom there just wasn't the right or proper application of the concept of property rights. But of course the Marxist can say that under Stalin there just wasn't the right or proper application of the abolition of property. Yada, yada, yada.
J. B. Babcock|4.25.09 @ 6:03PM|#
Read the decision before you emberass yourself any
further.
Wikipedia may help you understand what serfdom meant, but as it
stands what you have written shows you have not a clue. Still, you
should hate yourself for what you first wrote reveals about your
knowledge.
I know what my own education is dude, get bent.
It is a good thing you know because it remains a mystery to anyone
else.
robc|4.25.09 @ 6:20PM|#
denial of the beach access rights
WTF? There is no such thing as beach access rights. You have the
right to access any beach you own and no more.
engineer|4.25.09 @ 7:12PM|#
"Fuck your idea that you can tax the rest of us to support a
police force to enforce your claims that this land is 'yours' and
anyone acting differently should be removed by government force.
You pro-government pricks."
That's good anger you're showing, MNG. Keep it up and you might
bring about Ragnarok from your flame war with Gillespie.
Mad Max|4.25.09 @ 7:53PM|#
It wasn't the commies in Russia who abolished serfdom, it was Tsar Alexander II. He did it at about the same time the U.S. abolished slavery, and with less bloodshed.
MNG|4.25.09 @ 8:54PM|#
Gotta love someone like "Babcock", obviously some regular taking
out a new handle for a spin. But perhaps he can make a substantive
point other than "what you write is wrong and silly?" I'm afraid if
you are not aware that the position that there are no natural
rights of property is a "long establish [sic] principles at the
foundation of Western law" and American law at that, and certainly
of political philosophy. Hume, Bentham, Plato, all thought there
was no natural right to property, that at most property law may
have some utilitarian value, but none in itself. But I imagine
you're not to familiar with these thinkers, as they are not
regularly featured on Lew Rockwell's site.
"Keep it up and you might bring about Ragnarok from your flame war
with Gillespie."
Flame war with Gillespie? WTF are you talking about?
"It wasn't the commies in Russia who abolished serfdom, it was Tsar
Alexander II."
Uh, yes, so? My point was, in response to your post to the effect
that property rights would have protected Ukranians from bad
treatment under Stalin that the existence of property rights did
not protect the majority of Russia's population from awful
oppression.
"There is no such thing as beach access rights. You have the right
to access any beach you own and no more."
Nope.
http://www.texasopenbeaches.org/open.htm
MNG|4.25.09 @ 8:56PM|#
The U.S. Constitution, for example, does not mention such a
property right. It explicitly empowers the government to take
property in the form of taxes, to take land for public uses, and to
deprive people of property as long as due process is followed
(compare to its treatment of other rights such as freedom of
speech).
Sorry Babs.
Mad Max|4.25.09 @ 9:38PM|#
'the existence of property rights did not protect the majority
of Russia's population from awful oppression.'
Even before the commies, Russia had a fairly tenuous concept of
property rights. These rights tended to be subject to the Tsar's
whim. This may be why Russia was more vulnerable to Communist
takeover than the more "advanced" states where (according to
Marxist theory) the revolution should have come - when a country
already has a tradition of dictatorial rule overriding private
rights with a ruler's whim, then perhaps there's less resistance to
be overcome when the Reds seek to take over.
Anyway, whether you trace the insecurity of property rights to the
Tsars or the commies, or both, the Ukrainians suffered from the
lack thereof.
Not sure why criticizing the commies necessarily entails praising
the Tsars - that's what you might call either/or thinking.
engineer|4.25.09 @ 9:42PM|#
"Not sure why criticizing the commies necessarily entails
praising the Tsars - that's what you might call either/or
thinking."
Mad Max, you have entered the Lefty Zone. You either support the
abolition of private property, or you're a supporter of absolute
monarchy. Join us, Max, join us.
Or you can just walk away. We will grant you safe passage through
the desert.
Mad Max|4.25.09 @ 9:43PM|#
Tsarist restrictions on private rights included such things as residential restrictions on Jews, lifetime conscription for certain Jews, serfdom (prior to the 1860s), and of course the right of the Tsar to abolish trial by jury whenever a jury rendered a decision the Tsar didn't like.
Mad Max|4.25.09 @ 9:53PM|#
Micah 4:4 (Douay-Rheims version): "And every man shall sit under
his vine and under his fig tree, and there shall be none to make
him afraid . . ."
Micah 4:4 (MNG version): "And every man shall sit under a vine and
fig tree designated for his temporary use by the supervisor of the
government-owned collective farm, provided of course that the right
people are in government and the man hasn't been criticizing the
government lately or otherwise provoking the government into
evicting the man from 'public' property."
MNG|4.25.09 @ 10:56PM|#
"when did MNG become a Kropotkinian anarchist?"
We had one on H&R a few times, and I do think like them, if I
read them right, that it's kind of funny how the anti-government
libertarian does not see how much government coercion goes into
establishing property. I would be though they would not like my
utilitarian justification of most property laws.
Max
I think property rights do have value, utilitarian value. And that
value may protect folks in a situation like the Ukrainians. But I
don't think it is a "natural right", in fact I don't believe in
those at all. What this means is that where property rights do not
lead to greater overall welfare for society they must give way, and
where they do lead to greater overall welfare they are to be
defended. Oppression can exist in a system of property rights or a
system without one. Of course, you could get out of that by just
defining property rights in such a way that oppression could never
result, essentially calling property anything that would be a good
right to have, but that's a pretty bad argument to make...
MNG|4.25.09 @ 10:58PM|#
Whoops, I mean "I would think they would not like my..."
Again, ideas of property asw a natural welfare trumping right just
makes no sense. Locke went that way, but as even Nozick pointed out
his ideas don't wash. I agree with Bentham, natural rights are
nonsense and natural law is nonsense on stilts (or vice versa)
=|4.25.09 @ 11:07PM|#
Fuck your idea that you can tax the rest of us to support a
police force to enforce your claims that this land is 'yours' and
anyone acting differently should be removed by government force.
You pro-government pricks.
I don't see why you would have a problem with it, MNG. Afterall,
you wouldn't want to restrict the public's access to your wealth,
would you? I mean it's in the interest of the "general welfare" as
decided by anyone except the one who is getting screwed
over. You aren't trying to claim a property right to your money,
are you?
While we're at it, since you think property rights don't have any
validity and are merely based on "superstition", I guess you won't
mind too much if a bunch of us decide to have a bit of "open
access" to your wife ( if you have one.)* I suppose that would
probably violate the most basic of all property rights, namely the
right to her life and body...but hell, that's just superstition,
isn't it? And who is to say it isn't in the interest of the general
welfare? Certainly not her or you - you two can't be trusted to be
free of bias.
* If you don't have a wife, I suppose some of us here could make do
with open access to your ass.
=|4.25.09 @ 11:08PM|#
I suppose some of us here could make do with open access to
your ass.
Providing you pulled your head out of it first.
engineer|4.25.09 @ 11:11PM|#
"While we're at it, since you think property rights don't have
any validity and are merely based on "superstition", I guess you
won't mind too much if a bunch of us decide to have a bit of "open
access" to your wife ( if you have one.)*"
Um, that argument sucks. And remember, I'm on your side of the
argument.
engineer|4.25.09 @ 11:14PM|#
Though it does raise the question as to whether or not ideas of self-ownership (which nominally have greater acceptance the idea of property rights per se) can be sustained if one denies other property rights, it fails for other, rather obvious reasons.
=|4.25.09 @ 11:21PM|#
...it fails for other, rather obvious reasons.
Aside from the absurdity of it, the reasons are not all that
obvious to me. Care to ellucidate?
=|4.25.09 @ 11:44PM|#
...it does raise the question as to whether or not ideas of
self-ownership (which nominally have greater acceptance the idea of
property rights per se)
On the contrary - I think the idea of self-ownership historically
has less general acceptance than the idea of property
rights per se. A great many people who would be outraged by
government's taking of one's home or land have no problem at all
with government taking a portion of one's life - indeed all of
one's life - to serve the "national interest" in the military, ie.,
the draft.
=|4.25.09 @ 11:47PM|#
In any event, this will have to be continued another time. It's late and I need to go to bed. Goodnight.
|4.26.09 @ 12:07AM|#
The U.S. Constitution, for example, does not mention such a
property right. It explicitly empowers the government to take
property in the form of taxes, to take land for public uses, and to
deprive people of property as long as due process is followed
(compare to its treatment of other rights such as freedom of
speech).
I've read some sophistry in my time, but this takes the cake.
J. B. Babcock |4.26.09 @ 12:11AM|#
No matter how many words, phrases and paragraphs you ply to
gather, MNG, your Cliff Notes and back jacket version of legal and
political theory does not in any way successfully obfuscate the
fact that you have no idea what this case is about, and in a
broader since, you have little understanding of what you are
writing about.
Being defensive and attacking someone who is just trying to help
you not embarrass yourself is not the right way to go. Look deep
into your heart and ask yourself why you consistently, like
clockwork, come up with the most pat, uninformed statements
possible to any given subject at hand, in spite of the fact you
claim a high degree of educated opinion.
You plan to be here for a long time, I do as well, so I am only
trying to make the experience pleasant for everyone, and your
defensive manner when you are confronted with the obvious does not
help. I'm sorry if this is uncomfortable for you, but I have
confidence that we will make it through this process and you will
come out of it a much better blog commentator than you have so far
demonstrated.
In the end you will thank me.
Kolohe|4.26.09 @ 1:00AM|#
We will grant you safe passage through the
desert.
But only if you pay the toll!
(sorry)
I'm broadly sympathetic to the public policy of making everything
seaward of the vegetation line public property (Hawaii has just a
system), but Jesus H Christ MNG, your concept of property rights is
out to lunch.
J. B. Babcock |4.26.09 @ 1:12AM|#
But perhaps he can make a substantive point other than "what
you write is wrong and silly?"
This is a ruse. I dealt with the substance of your errors in a few
sentences, and that was all that was really needed, like
here:
What defines a serf is limited property rights, and given, the
czars were absolute monarchs and not 'capitalsit robber barons' the
nudge at libertarians here is just stupid.
My complaint is that in your stunning ignorance, you revealed you
do not know what the word 'serf' means, and you do not understand
that Eastern Despots and Western nations developed legal systems so
different that it is impossible to write Yeah Max and property
rights did wonders for those same Ukranians during serfdom!,
and have it mean something contextual to the world we live
in.
Here you state:
I'm afraid if you are not aware that the position that there
are no natural rights of property is a "long establish [sic]
principles at the foundation of Western law" and American law at
that, and certainly of political philosophy.
I'm sure this sophmoric bullshit session sounded good in your head,
'Natural Rights, 'Hume' etc., but it has little to do with Damon
Root's post, little to do with the case, and nothing to do with my
complaint.
robc|4.26.09 @ 10:35AM|#
http://www.texasopenbeaches.org/open.htm
WTF does that matter? Rights are not granted by governments, they
come from God.
robc|4.26.09 @ 10:36AM|#
Cattlemen have no right to cattle trails either. If the owner of the trail wants to fence it off, so be it.
robc|4.26.09 @ 10:48AM|#
I'm broadly sympathetic to the public policy of making
everything seaward of the vegetation line public
property
The KY-IN (and Ky-OH and Ky-Il) border is defined by the location
of the Ohio River at the forming of the state of KY. I mention IN
because the lawsuit that settled this involved them.
Practically, what this means is that while in 1792 the entire river
was in KY (I forget if high water mark, low water mark or mean was
the standard used), NOW part of the river is in IN (allowing river
boat gambling) and there is some land in KY north of the river
(including the Ellis Park racetrack which faces south across the
river to Henderson, KY).
Basing the boundaries off a quickly fluctuating natural feature
seems silly.
I think this comes back to the general treatment of large bodies of
water as commons. Allow rivers/oceans/large lakes to be owned and
problem solved.
MNG|4.26.09 @ 10:58AM|#
"Being defensive and attacking someone who is just trying to
help you not embarrass yourself is not the right way to go. "
Lord, physician heal thyself! Still nothing like the barest
elements of an argument or point from you.
"My complaint is that in your stunning ignorance, you revealed you
do not know what the word 'serf' means, and you do not understand
that Eastern Despots and Western nations developed legal systems so
different that it is impossible to write Yeah Max and property
rights did wonders for those same Ukrainians during serfdom!, and
have it mean something contextual to the world we live in."
I'm glad you say you like context, because here is some. Max posted
a link to Stalin's treatment of citizens of Ukraine as a way to say
that property rights are crucial to protecting folks from tyranny.
And I, sticking with his example, Ukrainians, made a joke that
yeah, property rights really helped them during serfdom! The point
that they had a system of property rights under serfdom, yet the
Ukrainians still suffered. In fact, under serfdom the property
rights of the owners of land extended to "owning" the labor and
fruits of said labor of the serfs that were tied to the land, so in
a sense it could be seen as a hyper-property rights system.
"I'm sure this sophmoric bullshit session sounded good in your
head, 'Natural Rights, 'Hume' etc., but it has little to do with
Damon Root's post, little to do with the case, and nothing to do
with my complaint."
Well, I'll excuse myself a bit if I didn't address any of your
substantive points, because you haven't expressed any. What is your
take on the case? What is your complaint, other than "I don't like
what you wrote I think its silly", and what is, in your mind Damon
Root's post about, and what is your opinion of the case?
Here, I'll help. The case has to do with a challenge, on
constitutional grounds, to the Open Beaches Act. I posted a link to
what that act is all about upthread. Root's point seems to be that
the curt dismissal in a dissent of the groups who helped bring the
challenge is a unwarranted cheap shot, that were the groups trying
to defend some right other than property rights, a la Brown v.
Board, that kind of language would be more obviously
unwarranted.
Now, then many posters decried the Open Beaches concept, and that
brought on my post in which I pointed out that this is an example
of where a victory for property rights means a blow for liberty,
illustrating my long held and expressed opinion here on H&R
that for many libertarians property trumps liberty and hence the
label is a misnomer. I also pointed out my long held position that
"natural" property rights is a nonsense concept, and to your
bellyaching about Western tradition I easily refuted it by pointing
out that such a notion has quite a long and respectable pedigree in
that tradition.
Now that I've explained it all again for the slow such as yourself
Babs, you can perhaps try to join in and play with the big
boys.
MNG|4.26.09 @ 11:00AM|#
"Rights are not granted by governments, they come from
God."
With manna on the side?
"I'm sure this sophmoric [sic] bullshit"
It's nice to know joe may be gone, but his law lives on. As you
were decrying my intelligence you seemed to have forgotten an o
bro.
MNG|4.26.09 @ 11:05AM|#
"Jesus H Christ MNG, your concept of property rights is out to
lunch."
Kolohe
It's basically the same position as taken by David Hume and the
utilitarians, that property rights have utilitarian value but there
is no intrinsic, "natural" right to property such as described by
Locke.
robc
So now you are aware of things like the Open Beaches act and the
public trust doctrine? You acted like I was pulling something out
of my ass upthread...It's a pretty old concept straight out of the
common law actually.
|4.26.09 @ 11:24AM|#
for many libertarians property trumps liberty
More brilliant analysis from Comrade MaunderingNannyGoat.
engineer|4.26.09 @ 12:18PM|#
While there's some things that I think for practical reasons must be treated as common resources (like the atmosphere), I think that security in one's property is just as necessary to one's liberty and security in one's person ie, just as I can't go out and beat the crap out of someone for no reason, I also can't break into their house, trample their crops, or steal their car. I would actually grant here that MNG has a point about the common nature of natural resources, that is, that since the property owners didn't make the beach or necessarily make an improvement to the beach (which is the Lockean basis for private property), they don't necessarily have a natural property right to it. He ruins it, however, by going on to argue that all property rights are fallacious.
J. B. Babcock|4.26.09 @ 12:36PM|#
Any lawyers or law school students who frequent this site care to mention to the Ignorant One how ofter Hume gets a mention in actual courts of law? You can't coast by on every thread with bloviations on abstracted theory you have cribbed from at best a few hours of study and expect not to be the subject of ridicule, MNG. You are not Keith Richards with a few solid licks and a great rhythm section backing you, you are just, dumb schlock out of his depth.
J. B. Babcock |4.26.09 @ 12:41PM|#
you can perhaps try to join in and play with the big
boys.
I just saw this one. Whewww, is somebody deluded. Nobody, and I
mean NOBODY considers you one of the big boys.
J. B. Babcock|4.26.09 @ 12:47PM|#
I also pointed out my long held position that "natural"
property rights is a nonsense concept, and to your bellyaching
about Western tradition I easily refuted it by pointing out that
such a notion has quite a long and respectable pedigree in that
tradition.
You did nothing of the sort. I never tied my argument to Natural
Rights so you indulged yourself in a phony, strawman argument. You
don't understand that your really do hold an outlier position on
the matter that would be laughed out of any court in the
States.
Once more I shall assert the obvious, there is no way in hell you
hold a PHD.
robc|4.26.09 @ 12:55PM|#
So now you are aware of things like the Open Beaches act and
the public trust doctrine?
Huh? I was aware of the act from reading the fucking case.
Nothing you did made me any more aware of it, other than seeing the
silly comparison to cattle drives.
J. B. Babcock|4.26.09 @ 12:57PM|#
It's nice to know joe may be gone, but his law lives on. As
you were decrying my intelligence you seemed to have forgotten an o
bro.
English is still a bit rough for me, but for my fifth year here, I
do okay. Where I am from and I originaly studied Natural Law is not
the basis of the law, so you are making some pretty silly
assumptions.
robc|4.26.09 @ 12:58PM|#
that since the property owners didn't make the beach or
necessarily make an improvement to the beach (which is the Lockean
basis for private property)
A beach house isnt an improvement?
The problem is the "beach" has moved to the location of the beach
house. The owner hadnt "improved" the beach, because that was the
state's easement and they werent legally allowed to "improve" it.
The owner improved the rest of the piece of land the state is now
trying to seize and claim want a seizure to begin with.
J. B. Babcock |4.26.09 @ 1:08PM|#
The problem is the "beach" has moved to the location of the
beach house. The owner hadnt "improved" the beach, because that was
the state's easement and they werent legally allowed to "improve"
it. The owner improved the rest of the piece of land the state is
now trying to seize and claim want a seizure to begin
with.
MNG hasn't gotten to that point, as of yet. A few hours ago, he
finally took the time to read Root's original post so he would look
less like a jerk (too late). It will be a few days if that if he
bothers with the actual case. Perhaps he is looking for the Hume,
Locke and Bentham quotes that he is expecting the case to be
decided on, and is having a hard time finding them.
On a non MNG matter, did you see the footnote where the court as a
body is clearly disassociating from the political ramblings in
Weiner's dissent? A bit of a musement there.
Mad Max|4.26.09 @ 1:25PM|#
'Any lawyers or law school students who frequent this site care
to mention to the Ignorant One how ofter Hume gets a mention in
actual courts of law?'
I don't think MNG was saying that the courts are always right, or
that judges are the world's greatest philospher-kings, hence any
philosopher they omit to mention is unworthy of
consideration.
As for myself, I don't particularly care for everything Hume said,
but this isn't because of the secular courts' failure to cite
him.
MNG, I would point out that my Ukrainian example was, in fact, a
'utilitarian' argument for property rights.
MNG|4.26.09 @ 1:25PM|#
"He ruins it, however, by going on to argue that all property
rights are fallacious."
Wait a minute: just because I don't think there are natural rights
to property and don't think we should think deontologically about
them does not mean I think they are "fallacious." Property systems
have tremondous utilitarian value (ask Somalians, who lack them,
how important they are).
"Any lawyers or law school students who frequent this site care to
mention to the Ignorant One how ofter Hume gets a mention in actual
courts of law?"
"Perhaps he is looking for the Hume, Locke and Bentham quotes that
he is expecting the case to be decided on, and is having a hard
time finding them."
WTF is this? If anything demonstrated how nutty you are it's this
line. We are having a discussion about the nature of property
rights, which would naturally not be confined to the nature of
property rights as currently defined by the courts of, what, Texas?
The United States? The "West?" Talking about the nature of property
rights would make it a bit natural to reference Hume, Locke, etc.
You have a tiny, narrow little mind, but even were I to lower my
musings to the confines of that tiny noggin of yours I should point
out that the public trust doctrine and the Open Beaches statute
controlled in the case, and of course I pointed that out far
upthread Matlock. And the former, far from being an outlier in our
court system, is one of the, to use your garbled English "long
establish principles at the foundation of Western law."
"English is still a bit rough for me"
No shit? Likewise thinking it appears...
MNG|4.26.09 @ 1:27PM|#
"On a non MNG matter, did you see the footnote where the court
as a body is clearly disassociating from the political ramblings in
Weiner's dissent?"
No shit, the majority dissassociated itself from the dissent? What
a remarkable thing to find! You really are a legal eagle
Matlock!
Karl M.|4.26.09 @ 1:30PM|#
"Property systems have tremondous utilitarian value"
Yes, until they actually produce that value. Then they just stand
in the way of the proletarians getting what they want.
engineer|4.26.09 @ 1:33PM|#
"The owner hadnt "improved" the beach, because that was the
state's easement and they werent legally allowed to "improve"
it."
Oh. Well, I guess it pays to read more carefully then.
I can't help it, robc. It's Sunday, I've been up for 60 of the last
72 hours studying for finals, so I get a little nuts.
MNG|4.26.09 @ 1:34PM|#
"MNG, I would point out that my Ukrainian example was, in fact,
a 'utilitarian' argument for property rights."
I actually agree with that Max, I just never like your suddent jump
to Stalin to demonstrate what happens when some right you back is
molested. My view that property rights have a utilitarian value of
protecting other rights and checking tyrants is informed by my
reading of Hayek in grad school. I thought his case was convincing
on that point. That does not lead me to have to accept that there
is a natural right to property a la metaethical realism, and that
allows me to entertain specific restrictions on property rights if
it maximizes some other value. For example, I support the public
trust doctrine and the Open Beaches Act because they allow many
people to engage in things and choices they likely would not be
able to do otherwise, I see that as a liberty interest, and I don't
mind the imo relatively small restriction on property rights that
makes it possible.
robc
"Nothing you did made me any more aware of it, other than seeing
the silly comparison to cattle drives."
"robc | April 25, 2009, 6:20pm | #
denial of the beach access rights
WTF? There is no such thing as beach access rights. You have the
right to access any beach you own and no more."
Were we just misunderstanding each other here? By beach access
rights I was referring to things like the public trust doctrine and
the statute, public easements and such. That post sure made it
sound like I was talking Greek (Babcock's native tongue?) to
you...
engineer|4.26.09 @ 1:35PM|#
Ah chrissakes, are Babcock and MNG still arguing over who's
educated and who's not?
Excuse me while I laugh at both of them.
MNG|4.26.09 @ 1:35PM|#
"I've been up for 60 of the last 72 hours studying for finals,
so I get a little nuts."
My God! Thank god I settled for a social science!
engineer|4.26.09 @ 1:37PM|#
"My God! Thank god I settled for a social science!"
I'm quite sure that the bill for the new debt the chosen one is
racking up will come due about the time it really starts to pay
off. Doubtless I will wish then I had settled for a social
science.
MNG|4.26.09 @ 1:37PM|#
"Ah chrissakes, are Babcock and MNG still arguing over who's
educated and who's not?"
Shit, engi, only one side is arguing (a sure sign of lunancy I
submit) about that, I gave my definitive answer at 4:55
yesterday:
"I know what my own education is dude, get bent."
I will glady argue about how stupid his posts have been!
J. B. Babcock|4.26.09 @ 1:38PM|#
Now he states:
Wait a minute: just because I don't think there are natural
rights to property and don't think we should think deontologically
about them does not mean I think they are "fallacious." Property
systems have tremondous utilitarian value (ask Somalians, who lack
them, how important they are).
Thinking that we would forget the idiotic thing he stated,
yesterday:
Against these mystical "property rights" that are much loved
around here, maybe, but liberty?
Pathetic.
MNG|4.26.09 @ 1:39PM|#
engi
Freud worked and worked as an analyst and saved enough money to
have a comfortable retirement. Then the inflation following the
Great War wiped all that out and the poor bastard had to keep
working until he croaked. I hope the same type of thing won't
happen to you (or me!).
MNG|4.26.09 @ 1:41PM|#
Yes Babs, a property "right" as that is commonly understood around here, is mystical nonsense. But the social "conventions and artifice" that begat and maintain the positive property rights that exist today can have great utilitarian value. See? For a shorthand notice how I do not praise property rights, but "property systems." I'm slowing it down just for you ok? I know it takes some nuance...Try again Matlock!
MNG|4.26.09 @ 1:44PM|#
"Joe's Law Strike Again! | April 26, 2009, 1:39pm | #
I just never like your suddent jump to Stalin"
Ahh, but that's not joe's law! Joe's law occurs when a person makes
an error in a post belittling another person's
intelligence/education, and I was not belittling Max's
intelligence/education.
Ironically, in making THAT error in a post trying to belittle my
intelligence in an attempt to attribute my post as an example of
joe's law, it is YOU who have illustrated his very law...
engineer|4.26.09 @ 1:44PM|#
"Then the inflation following the Great War wiped all that out
and the poor bastard had to keep working until he croaked."
I'll still be young when the Great Inflation comes, and have
relatively little in savings to wipe out. It'll still suck for me,
of course, but not as much as it could. Hell, if I run up some debt
here in college, hyperinflation would be the best thing that could
happen to me!
engineer|4.26.09 @ 1:46PM|#
"Ahh, but that's not joe's law! Joe's law occurs when a person
makes an error in a post belittling another person's
intelligence/education,"
MNG, why must you be a strict constructionist on joe'z law? Joe'z
Law is open to interpretation. I support a living, breathing joe'z
law that changes with the times, according to the needs of society
(of H&R posters).
J. B. Babcock|4.26.09 @ 1:47PM|#
engineer | April 26, 2009, 1:35pm | #
Ah chrissakes, are Babcock and MNG still arguing over who's
educated and who's not?
Excuse me while I laugh at both of them.
If you understood my enterprise (there being no inherent reason you
would, so I'm not angry if you are laughing at me) I have lttle
doubt you would approve.
MNG has been making appeals to authority, his own, on the board for
some time now, and all this time it has been absurdly unbelievable.
You hold his feet to the fire, and he does tend to straighten up,
and do a little actual thinking.
Now, he wont admit that what he exposed yesterday was stupid, but
you can see how he is approaching it today, he is trying to get
cover those tracks, so he knows it.
engineer|4.26.09 @ 1:50PM|#
Babs,
Could you provide a short summary? I'd look through the comments
myself, but my studies beckon.
MNG|4.26.09 @ 1:51PM|#
"I support a living, breathing joe'z law that changes with the
times, according to the needs of society (of H&R
posters)."
Hilarious.
MNG|4.26.09 @ 1:52PM|#
"MNG has been making appeals to authority, his own, on the board
for some time now"
Yeah Babs, I know how uncharacterstic it would be for you, but
maybe some examples?
I can see how one may think I've appealed to Bentham, or Hume,
etc., but where did I make this appeal to my own authority?
MNG|4.26.09 @ 1:53PM|#
C'mon Babs, it's put up or shut up time. All eyes are on you.
Balls in your court.
Looks like you'll have to go back to Gilbert Martin soon...
J. B. Babcock|4.26.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Babs,
Could you provide a short summary? I'd look through the comments
myself, but my studies beckon.
Simply put, I want MNG to come clean.
robc|4.26.09 @ 1:55PM|#
engineer,
Pussy. Back in MY day, we werent allowed to sleep. :)
Actually, I always preferred sleep to cramming - just derive
formulas during the test. I did spend 72 straight hours finishing
up my senior design project (the whole "nearly drowning in the
library fountain" incident occurred a few hours after my
presentation. Lack of sleep explains things).
robc|4.26.09 @ 1:57PM|#
Were we just misunderstanding each other here? By beach
access rights I was referring to...blah blah blah
Beach access rights are like rights to health care. There is no
such thing regardless of what the law says. In both cases, you only
have access to as much as you can afford to buy.
Oh, and just a general comment on this whole thread:
Fuck utilitarianism.
engineer|4.26.09 @ 2:01PM|#
"Pussy. Back in MY day, we werent allowed to sleep. :)"
Well, last night, after deceased relatives visited me in a vision
where I saw a bright light, I figured I could use some REM
sleep.
robc|4.26.09 @ 2:06PM|#
engineer,
You also catch a break due to semesters instead of quarters. Back
in my day (get off my lawn!), spring quarter finals were in midish
June. Image taking a final in an unairconditioned room June 10th in
Atlanta.
J. B. Babcock|4.26.09 @ 2:08PM|#
C'mon Babs, it's put up or shut up time. All eyes are on
you. Balls in your court.
Looks like you'll have to go back to Gilbert Martin
soon...
Poor little MNG, he thinks he has scored some points and he is now
doing the Joe victory dance.
Threadwinner MNG, baby!
engineer|4.26.09 @ 2:11PM|#
"There is no such thing regardless of what the law says."
"They voted for the impossible, and then got the disastrous
possible instead."
-R.A. Heinlein (actually, one of his characters, Colonel Dubois, I
think)
J. B. Babcock|4.26.09 @ 2:16PM|#
engineer,
I'm keeping it short not out of disrespect, but because I have a
lot of people over who are not keen on my texting while discussing
recent movies.
If you look at the first post under my name, you will get an idea
of my complaint. At the heart of the matter MNG's discription of
Libertarianism is so convoluted it could not have come from someone
who has throughly thought out and studied the writings he has
claimed to have read over the years.
It is a bit monomanical on my part, yes, but at some point, he may
bend and admit it.
engineer|4.26.09 @ 2:18PM|#
Well, I'm off to study for twelve hours and then collaps from exhaustion. Have a good un.
MNG|4.26.09 @ 2:44PM|#
C'mon Babs, one example? My own authority? The 1:52 challenge
remains (hell, the challenge from yesterday that you make a
substantive point is still in effect, but we're not going to hold
our breath on that one). Surely you can name one example from this
thread of this appealing to myself you so lamentably wail about
(waahh, my pussy hurts, MNG is appealing to his own authority)? If
you need help: the little arrow thing that moves around when you
move the mouse, move it to the right of your screen and click as
need be to "scroll up".
And if you think I've demonstrated I don't understand the positions
of Locke, Nozick, Hume, etc., that I've referenced, then by all
means let us know when and how. I'd love to see that.
Try again High.
MNG|4.26.09 @ 2:45PM|#
"MNG's discription [sic] of Libertarianism is so convoluted it
could not have come from someone who has throughly thought out and
studied the writings he has claimed to have read over the
years."
Joe's law, whatta law
John|4.26.09 @ 4:27PM|#
foot-soldiers in this thinly veiled Libertarian
crusade.
Is this supposed to be an insult?
J. B. Babcock |4.26.09 @ 4:48PM|#
Try again High.
Nailed you the first time. Everytime after where you would squirm
in discomfort and get angry, and gin up the rhetoric, knowing
someone is on to you, was just icing on the cake.
What's next, MNG? Are you going to take my verbs away?
|4.26.09 @ 5:37PM|#
MNG, where did you learn to use the word "folks" to refer to people (who are not your parents) generically, and in a non-ironic context? As far as I can tell it's mostly slick politicians who have this habit.
engineer|4.26.09 @ 5:38PM|#
"foot-soldiers in this thinly veiled Libertarian crusade.
Is this supposed to be an insult?"
Would most people even know what he's talking about?
|4.26.09 @ 5:42PM|#
Capitalizing the word "libertarian" when not referring to the LP is usually an excellent tip-off that whoever's doing it has a completely unhinged hatred for libertarians.
|4.26.09 @ 6:42PM|#
OMG! We can't let people have property rights, because then the
libertarians would win.
And if the libertarians win, then, fuck, rampant outbreaks of
property rights everywhere. Mass hysteria. Dogs and cats, sleeping
together.
This scourge has to be stopped!
Kolohe|4.26.09 @ 8:20PM|#
I think this comes back to the general treatment of large
bodies of water as commons. Allow rivers/oceans/large lakes to be
owned and problem solved.
I disagree with this. There is a longstanding historical basis on
why most of these things are treated in Western legal systems as
'commons'. The risk of 'hydraulic despotism' (in this case rather
literally) is too great. Some of this risk has been rendered
obsolete by alternative transportation systems, but it has by no
means completely disappeared. (you can also make the parallel to
how 'squatter's right'' have no place in a strict 'property rights'
regime, but nonetheless are a longstanding part of the Anglo Saxon
legal tradition.)
Nonetheless, the starting point should be that rights to life
liberty and property are *innate* (or 'natural' or 'god given' or
whatever). And that restrictions on these rights are only necessary
and proper to ensure the security of those self same rights. Now,
this used to be 'self-evident' among people who called themselves
'liberals', but it's obviously not anymore.
|4.26.09 @ 9:27PM|#
my point is that the denial of the beach access rights in
this case may be seen as a victory for the property rights of those
who own coastal land but, as it will cut off many from exercising
choices they once could have, is hardly a victory for
"liberty."
Only if you think that your liberty is being restricted by not
having access to every beach, everywhere. But the same logic would
mean it was anti-liberty for me to lock the door to my car to
prevent you from driving it.
If ownership of beachfront property restricts liberty, than
ownership of anything anyone else might want to use restricts
liberty.
Fine, so you want to abolish private property.
Here's the thing though. Once you abolish property, how do you
resolve disputes as to who is entitled to use a particular object
or piece of land?
Majority vote? Right of conquest?
If I can seize your house and hold it against armed attack by you
and your friends, then it's mine. Okay? Does this fit your idea of
'justice'?
The way western civilization has resolved these conflicts is by
creating 'rights' as a mechanism for resolving disputes between
individuals in society, in a fair way, and without violence. If
someone purchases a piece of land with the understanding that they
have exclusive right to use the beachfront, for the government to
arbitrarily deprive them of that exclusive use without compensation
offends our sense of fairness.
This isn't about whether people should have access to the
beachfront or not. If the beachfront was already esablished as
public, and some property owner attempted to exert authority over
it, nobody here would be defending them. It's about government
arbitrarily changing the legal status of the property right without
compensation.
J. B. Babcock|4.26.09 @ 11:05PM|#
The guy is intellectually lazy, and doesn't bother to read what
he is commenting on, so he winds up looking like a dipshit:
MNG | April 26, 2009, 1:27pm | #
"On a non MNG matter, did you see the footnote where the
court as a body is clearly disassociating from the political
ramblings in Weiner's dissent?"
No shit, the majority dissassociated itself from the dissent? What
a remarkable thing to find! You really are a legal eagle
Matlock!
Here is what is the text referred to above which MNG if he read it
somehow feels is an unremarkable correction of a jurist.
1 Notwithstanding the hyperbolic and unsupported assertions in
Part I of the dissent, the judges of the court endeavor not to
decide appeals based on who the litigants
who their lawyers are, or what we may believe their motives to be.
Whether that rule is
observed in light of Part I of the dissent, however, the reader
must determine.
He didn't read it. Why bother to take any effort to be accurate
when you are never called on the shit that comes out of your ass?
MNG in a nutshell.
robc|4.26.09 @ 11:36PM|#
Kolohe,
Is "hydraulic despotism" more or less likely when a government
controls the water supply? Which is the real case when water is
held "in common". History answers that one for us.
Kolohe|4.27.09 @ 4:32AM|#
Is "hydraulic despotism" more or less likely when a
government controls the water supply?
It's a possibility when any single entity controls it. In many
cases though, that's a necessity. Even it's not it's a possibly.
There's no 'perfect' solution, but given the choice of a water
monopoly controlled by a private entity or one controlled by the
sate I'd take my chances of the state one - esp in this era of
republican government.
In most cases, where a 'vital' resource tends toward monopoly
distribution, the state has an interest in it's 'fair' allocation.
'vital' and 'fair' are weasel words to be sure, but in the case of
water, there are certain minimum standards most can agree on.
Or maybe not. Before it became fashionable to fight over oil, there
were quite a few tussles over water. Still are. Still will be.
MNG|4.27.09 @ 7:41AM|#
"He didn't read it."
Oh, I read it. But you seem to have the point flying over your head
as usual Babs. OF COURSE a majority dissassociated itself from the
minority. Are you that rarely associated with appellate legal
opinions that you think that is something to point out? Look here
guys, the majority says the dissents points are wrong and its fears
unwarranted and that it misreads what we are doing! What's next
Babs, the pope is catholic?
"Nailed you the first time."
How so? You've made not one substantive point as to how I
supposedly misunderstood serfdom, how my position is so outside the
Western mainstream or whatever you're bellyaching about. You've
complained that I don't understand Root's post, but I explained it
and got no rejoinder from you, that I don't understsand the case or
the rights involved, though I brought up the public trust doctrine
at its heart and discussed the statute at the heart of the case.
Meanwhile you've given absolutely no substantive points as to what
Root's post is about, about the ruling. You just keep crying "waah,
my pussy hurts, MNG is intellectually lazy" and then you go on to
mangle the English language, make nonsensical legal observations
(look the majority dissassociated itself from the majority by Jove!
and what does Hume have to do with how a court will rule?), and
make not even the barest attempts to prove your assertions that I
must not have really read Locke, Hume, Bentham...I made you a
challenge upthread when you lazily and crazily charged me with
appealing to my own authority (engineer even made it) and you still
cannot respond. You are a simple fool Babs.
You're ignorance shines. Your simpleton meanderings started when
you alleged that noone who made the comments I did, that property
rights are mystical nonsense, could really have studied thinkers
like Bentham: unaware as you must be that it was Bentham himself
who famously said of ALL natural rights and law: "Natural rights is
simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical
nonsense - nonsense upon stilts") and Hume who referred to property
rights as resting in "artifice and convention."
Pathetic, truly pathetic.
J. B. Babcock|4.27.09 @ 11:38AM|#
Poor little MNG still flailing away wildly trying to discredit
those who point out the tangled web he has woven.
Bentham himself who famously said of ALL natural rights and
law: "Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and
imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense - nonsense upon
stilts") and Hume who referred to property rights as resting in
"artifice and convention."
Everyone and his brother knows what Bentham wrote but for some
reason you are the only fool around who thinks that it makes you
SPECIAL.
You think it gives you something interesting to contribute to a
discussion on a property claims case where no one not even the
dissenting judge cares what Bentham thought. Not even God
cares.
You think you can cover up the gaps you exposed in your knowledge
by distracting the discussion to a matter you believe your 6 credit
hours, and memorizing the text book summaries of the Great Thinkers
have given you some immunity, and when I refuse to be baited, so
you can have the easy way out, you huff and puff and stomp your
feet.
No, your reaction to my comment about the footnote and how that
reaction was completely off base was a clear indicator that you had
no interest in actually reading the case.
Come clean, MNG. All you have to lose is the tangle of lies that
chain your soul.
|4.27.09 @ 3:41PM|#
for many libertarians property trumps liberty
MNG, unless you think my liberty entitles me to take your wallet,
then I would say you also believe that property trumps liberty.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245