property | Exposing Faux Capitalism

Posts Tagged ‘property’

Canada more economically free than the United States for the fourth year in a row: Heritage Foundation

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged 2013 Index of Economic Freedom, business, Canada, government, Heritage Foundation, Index of Economic Freedom, labor, property, trade, United States on January 16, 2013 | 2 Comments »

Canada has held its sixth place ranking out of 177 ranked countries in the conservative Heritage Foundation’s 2013 Index of Economic Freedom, with an overall score of 79.4, with the U.S. holding its tenth place ranking, with an overall score of 76.0.

Canada now exceeds the United States in 8 out of 10 components of economic freedom, being surpassed only in government spending and labor freedom:

Canada vs. the United States
Property Rights 90.0 vs. 85.0
Freedom From Corruption 87.0 vs. 71.0
Government Spending 44.8 vs. 47.8
Fiscal Freedom 79.8 vs. 69.3
Business Freedom 91.7 vs. 90.5
Labor Freedom 82.3 vs. 95.5
Monetary Freedom 75.2 vs. 75.0
Trade Freedom 88.2 vs. 86.4
Investment Freedom 75.0 vs. 70.0
Financial Freedom 80.0 vs. 70.0

I’ll be discussing these results in an upcoming episode of my radio program, Exposing Faux Capitalism, airing every Sunday from 1 to 3 PM Eastern on Oracle Broadcasting.

Previously, I wrote the article, Still think Canada is more socialist than the United States? The joke’s on you.

Read Full Post »

Canadians recognize the importance of private property rights

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged barber, Canada, comment, gender equality, Human Rights Tribunal, Ontario, private, property, property rights, religious freedom, Toronto Star on November 16, 2012 | 3 Comments »

From the November 15, 2012 Toronto Star article, Woman denied haircut goes to Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, in Canada’s largest newspaper, I posted the following comment:

“Private property rights

Why is a store owner required to do something on his own property against his will? It’s too bad that he’s challenging this on religious freedom, when it should be a matter of private property rights — to do with your own property as you wish, so long as you’re not depriving anyone else of their rights. And it’s not anyone’s right to get a haircut at a particular barber shop.

Nov 15, 2012 9:48 AM Agree (68) Disagree (22)”

After 13 hours, my comment is the 13th-highest-rated among over 600 comments. I’m pleasantly heartened to see the message of private property rights resonate with so many readers, given the false frame of the article in portraying it as a matter of gender equality vs. religious freedom.

Read Full Post »

Private property = better care

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged alley, Canada, city, homeowners, Ontario, private, private property, property, Toronto Star, Windsor on October 9, 2012 | 2 Comments »

City of Windsor, Ontario councilors have discovered that private property = better care.

From the October 8, 2012 Toronto Star article, Solution to fixing Windsor’s decaying alleys? Sell them to homeowners:

““The alleys are in bad shape and they’re just going to get worse because we don’t have the money to fix them,” Payne said.

Payne thought that it would be better for the city to just divest itself of the alleyways and asked for a report on the feasibility of selling them for a nominal fee to homeowners whose property is next to them.

The city has 150 kilometres of alleys — most of them in a state of disrepair, said Payne. The pavement is cracked. There are potholes, garbage and vermin in many of them, he said.“

…

“Reaction to the idea so far has been positive, Payne said. “I’ve had calls from homeowners who’ve said they’d like to buy the alleys behind their house.””

Read Full Post »

Waterloo City Council’s mixed message on property rights

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged government, local government, Northdale, property, property rights, rights, video games, Waterloo, Waterloo Chronicle, Waterloo City Council on August 15, 2012 | 2 Comments »

Waterloo City Council As reported by the Waterloo Chronicle on August 15, 2012, in their article, A better way:

“She now goes out of her way to avoid the Northdale neighbourhood and the surrounding area because she can’t stand the look of the bland, characterless apartments currently being built there.“

“Yet while city staff and some councillors say the city must walk a fine line to balance the enforcement of visual and aesthetic guidelines with the rights of developers — even going so far to consider using millions of dollars in incentives to rebuild Northdale — there are some builders in the city who have already taken that next step without a handout from the city.“

If Waterloo City Council really cared about the property rights of individuals, they wouldn’t take millions of dollars in the form of property taxes in order to redistribute them to other property owners. Particularly, I see favouritism toward well-monied property owners, but it’s become so commonplace these days, even when it’s as blatant as taking money from the unemployed and underemployed for something as blatant as video game research, as I previously documented in my article, Canadian government calls for austerity, awards $5.8 million for video game research.

The last sentence of the paragraph I quoted shows that private developers can succeed in spite of regressive policies such as the one Waterloo City Council has floated.

Read Full Post »

Just compensation for the taking of private property for public use doesn’t require the consent of the property owner according to the Constitution

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged amendments, Bill of Rights, compensation, consent, Fifth Amendment, just compensation, private property, property, Third Amendment, U.S. Constitution on April 17, 2011 |

I once heard a liberty-oriented radio host say that just compensation (for the taking of private property for public use) used to require the consent of the property owner.

While that may be, it wasn’t a requirement in the minds of those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The proof of this is the explicit requirement of the consent of a real property owner in the Third Amendment:

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.“

The requirement of just compensation for the taking of private property for public use as specified in the Fifth Amendment is as follows:

“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.“

If they had intended just compensation to mean consent, they would’ve said so, just as consent of the property owner is explicitly mentioned in the Third Amendment.

The taking of private property for private use, however, I’d argue, does require the consent of the property owner, according to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and common law.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Exposing Faux Capitalism

to the dismay of the Federal Reserve and other faux capitalists

Posts Tagged ‘property’

Canada more economically free than the United States for the fourth year in a row: Heritage Foundation

Canadians recognize the importance of private property rights

Private property = better care

Waterloo City Council’s mixed message on property rights

Email Subscription

Facebook

Archives

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Blogs I Follow

Blog Stats

Follow “Exposing Faux Capitalism”