Posts Tagged ‘compensation’

Private property rightsFrom Lew Rockwell’s blog, he has a link to this November 22, 2012 article by the Mail Online: “Won’t sell up? Enjoy living in the middle of a motorway! Road is built around a house after elderly Chinese couple refuse to move.

Despite China’s Constitution only requiring compensation for the taking of private property, as opposed to “just compensation,” as the U.S. Constitution requires — or no mention whatsoever of any compensation for the taking of private property, as is the case with the Canadian Constitution — laws have since been passed in China prohibiting the taking of private property with force, without just cause, such as participation in criminal activities.

Previously, I wrote the article, Canadians recognize the importance of private property rights, about online readers of Canada’s largest newspaper, the Toronto Star, recognizing the importance of private property rights. Despite the Canadian Constitution providing no explicit protection for the taking of private property, as one commenter noted, the practice is often more relevant, as noted by this Chinese example, as well.

As for Lew Rockwell’s claim of “Another Way that China is Freer Than the US,” China is a very economically oppressive country, as illustrated by only being the 138th most economically free country out of 179 according to the conservative Heritage Foundation’s 2012 Index of Economic Freedom.

One way that China isn’t as economically free as the U.S. is the requirement to get permission from the central government in order to secure a job in a new city, as I witnessed personally with a company I was working for when they were going through the bureaucratic red tape to hire someone in their Chinese office.

Just as it isn’t the homeowner’s right to have water and electricity, it also isn’t the government’s or developer’s right to take away his private property, and the picture of this man’s home is one of the best sights of freedom I’ve seen this year.

Read Full Post »

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments t...

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 »

A 250kg gold bar in the Toi gold mine

On the January 29, 2011 episode of The Secret Truth, The International Forecaster, Bob Chapman, said at 28:02:

All these people wanna avoid using gold and silver [for backing the currency]. The excuse is, that, the elitists own 20, 25, 30 percent of all the gold in the world, and my answer is, “so what?”

The so what is that the interests that control over 20 percent of the world’s gold supply would be wealthy simply based on the gold they currently possess, regardless of how lawfully they obtained it.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires “just compensation” for the taking of private property for public use.

This would effectively result in a public transfer of gold, held in places like Fort Knox, from the U.S. government to the banks, which would likely demand payment in gold for their gold, instead of paper or computer receipts.

Clearly, such an option wouldn’t be feasible, since it would cost the U.S. government more gold than they’d get back, and as a result, the more than 20 percent of the world’s gold supply would continue to stay where it is.

Read Full Post »