Posts Tagged ‘private property’

Exposing Faux CapitalismOn the June 23, 2013 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb on Truth Frequency Radio, I covered the following articles and video:

Dentist’s decision to fire ‘too attractive’ assistant upheld by court

Here is my commentary on my Facebook group post:

Another case of a false frame by the mass media to pit one group against another — in this case women vs. men. The court ruled correctly, but for the wrong reason. The dentist acted legally in dismissing his “attractive” assistant not because there was no gender discrimination, but because an employer has the right to dismiss employees according to the terms of the employment contracts.

There is no right to privacy by Dr. Walter Block

My Facebook commentary:

Interesting perspective by contrarian Dr. Walter Block, whom I have interviewed on my show. He asserts that there is no right to privacy, and that privacy is only a benefit. This is provocative to some, just as the claim that health care isn’t a right, which I agree with, since it’s a market good, but is Dr. Block right about privacy?

Coast To Coast AM – July 13 2013 – The Federal Reserve – C2CAM Radio DisclosureRadio

My Facebook commentary:

Millions of weekly listeners doesn’t mean you’ll hear informed guests. Take last night’s C2C AM guest, Brad Thor, who falsely claimed that the Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express (in ownership, that’s true, but not overall), and he laughably claimed that Canada is a socialist country vis-a-vis the U.S. (at 1h4m), despite the conservative Heritage Foundation ranking Canada as more economically free than the U.S. for the fourth year in a row in 2013. For better quality analysis, tune in to Exposing Faux Capitalism every Sunday from 8 to 10 PM Eastern at TruthFrequencyRadio.com.

Read Full Post »

An old microphone

On the November 25, 2012 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb, I covered the following articles:

1) This is what freedom and private property rights looks like

2) Don’t donate to Wikipedia until they live up to their stated guidelines

3) FauxCapitalist.com boosts its Google PageRank with original content

4) Republic Broadcasting shuts down Studio B

5) Coast to Coast AM bans peaceful anarchists

6) The Daily Bell demonstrates the importance of impression management

7) Why is Amazon Canada not selling Dr. Judy Wood’s book, Where Did the Towers Go?

8) Why the inflammatory, unscientific rhetoric in this 9/11 Truth article?

Read Full Post »

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 »

Christina TobinOn the October 21, 2012 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb, I interviewed Christina Tobin of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation for the first two segments of the second hour, and for the remainder of the show, I covered the following articles:

1) Why the Infowars Money Bomb 2012 is so 2008

2) Joel Skousen announces an upcoming documentary on the Modern History of Conspiracy

3) Project Censored’s Top 25 censored stories of 2013

4) The Huffington Post-Tom Woods controlled opposition gold standard debate

5) If flu shots are so good, why do most Toronto health professionals not have them?

6) Regular Daily Bell contributor Frank Suess includes FauxCapitalist.com article in his Mountain Vision newsletter

7) Private property = better care

8) More evidence that Fritz Springmeier is a phony: A New World Order colony on Mars

Read Full Post »

AlleyCity 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 »

Allan DettweilerThe corporate-controlled media won’t give him an equal platform with the other four declared candidates in the Kitchener-Waterloo riding, so Jason Erb did, with his August 19, 2012 interview of Ontario Libertarian Party candidate, Allan Dettweiler, on the August 19, 2012 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism.

The following issues were discussed:

  •  The three most important issues for Kitchener-Waterloo residents, which he identified as health care, education and jobs.
  • How residents and health care professionals can be empowered with proposals like allowing for individuals to pay for their primary health care, which every other country in the world allows except for Cuba and North Korea, given that the current system has failed, with the specific examples of a near-closing of a major hospital’s emergency room despite a government-mandated health care premium, and local residents having to buy an MRI machine with private funds.
  • How the Ontario Libertarian Party’s educational voucher proposal would increase educational options for parents and their children, and could be a solution to the divisive religious schools funding issue that the major parties have failed to redress.
  • The proper role of government.
  • Respecting the constitutional division of powers between the federal and provincial governments, which maximizes personal freedom, as I had touched on in my article, Two major factors that keep Canada’s federal government on a tighter leash than that of the United States.
  • Free trade deals and tariffs.
  • Whether the provincial legislature should bar municipal governments, like Waterloo’s, from redistributing private property, as I had discussed in my article, Waterloo City Council’s mixed message on property rights.
  • The frequency of municipal elections — every two, three or four years?

Read Full Post »

Colored Bullseye

As the investigation into the July 20, 2012 Colorado movie theatre shooting progresses, there remains a missing piece, and that is the discussion of private property rights.

While the political debate has been framed as more gun control versus less gun control, I see the real debate as private property rights versus no private property rights.

While more government-mandated gun control is palatable to many, an overt limitation of private property rights is less palatable, in the absence of fear-mongering.

The mass media –our self-appointed opinion leaders — frame the debate as more gun control versus the fear of another mass shooting, but for me, the debate is over private property rights versus no private property rights.

It should be evident that more gun control laws can’t stop all mass shootings. The solution, to me, is to protect the private property rights of business owners, and let them be responsible for their own security, and let their patrons assume full personal responsibility for their decision to patronize the business, barring negligence and malice.

If the business is negligent, there is the civil remedy of suing it for negligence, and if there is malice, there is also a possible criminal remedy.

Nearly everyone claims that they don’t want to be enslaved, but government security goons at movie theatres, and government laws barring all guns in private businesses, would serve that purpose.

Instead of enacting laws that grab guns from mostly law-abiding citizens, why not allow private property owners to provide for their own security, as they best see fit?

In a mass market like the United States, and especially in big cities, there would be the opportunity for some cinemas to offer more security, including full pat-downs, which are completely constitutional. I have no problem with private businesses choosing to mandate full pat-downs, since it’s up to individuals whether they choose to patronize that business.

For me, I’d prefer to take the risk, which is comparable to winning a lottery jackpot, of being a potential victim of a mass shooting, and not patronize a movie theatre with full pat-downs, but for others, they may not want to take that minuscule risk. If there was truly enough of a demand for such security, individuals would choose their theatre and other venues appropriately, despite what some cynical power-hungry freedom-grabbers in government may claim they want.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »