Property Rights 3

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture
Property Rights 3

................

Sean in Ottawa

Indeed, it is my belief that this would be a huge step towards undoing what progress has been made democratically.

It is important to remember that originally only people with property could vote. The evolution towards human rights and the equality of people has been a long one but this would be a step backwards. I can't emphasize this enough.

Thanks Boom Boom for keeping this topic going. Which side you are on is really an important expression of values.

ygtbk

My belief is that there is no pressing need to include property rights in the Charter. However, given that we already have property rights in Canada, it seems to me that codifying existing rights in the Charter would not lead to any obvious problems. Sean, you clearly disagree.

Unionist

If property rights are enshrined after the the Canadian people have expropriated (with due compensation, of course) all the banks, mines, railways, etc. - then I'm fine with it.

If property rights had been enshrined before the abolition of human slavery, that might have been problematic.

As in music, and comedy, timing is everything.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Needless to say, I'm 100% with Sean on this subject.

Sean in Ottawa

@ygbtk edited to add this as I cross-posted with Unionist

Indeed because I well understand how rights are in a hierarchy not a vacuum. But as I have said, I am not special in this. There are really only right wing thinkers who would do away with health care or any other public good in a heartbeat, or people with no understanding of how law and rights work who would agree with you. There is a reason you are alone in this here. At "Free Dom" and other right wing places that believe there are some people of greater importance than others and that wealth should include additional power and privilege extending beyond ownership alone, there you will find people that agree with you.

ygtbk

So I'm not sensing a lot of agreement. But the disagreement is not addressing the point that I'm making.

First, associating property rights with voting rights in Canada in 2011 is a red herring. You can vote if you're a citizen over 18 - no property requirements. The Senate is another story, but Senate reform is a different can of worms.

I can understand why people would disagree with extending property rights.

I'm having more trouble understanding why codifying rights that, it is stipulated, we _already have_, is a big problem.

Sean has made a number of arguments that boil down to "don't touch the Charter, you will necessarily screw it up!". But if we really believe that, we should have been too terrified to put the Charter in place in the first place.

So is there a good argument, not relying on unintended consequences, against codifying rights we already have? As I've said, it's not a hot-button issue for me, but the arguments I've seen so far are not convincing to me - although they may be to other people. 

ygtbk

By the way, different posters seem to mean different things by "property rights". So here's a 1 to 7 scale of things that you might own, in the usual, do-what-you-want, no-need-to-consult-anyone sense.

1) Toothbrush

2) Bike

3) Computer

4) House

5) Factory

6) Tank

7) Nuclear bomb

(You can fill in more gradations, obviously).

I suspect most people top out between 3 and 5. A full-fledged, hardcore libertarian goes all the way to 7 - you have to admire the internal consistency but not the sense.

Unionist

I am firmly opposed to entrenching the right to own toothbrushes in the Charter.

ygtbk wrote:
I'm having more trouble understanding why codifying rights that, it is stipulated, we _already have_, is a big problem.

We currently have the legal right to seek and pay for private health care and private education; purchase firearms; buy and sell telecommunications networks and banks; smoke cigarettes and drink ourselves to death at home; and stand on a street corner telling jokes about Muslims and Newfoundlanders. You have trouble understanding why making those constitutional rights is a big problem?

Fidel

And who ever said Canada is dull and grey? Tongue out

al-Qa'bong

If the right to own toothbrushes is entrenched in the Charter (Trudeau's paen to the USA), then my ability to run a profitable Dental Floss Ranch will be put in peril.

Doug

ygtbk wrote:

My belief is that there is no pressing need to include property rights in the Charter. However, given that we already have property rights in Canada, it seems to me that codifying existing rights in the Charter would not lead to any obvious problems. Sean, you clearly disagree.

 

It all depends on the wording on that property rights article and how the courts interpret it. It could have anything from a very large effect to no effect at all.

Sean in Ottawa

ygtbk you have reframed my argument to your advantage while ignoring most of it.

I not sure what your intent is in this thread but how can it be truth seeking when you run away from the points being made.

I did not say touch the Charter and you will screw it up. I did say put property rights on par with individual human rights and you will diminish those human rights and that I do not support. So if you want to keep arguing with me stop restating my position in a way to minimize it.

As for the red herring you identified-- who introduced it? Looks like you are the first to bring it up in this thread.

As for your determination where most people would go I think it stops at toothbrush frankly. Most people would draw the line at someone claiming property rights to drive their bike through pedestrians and allow that the state can limit the use of the bike. I think that there are many chilling things people do on a computer that are illegal and many would support the state being able to interfere in those property rights to limit what you could do there.

In any case your toothbrush argument is a red herring anyway because there are no constitutional implications of toothbrush ownership. And the only issue in introducing property to the constitution would be where there would be a purpose.

Now I'll ask nicely-- did you read my post in the last thread that quoted the Charter? I asked you what purpose you had to including charter rights for property in the light of what was there. Instead of saying why not, you ought to be able to say why you need it since any risk is too much if there is no value in going there and I contend there is more than risk here.

Sean in Ottawa

Doug wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

My belief is that there is no pressing need to include property rights in the Charter. However, given that we already have property rights in Canada, it seems to me that codifying existing rights in the Charter would not lead to any obvious problems. Sean, you clearly disagree.

 

It all depends on the wording on that property rights article and how the courts interpret it. It could have anything from a very large effect to no effect at all.

I assure you the introduction of property rights in to the constitution would not have no effect. It is a major concept in the ultimate declaration of rights.

ygtbk

@Sean: The red herring I identified was in your post #5, which you have since edited. If you no longer hold that position then I don't feel compelled to discuss it.

Although I don't have to hold a democratic vote to decide what to do with my bike, I agree that I have to obey the law while using it. So mowing down pedestrians is right out. This is a general proposition - property rights are not a get out of jail free card if you break the law.

I did in fact read your post. I am not arguing that property rights need to be included in the Charter (I think I made that clear in post #3): I'm asking whether there's a good argument against codifying rights we already have. So far you repeat that it would be catastrophic, but I'm inclined to agree with Doug in post #12. 

ygtbk

Unionist wrote:

I am firmly opposed to entrenching the right to own toothbrushes in the Charter.

ygtbk wrote:
I'm having more trouble understanding why codifying rights that, it is stipulated, we _already have_, is a big problem.

We currently have the legal right to seek and pay for private health care and private education; purchase firearms; buy and sell telecommunications networks and banks; smoke cigarettes and drink ourselves to death at home; and stand on a street corner telling jokes about Muslims and Newfoundlanders. You have trouble understanding why making those constitutional rights is a big problem?

Yes. If I were obliged to do any of those things I could see the problem. But I'm not.

And just to be clear, I'm talking about the $1.99 plastic toothbrushes, not the fancy electric ones.

ygtbk

al-Qa'bong wrote:

If the right to own toothbrushes is entrenched in the Charter (Trudeau's paen to the USA), then my ability to run a profitable Dental Floss Ranch will be put in peril.

I'm a Zappa fan from way back, but I can think of no faster way to get banned from Babble than posting some of his lyrics. I believe the appropriate phrase is "Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar".

Fidel

Ya I'm with Sean, too. Conservatives have always associated private property rights with freedom. Taxes, on the other hand, are an extreme form of coercion according to the same people. They make no similar effort to associate their claim to exclusive private property rights with coercion by denying others the same freedom in the name of freedom, or something like that.

Sean in Ottawa

ygtbk wrote:

@Sean: The red herring I identified was in your post #5, which you have since edited. If you no longer hold that position then I don't feel compelled to discuss it.

Although I don't have to hold a democratic vote to decide what to do with my bike, I agree that I have to obey the law while using it. So mowing down pedestrians is right out. This is a general proposition - property rights are not a get out of jail free card if you break the law.

I did in fact read your post. I am not arguing that property rights need to be included in the Charter (I think I made that clear in post #3): I'm asking whether there's a good argument against codifying rights we already have. So far you repeat that it would be catastrophic, but I'm inclined to agree with Doug in post #12. 

You are either mistaken or lying. That post is as written with the ONLY exception that I added a new line to clarify that I meant you not Unionist. I did not delete ANYTHING.

What are you trying to achieve here?

I don't even know what you are talking about and have never connected the property rights issue with the current election. Did anyone here see what he is talking about? Unionist-- we cross posted-- did you see what he is talking about?

Now, for the rest of your apparently less than forthright post,  I have already stated there is an issue with respect to codifying rights we already have -- when this is done at a higher level than they were before.

I have already explained that law is not about rights sitting in a vacuum but how they compete with each other in a hierarchy. I explained this multiple times-- I am now wondering if you are being truly honest in ignoring this while fabricating other arguments.

It is not about creating a new set of property rights that is the problem it is about placing them up the ladder in competition with human rights which is what a Charter is about. I have lost the ability to give you the benefit of the doubt on this with your last little stunt claiming something existed where it did not.

Rearranging the order of rights in terms of priority is a change. You need to acknowledge this point if this conversation is to move forward-- you can dispute if you like but it is hardly worth the trouble to keep expressing the same issue over and over with you just ignoring it.

And yes, pretending I wrote something when I did not is not a way to win an argument.

 

ygtbk

@Sean: I am attempting to argue in good faith. Given the choices that you're presenting, I'll pick "mistaken" over "lying". It is barely possible that I was remembering your position, as quoted in post #26 of the previous thread, in which you said (see last sentence of second last paragraph of the quote):

Quote:

Property rights used to exist even in voting-- at one time you had to own property to vote. That is the direction property rights take you.

but if you don't hold that position, I see no need to discuss it.

 

Overall, you are making an argument from authority. It is possible that you are an eminent constitutional expert. But you have never addressed my point: if changing one line of the Charter is so fraught with peril, why the heck would we even have adopted it in the first place? That must have been a hundred times worse.

Sean in Ottawa

You said:

"First, associating property rights with voting rights in Canada in 2011 is a red herring. You can vote if you're a citizen over 18 - no property requirements. The Senate is another story, but Senate reform is a different can of worms."

How would you get that from:

"Property rights used to exist even in voting-- at one time you had to own property to vote. That is the direction property rights take you."

I have not changed positions-- stop implying that I have.

And yes that is the direction. Now just to be clear lets not confuse degree and direction. I am not assuming that property rights would immediately result in a loss of voting rights for those without property but the expression of those rights in competition with individual rights has not been seen in Canada since we had that. And it is not long ago that we did.

In fact some of that still exists today and is relevant in Ontario.

Did you know that hundreds of thousands of residents of Toronto (380,135 people in 2006) cannot vote because they are landed immigrants but not citizens. Ok-- now, you might ask if that is relevant-- how about in light of the fact that today, people who live OUTSIDE Toronto but own property in Toronto can vote while those people who live there and pay taxes there can't. So yes there is a relevance in that sense-- although not specifically to the federal election which is what I thought you were saying.

Given that we already have "property rights" interfering in democratic elections in Canada as I have outlined, extending property rights further affects the political culture and could eventually threaten more such concessions to property owners. Now let us not pretend that the combination of this number of people who live in the city being denied and an unknown number who don't live in the city being admited does nto affect elections. You have the classic conflict of interest: the non-resident property owners want tax reductions and mostly don't give a fig for services.

From the Mowat Centre: "To appreciate the extent of political exclusion this entrenches in Toronto, consider this. Ontario has very few municipalities - barely a handful - with a larger number of total eligible municipal voters than the total number of non-citizen residents who are denied the vote in Toronto."

 

And you still think we need MORE property rights? And less Human rights? These disgusting electoral realities exist now without property rights in direct competition with human rights in the Charter. Don't think this won't get worse or that there is not already a very delicate imbalance already.

Sean in Ottawa

ygtbk wrote:

Overall, you are making an argument from authority. It is possible that you are an eminent constitutional expert. But you have never addressed my point: if changing one line of the Charter is so fraught with peril, why the heck would we even have adopted it in the first place? That must have been a hundred times worse.

I have spent a lot of time on Constitutional law and am far more knowledgeable about it than the average person but I would not claim to be a constitutional expert. I have edited for publication some 6 books addressing Constitutional law reform alone. I am no slouch and I certainly examined the legal arguments as well as the logic of all those books. I also worked in law for a time as well.

I have addressed your point several times. The introduction and discussion of human rights on their own is a lot more straightforward than mingling them on the same level with property rights. The hierarchy of rights is less complicated when you are asserting equality of individuals down the line than when you introduce whole new heads of rights. You may not like this answer but I have given it before.

As well in the world there are many experiences to draw on with respect to the introduction of a constitution that defines individual rights. the implications of a Charter such as what we have, as unpredictable as it is, remains much more predictable than would be a combined property and individual rights document such as what you propose. Experiences introducing property rights into that mix at the highest level are at least rare if they exist at all.

A constitution is a very delicate document that is inherently risky because amendment is so difficult and its primacy over all other law means its effect is monumental.

I keep answering you but you seem so married to your position that you can't evaluate what is being said here even enough to reply. I don't mind arguing but I find it frustrating to argue with someone that does not acknowledge what has been said already to choose to repeat the same stuff that has been answered -- and do this over and over. I believe I have made my case and you have not answered it.

As I have said before there is nothing either brilliant or creative about the arguments I am making -- this is where legal experts are the world over with the exception of extreme right wingers.

ygtbk

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Did you know that hundreds of thousands of residents of Toronto (380,135 people in 2006) cannot vote because they are landed immigrants but not citizens. Ok-- now, you might ask if that is relevant

Yup, I might ask that. Because it has nothing to do with property rights being in the Charter or not. It is about the rights (and duties) of citizens.

But here's a question for you (and I know I'm going to regret helping you drift): if you really want landed immigrants to be able to vote, would you support an amendment to the Charter that gave them that right? If so, why? If not, why not?

ygtbk

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

As well in the world there are many experiences to draw on with respect to the introduction of a constitution that defines individual rights. the implications of a Charter such as what we have, as unpredictable as it is, remains much more predictable than would be a combined property and individual rights document such as what you propose. Experiences introducing property rights into that mix at the highest level are at least rare if they exist at all.

Presumably the Takings Clause of the 5th amendment to the U.S. constitution would be relevant here. In the previous thread I suggested that googling "supreme court kelo" would be enlightening, but I guess I can assume that you already know quite enough about it.

Sean in Ottawa

The US  constitution is both different and quite a nightmare in its own right in many respects.

Their law is quite different  as well-- we already have expropriation legislation. Canada has centuries of development of unwritten constitutional law followed by the relatively recent Charter-- very different from the US experience which begins with a Constitution. Also their Constitution and their Charter are structured differently than ours where we have a free-standing Charter while their rights remain within a long Constitution.

The relevance question over immigrants is that we have already a situation where property rights provide voting rights while living there does not. And this is without elevating property rights further.

I would support an amendment that did allow suffrage to immigrants--Reasons? Where do you start? Taxation without representation perhaps? The number of people with interests that are part of our society with no electoral voice? The need to engage people? The lack of explanation why they would not be included?If a non-resident landlord can vote then how do you deny a person living there? We have communities developing now due to economics where the whole area is mostly immigrant and that physical community has needs but no political voice. Other countries have made the change-- it has been a slow march from exclusive right to vote for a privileged few to the concept that all people with a stake in society should collectively choose their government. Voting is another way to integrate new people to their community and foster the collective.

And to be clear I would support the right to vote for landed immigrants in provincial and federal elections as well as city elections.

This might raise the question of value of citizenship over landed status. That has an answer as well-- landed immigrants have a rented status if you will-- they have to maintain residency in order to stay here and are not supported the same way abroad as well as a number of minor rights. But the right to fully participate in society as a voter should be extended to all adults living here. I Also support lowering the voting age to 16 since Teens also have both issues and the ability to understand those issues as well as any adult. At 16 the vote can be raised with more relevance in schools developing the habit of voting.

I do not support nonresident voting not at any level or for any reason -- not for landowners and not for those living outside the country. If you are not here you are in a conflict. As for investment in no other investment do you get voting rights-- if I own stocks in the US I have to live with the collective will of the people who live there. Why should a property in Toronto be different. Live there and you get one vote. Otherwise people end up with two votes in municipal elections -- one in the city they own property and another where they live. That is offensive.

ygtbk

@Sean: I don't have a problem with ruling out nonresident votes, although it sits poorly with your "no taxation without representation" point.

So we're clear that there are some ways in which the Charter could be amended by mere mortals without it leading to Scary Stuff? And we're clear that there is at least one constitution in existence that has a property rights clause, thereby proving that it's not impossible?

The truly obnoxious thing about the Kelo case was that poor people were being expropriated (yes, they have that in the U.S., although they call it "eminent domain") so that the city could turn around and give the land to a developer. The projected increase in tax revenue and jobs was held to make this OK under the law, although most people would intuitively disagree. The punchline, from the last line of the second paragraph of the Wikipedia entry, is:

Quote:

The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and had to abandon the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Sean in Ottawa

ygtbk wrote:

@Sean: I don't have a problem with ruling out nonresident votes, although it sits poorly with your "no taxation without representation" point.

So we're clear that there are some ways in which the Charter could be amended by mere mortals without it leading to Scary Stuff? And we're clear that there is at least one constitution in existence that has a property rights clause, thereby proving that it's not impossible?

The truly obnoxious thing about the Kelo case was that poor people were being expropriated (yes, they have that in the U.S., although they call it "eminent domain") so that the city could turn around and give the land to a developer. The projected increase in tax revenue and jobs was held to make this OK under the law, although most people would intuitively disagree. The punchline, from the last line of the second paragraph of the Wikipedia entry, is:

Quote:

The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and had to abandon the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Actually it does not sit that poorly with the no taxation without representation. First the person does have representation-- where they live.

The tax on the property is like an input sales tax on a purchase in a different province-- that will be sold to someone else.

Remember the very important point-- the tax is buried in the rent and collected from the tenant and NOT paid in the end out of the pocket of the landlord. Non resident landlords collect tax in rent and pay it on. If the place is vacant they write it off a later time when the place is not vacant -- the tax is borne by renters not nonresident landlords.

Sean in Ottawa

To answer the rest of your post--

I think you know you are playing apples and oranges here. Not all amendments are equally risky and not all are equally worthwhile. I do not consider giving the franchise to hundreds of thousands of people outside the system to be remotely comparable to adding property rights-- both in risk, complexity or value.

The US Constitution is nothing like our Charter and extending voting rights nothing like adding property rights (voting rights are discrete and do not fit in to a hierarchy as other rights do because they are at once absolute, discrete and without conflict- no person's voting right conflicts with another's). This is like saying I can easily change the brakes on a Jumbo Jet because I can wash my car. Both are big machines right?

Then your logic takes a further pretzel move as it turns over itself in the next breath to argue a case in a country that has property rights codified additionally to individual rights and where the people were still not protected. Common Law addressing expropriation could have prevented that situation in the US and added property rights did nothing to protect those people. Interestingly the supremacy of individual rights over property rights may have offered protection depending on how those individual rights are expressed.

Now the situation in the US that allows property rights and a legal culture that does the same actually favored the developer over the home owner. In a country where individual rights trump property rights the homeowner/resident would have a greater advantage asserting individual rights than a home owner competing for his property rights against a developer's. Indeed, your example is more helpful to my argument than yours. Perhaps that is why your example is American rather than a Canadian one under the Charter you seem to find so deficient.

ygtbk

@Sean: I agree with you that the Kelo decision was a bad one. The decision was specific to Federal law, and therefore left open the possibility that the states could modify state laws to avoid the conclusion. Many of the states have, post-2005, put state law protections in place to ensure that a "public purpose" (for eminent domain) really is a public one (as commonly understood, not some projection of greater tax revenue).

I am curious: how exactly would I go about defending my house from expropriation using my individual rights as opposed to my property rights? Could you sketch that out for me?

Doug

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I assure you the introduction of property rights in to the constitution would not have no effect. It is a major concept in the ultimate declaration of rights.

 

If courts find that existing legislation that infringes the right to property creates only "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" then there's no change. I'm not sure how realistic that is which is why I'd rather not put property in the Charter but that is how it might have less effect than it might seem at first.

Unionist

ygtbk wrote:

I am curious: how exactly would I go about defending my house from expropriation using my individual rights as opposed to my property rights?

In the U.S., you could use your 2nd amendment right.

Here in Canada, you're helpless. Goodbye house.

Full disclosure: Never having owned a house, I'm not the best champion of entrenching real estate rights. That would be like entrenching inequality based on inherited or acquired wealth, wouldn't it?

Before going there, I'd like to see other individual rights entrenched. Like the right to free health care, gainful employment, free education, affordable lodging... you know, that kind of stuff.

The right to own things? As in, buy and sell stuff? Nah, not so much.

George Victor

The banksters here(if I may borrow the term, Fidel) don't let you walk away from your house without penalty...unlike those in the U.S.

No, old J.J.Rousseau had it right (was it in his second essay to the Swiss judges?)  Paraphrasing him very, very loosely, didn't he say that the notion of property came to us through the act of the first fellow who fenced an area of land, declared it his, and found others foolish enough to believe him? 

 

Yes, here he is:

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Voltaire, who had felt annoyed by the first essay [On the Arts and Sciences], was outraged by the second, [Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Among Men], ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau - Cached - Similar
  • Read a very good biography, Voltaire Almighty: a life in pursuit of freedom, by Roger Pearson. It explains Voltaire on property. After visiting England and learning the basics of the propensity of folk to grow capital there, he made himself one of the wealthiest businessmen in France on his return.
  • ygtbk

    Unionist wrote:

    ygtbk wrote:

    I am curious: how exactly would I go about defending my house from expropriation using my individual rights as opposed to my property rights?

    In the U.S., you could use your 2nd amendment right.

    Here in Canada, you're helpless. Goodbye house.

    Full disclosure: Never having owned a house, I'm not the best champion of entrenching real estate rights. That would be like entrenching inequality based on inherited or acquired wealth, wouldn't it?

    Before going there, I'd like to see other individual rights entrenched. Like the right to free health care, gainful employment, free education, affordable lodging... you know, that kind of stuff.

    The right to own things? As in, buy and sell stuff? Nah, not so much.

    There's a whole positive vs. negative rights discussion that could fit in here, Unionist. However, Sean has indicated in post #28 that someone in Canada might be in a better position to fight an expropriation than someone in the U.S., using individual rights instead of property rights. I am, in fact, extremely curious why that might be, because it seems counterintuitive.

    Sean in Ottawa

    Doug- I think I already answer that question many times. You want to see what value judgments get parsed on the way to define what is reasonable?

    Unonist-- not really sure if some of those arguing here are not getting it or are playing a game yet so that twist of sarcasm likely could be a problem.

    YGTBK- it is not counter intuitive at all. In the US the developer has a contract -- a property right and you are competing with that. Your property rights -- against his. In Canada your individual right is considered first as the corporation does not have an individual right. Secondly in the US the justice system is enormously costly and if you are rich and your damage great or your damage to your person great then the lawyers can make money and will line up for you. But if you have a $100,000 house try to find a lawyer who will take that case on spec when the legal bills will come to a million.

    We actually have better access to law in many respects because litigation is less costly here -- and that is sad because we have very poor access here and it is still expensive.

    In any case the laws respecting expropriation here and there are specific laws and more guided by their particulars than by the existence or not of property rights (or 2nd amendment gun-toting rights)_

    Unionist

    Sean in Ottawa wrote:

    Unonist-- not really sure if some of those arguing here are not getting it or are playing a game yet so that twist of sarcasm likely could be a problem.

    Sorry about that, but I'm having a hard time believing anyone could feel comfortable on this board defending the constitutional entrenchment of any property rights.

    But this part wasn't sarcastic at all:

    Quote:
    Before going there, I'd like to see other individual rights entrenched. Like the right to free health care, gainful employment, free education, affordable lodging... you know, that kind of stuff.

    I'd rather have that kind of discussion, actually. I once had a public disagreement with Ed Broadbent, who told me that those kinds of "economic rights" could not be constitutional rights, that I didn't understand, etc.

    I want to understand.

     

    ygtbk

    Sean in Ottawa wrote:

    YGTBK- it is not counter intuitive at all. In the US the developer has a contract -- a property right and you are competing with that. Your property rights -- against his. In Canada your individual right is considered first as the corporation does not have an individual right.

    Kelo was about a city (i.e. a government) expropriating a poor homeowner to give the property to a redeveloper. (Anyone actually reading the case would know that.) Not about the redeveloper expropriating the homeowner - how could he? Only the government could do that.

    Still waiting to hear how, exactly, if the government wants to expropriate my house here in Canada, my individual rights help me make a case compared with my property rights. You kind of promised that in #28, but I see no details as yet.

    Sean in Ottawa

    I have already answered your question and am no longer convinced you even want an answer. Seems you want to argue without regard for anything that is being said.

    Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

    Archives are back up, and the original thread can be accessed here:

     

    Harpoon's next big battle - Property Rights

     

     

     

    ps: comment #5 is interesting: Property Rights enshrines capitalism.

    ygtbk

    Boom Boom wrote:

    Archives are back up, and the original thread can be accessed here:

    Harpoon's next big battle - Property Rights

    ps: comment #5 is interesting: Property Rights enshrines capitalism.

    This would probably be property rights at levels 4-5 and up on my handy-dandy (although imprecise) 7-point scale, as seen in post #8, am I correct? The lower levels probably don't do that much for capitalism.

    Fidel

    Boom Boom wrote:
    ps: comment #5 is interesting: Property Rights enshrines capitalism.

    In 2006, a lonely worker wrote:

    Property Rights enshrines capitalism. If this gets enacted problems arise aside from the obvious environmental, planning and resource based issues. No government will ever be able to introduce new programmes such as public insurance, limiting child care to the non-profits, preventing private health clinics and the list goes on.

    The way I understand CUSFTA-NAFTA is that any province that did not already have public auto insurance some time on or before 1989-1994 is wide open to a sue job from private insurance companies either side of the border if that province was to introduce public auto. Same with daycare I think. Ontario under Rae and New Brunswick  both backed off plans for public car insurance because of CUSFTA-NAFTA and other reasons.

    But if the feds were to grow a pair and setup a universal daycare program at the federal level, then corporate jackals would be out of luck. Anything not already nailed down as a national program becomes a NAFTA issue.

    Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

    Fidel wrote:
    But if the feds were to grow a pair and setup a universal daycare program at the federal level, then corporate jackals would be out of luck. Anything not already nailed down as a national program becomes a NAFTA issue.

     

    Poll: Child care: Would you prefer benefit cheques or a national day care system?

    (National subsidized day care system 72.63% (414 votes)

    JKR

    Positive rights such as the right to adequate child care should be in the constitution.

    Instead of debating whether property rights should be in the constitution (they shouldn't), it would be more profitable debating the inclusion of  more positive rights in the constitution.

    Our constitution should include rights such as the right to adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, democratic rights including proportional representation, environmental sustainability, etc....

    Maybe a thread on Babble should be started discussing that?

    ygtbk

    Politicians to call for property rights protection in Charter:

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Politicians+call+property+rights+protection+Charter/4336606/story.html

    It will be interesting to see what wording is proposed in the federal and Ontario private members bills.

    Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

    ygtbk wrote:

    Politicians to call for property rights protection in Charter:

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Politicians+call+property+rights+protection+Charter/4336606/story.html

    It will be interesting to see what wording is proposed in the federal and Ontario private members bills.

    Thank you for this link!  I've been warning about this all along - ever since Harper promsed to make property rights a priority. This is the scary part of the article:

    But Hillier also pointed out that there is a fundamental principle behind their proposal. "This recognizes the classical liberal philosophy that your home is your castle, and as long as you're not causing anybody harm, you should be able to do what you like with your property."

    That means overridding municipal zoning laws, throwing the entire system into chaos, if implemented.

    ygtbk

    According to this link it's going to be under Section 7. Haven't seen the actual wording as yet. Add salt to link according to taste.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/33730

    ygtbk

    And here's Tasha Kheiriddin's take on the issue:

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/24/tasha-kheiriddin-will-property-rights-finally-get-charter-protection/

    It's nice to see some historical context around this. Pierre Elliott Trudeau is not exactly a right-wing icon. 

    Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

    PET's involvement was discussed in the first Property Rights thread. In 2006.

    ygtbk

    Boom Boom wrote:

    PET's involvement was discussed in the first Property Rights thread. In 2006.

    Boom Boom, you know that, but I'm not sure that all the posters to this thread and the preceding ones do.

    ygtbk

    Here's the Charter amendment being proposed for Ontario:

    Quote:

    That, in the opinion of this House, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be amended to enshrine property rights for Ontarians, as follows:- 
     
     1.  The following section is inserted after section 7:
       
     7.1 (1) In Ontario, everyone has the right not to be deprived, by any Act of the Legislative Assembly or by any action taken under authority of an Act of the Legislative Assembly, of the title, use, or enjoyment of real property, or of any right attached to real property, or of any improvement made to or upon real property, unless made whole by means of full, just and timely financial compensation.
       
     (2) Subsection (1) refers to any Act of the Legislative Assembly made before or after the coming into force of this section.
       
     2.  This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 2011 (No Expropriation in Ontario without Compensation), and reference to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 shall be deemed to include a reference to the Constitution Amendment, 2011 (No Expropriation in Ontario without Compensation).
     

    The indenting's a bit wonky but you get the idea.
    You can find it as Motion 66 at
    http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/go.jsp?Page=/house-proceedings/motions-private-members/files_html/39-2_section_6b_Private_Member_Motions&menuitem=dandp_proceedings&locale=en
    Given that it allows for expropriation (with compensation) it doesn't exacly seem to be barbarians-at-the-gates material.

    Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

    The previous thread is getting long for dial-up, so here we are.

    Original Thread:   Harpoon's next big battle - Property Rights   (now archived)

    Second Thread:   Property Rights - resurrection of an old topic

    The campaign to enshrine Property Rights in the Charter is lurking in the background, as I linked to in the second thread. If that campaign ever gets off the ground, we're in for interesting times.

    Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

    The problem is, if this passed, they would then argue that any legislative restriction on the use of land, such a zoning, noise, emission of pollutants, and so on is equivalent to expropriation, and requires compensation.

    Quote:

    7.1 (1) In Ontario, everyone has the right not to be deprived, by any Act of the Legislative Assembly or by any action taken under authority of an Act of the Legislative Assembly, of the title, use, or enjoyment of real property, or of any right attached to real property, or of any improvement made to or upon real property, unless made whole by means of full, just and timely financial compensation.

    The big problem is the "use or enjoyment". If the right were restricted to "title", then I would agree with your assessment of this as no big deal.

    Pages