........
Property Rights - resurrection of an old topic
Thu, 2011-01-06 18:53
#1
Boom Boom
Property Rights - resurrection of an old topic
Thu, 2011-01-06 19:03
#2
Arthur Cramer
I really hope this doesn't go anywhere. Is there something new on this front we should be aware of now?
Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg
Thu, 2011-01-06 19:13
#3
Boom Boom
I think this is an ongoing goal of the Harperites. I think he needs a substantial majority, though, if he's contemplating changes to the Constitution - and don't forget Quebec will oppose it. But it's being discussed by the neocons - look at the second link I provided (to the Frontier Centre) where they state:
Thu, 2011-01-06 22:13
#4
They've basically stolen land and mining claims from indigenous people and small prospectors throughout Canadian history. Apparently now that they have all of this public property protected by provincial park status, it's time to guarantee corporate rights of the few over the many? Are they planning a big selloff to rich friends of the party?
Thu, 2011-01-06 22:17
#5
Enlighten me, why are property rights bad? I have no clue on this issue.
Thanx
Thu, 2011-01-06 22:26
#6
Boom Boom
Read the archived thread I linked to.
Fri, 2011-01-07 00:13
#7
For what it's worth, my older bro has tried suing the province here in Ontario for mining claims they stole from my father back in the early 70s. He's not a lawyer and had his case thrown out twice now for lack of attention to various details. One issue has been patented land. He mistakenly told the crown that the claims weren't patented when apparently they were. Hopefully now it's a whole new ball game. I don't think so as the crown basically laid waste to everything he's tried to impress upon them. He can't find a lawyer to take it on, and I suspect it's because they really don't think he has a snowball's chance. Apparently they told my brother he can't cite similar court decisions in British Columbia that were eventually favourable to the parties whose mining claims were expropriated by the province of B.C. similarly. B.C.'s mining act was made a little fairer with awarding damages to injured parties in comparison to here as a result of fairly recent court decisions in B.C. of the late 1990s or so.
Fri, 2011-01-07 01:11
#8
Of note and maybe for a thread of its own. Obama signed on to the indigineous right bill at the UN. I think that leaves us and Australia as the only holdouts.
Another prooud moment for Canada.
Fri, 2011-01-07 09:42
#9
I don't think it'll go anywhere because one possible constitutional change opens the door to all the others. That and it's a bit of a gamble for conservatives. Maybe it provides the legal basis to strike down a lot of legislation they don't like or quite possibly it doesn't change much at all if courts determine those are reasonable limits on this new right to property under s.1 of the Charter.
Fri, 2011-01-07 09:45
#10
Boom Boom
They've basically stolen land and mining claims from indigenous people and small prospectors throughout Canadian history. Apparently now that they have all of this public property protected by provincial park status, it's time to guarantee corporate rights of the few over the many? Are they planning a big selloff to rich friends of the party?
I have a strong suspicion there is something in the works, maybe quietly, behind closed doors. "Property Rights" in the Constitution has always been a big goal for Harper. He's getting everything else he wants, this is the one major goal of Harper's extreme ideology that has eluded him thus far. His silence on the issue only adds to my suspicions.
Fri, 2011-01-07 12:20
#11
Boom Boom
Recent Rabble.ca article (October 18, 2010)
excerpt:
Sinclair says that surrender triggered a wave of Chapter 11 lawsuits challenging environmental regulation and he suspects the Harper government's capitulation will lead to a similar rash of claims over rights to natural resources.
"It establishes this very worrisome and radical notion that natural resources are private property rights, that when access to publicly owned resources is withdrawn, then governments are liable to compensate investors and that has clearly not been the case under Canadian law. We kept property rights out of our constitution."
excerpt:
NAFTA's Chapter 11 stems from U.S., not Canadian, law. The American constitution enshrines property rights; Canada's does not. The Harper Conservatives make no secret of the fact they believe private property rights should be in the Canadian Constitution.
Sat, 2011-01-08 09:13
#12
Enlighten me, why are property rights bad? I have no clue on this issue.
Thanx
In a nutshell they undermine the equality of people -- those with more property end up with more rights.
The reality is there is no such thing as property rights. Nobody seriously thinks a piece of property has rights. What we are talking about is additional rights for people with property.
The second thing you need to consider when discussing property rights is that the assertion of rights are never in a vacuum. These are always about conflicts. The only time you are prevented from doing something is either if there is a specific law against it or what you are doing conflicts with someone else's rights. So the introduction of property rights is intended to trump other people's individual rights.So a person with property rights trumps a person without so when their rights are measured against each other the person with property wins. This is especially problematic since that person with the property already has the advantages of the control of the property. If you add the advantage of the control of the property (wealth) to additional property rights then the power-shift away from human rights is complete.
It is critical to recognize that rights are about power-- both moral and legal. Property is already power through control. If you add to the power of wealth additional rights related to the existence of that property then human rights, even when considered, become so weak that they are irrelevant in practice. Consider that the power to control property is already there in the absence of a declaration of an additional right to go with it. Already rights like freedom from hunger or the need for housing cannot compete, even without property rights being recognized, with the control of property so that people still face the fact that others control the housing and the food. If we go further what really is left?
Now consider the concentration of wealth in this country. The property owners are doing fine and gaining as it is. Why do they need property rights enshrined when they have increased their relative share of property to the point wealth is the most concentrated it has been in the last 100 years? The addition of property rights would effectively undo the gains of human and civil rights and return us to a previous time. 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.
Anyway, hope this helps you.
Tue, 2011-01-25 22:58
#13
Boom Boom
Alberta: Property rights remain top priority for government (on Ted Morton's website, natch)
I think this is in response to the leader of the Wild Rose saying that Stelmach has infringed upon Albertan's property rights - but the interview with her tonight on P&P did not mention any specifics.
It sounds to me like Albertan's take property rights for granted. Anyone have further info?
Wed, 2011-01-26 00:01
#14
I am guessing most of the uproar over property rights in Alberta are geared around the new power transmission lines that are being proposed. As in "we the government have decided the best route for these power lines is right through your property, so sorry if you don't like it" sort of context. The current Alberta government has done some less than ideal "public relations" regarding this issue.
"Yew fellers from the gubmint cain't come onta MAH LAND and tell ME whut tew dew!!!! (spits tobacco juice)"
Apologies to the non-tobacco-chewing Albertans.
Wed, 2011-01-26 00:06
#15
Boom Boom
Thanks for that info, and the humour.
The link I posted to (#13) sounded kind of defensive, so I guess the gummint was feeling the heat. (excuse me while I spit on my kitchen floor that has dust bunnies all over).
Wed, 2011-01-26 00:30
#16
@ who are you post #6
Property rights are bad because it means an individual can control the means of production with the protection of the state.
When an individual owns the means of production, you then have a class society. The owners being one class and the rest being of another.
It is one of the most basic priciples of the Capitalist class structure. Ownership of the means of production allows one person to extract surplus value from another.
If everyone owned the means of production equally, then you would not have people being paid a wage for their labour power.
When the Capitalist talks about property rights, they are not talking about your shoes. They are talking about the means of production, like the land, the water, the machines, the buildings. It's how they make money, while you do the work.
Wed, 2011-01-26 00:45
#17
Here is an example.
If we had property rights, then I could buy up all the farmland and the Government or the Monarchy could not take it from me. Nor could you.
At this point, owning all the farmland, I can now dictate to you as to what you can get from it. If you wanted to eat, I could make you toil all day, just to get a snack. Or in the case of Capitalism, by withholding the food, I can make you work for it and pay you a wage for your labour power. Which is a fraction of the value you created with your labour.
Wed, 2011-01-26 09:03
#18
Here is an example.
If we had property rights, then I could buy up all the farmland and the Government or the Monarchy could not take it from me. Nor could you.
At this point, owning all the farmland, I can now dictate to you as to what you can get from it. If you wanted to eat, I could make you toil all day, just to get a snack. Or in the case of Capitalism, by withholding the food, I can make you work for it and pay you a wage for your labour power. Which is a fraction of the value you created with your labour.
Interestingly, this argument works just as well if the State owns all the land. This is a good argument against monopoly ownership of land, but it's not really specific to capitalism.
Wed, 2011-01-26 09:40
#19
Boom Boom
Alberta Property Rights Initiative
This is a very long article on the proposed Property Rights Preservation Bill .
excerpt of the Introduction to the article:
Founded in 2006, the Alberta Property Rights Initiative is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy group headquartered in the Calgary area. It will endeavour to provide a common central organization for various concerned property groups who wish to promote entrenchment in law, the full protection of property rights for the benefit of all Albertans; "The Initiative."
The Initiative will actively build political support to pass a property rights clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in order to guarantee that if any portion of private property, is taken for public use, the owner will receive, to that extent, full, fair and timely market compensation.
The Initiative will actively promote an Alberta Property Rights Preservation Bill to protect property owners through provincial legislation.
ETA: There's a pdf. link inside of the article that I linked to:
And then there is:
The Magna Carta (1215) entrenched property rights and is still interpreted as a guarantee of liberties including the right to property and not to be deprived of same without compensation.
and:
Who can we count on come election day?
excerpt:
The following letter, written in partnership with the Ontario Landowners Association, highlights the promises made by Steven Harper in the last federal election regarding property rights in Canada, promises that have yet to be kept. This letter was sent to Steven Harper and all conservative MP's on behalf of the membership of APRI and OLA as a reminder; the Conservative Party will have to address these issues if they would like to continue looking forward to the rural vote. We encourage you to have a look at it and even write your own letter to Steven Harper in the run up to the election. Let's let him know this issue isn't going away until property owners and all Canadians get a fair and just resolution: the entrenchment in law, the full protection of property rights for the benefit of all Canadians.
Wed, 2011-01-26 09:46
#20
Boom Boom
From January 14, 2011: RESTORE PROPERTY RIGHTS: WILDROSE WILL REPEAL BAD BILLS
excerpt:
Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith, former campaign director of the Alberta Property Rights Initiative and managing director of the Canadian Property Rights Research Institute, said restoring and strengthening property rights would be a top priority for her government after the constant attacks the PC government has waged against Alberta landowners over the last two years.
Wed, 2011-01-26 10:19
#21
Boom Boom
Danielle Smith Speaks Out On Property Rights
excerpt:
The Stelmach government isn't just chipping away at our property rights, it has taken a sledge hammer to them. That is why one of the first acts of a Wildrose government will be to repeal those three laws and enact a new Alberta Property Rights Preservation Act, a landmark law that will recognize the protection of private property rights for the first time in our province's history.
Wed, 2011-01-26 10:26
#22
Boom Boom
This has been brewing for a while. From 1998: New Canadian Property Rights Research Institute Represents Grass Roots Interests (.pdf format)
Top photo: Danielle Smith, with a list of program sponsors, at the institute's inaugural conference.
excerpt:
CanPRRI was founded by Alberta ranchers and farmers who faced property rights battles firsthand. Their interest in protecting access to the range, adopting common sense environmental policy and workable development controls is just the tip of the iceberg. These and other issues were explored at the first annual conference, "The Importance of Property Rights," held in March at Calgary's historic Palliser Hotel, which attracted many more participants than its organizers anticipated.
excerpt:
Speakers addressed a wide range of real world situations including environmental conflicts, rent control battles, gun control, human rights, native land claims, and intellectual property rights. 
Wed, 2011-01-26 10:32
#23
alan smithee
I have to admit that I don't know what property rights mean to an average shmo like myself or the ramifications of property rights being implemented into the Charter.
Seeing that this seems like such an important issue for the right wing,I'm assuming this is bad news...But I'd like to know what it means in layman's terms.
Wed, 2011-01-26 10:38
#24
Boom Boom
Alan, I'd recommend Sean's post #12 above.
Wed, 2011-01-26 10:48
#25
It must be noted that the proposed property rights legislation does not just seek to prevent loss of title without compensation. It defines "takings" which must be compensated to include both any government action that would cause the value of the property to drop and any action that would seek to in any way limit the use of the private property.
In my post 12 I laid out concerns with respect to private property rights and why they are illegitimate as a separate head of rights. Specifically I pointed to a concern about the conflict of one person's civil rights with another's property rights. The way the bill is being presented it seems that the framers also anticipate such conflict and are moving to ensure that in any conflict the property rights will triumph.
The public (government) would be unable to take any action that could cause either the devaluing or limiting the use of a private property. The conflict when it comes to government would be explicit and the intent clear enough that the government would lose any contest on this point. I think a fair interpretation would be that this would effectively make ANY regulation of private property for any purpose either illegal or extremely expensive. The bill, if enacted would in a stroke make not only gun control but also environmental protection near impossible-- I could see the bill even being used to challenge taxation. Why could it not be used to challenge health and safety laws? If the government cannot limit use of a property, how could they regulate that use when it comes to a safe work place or conditions?
As I said above, private property rights are not in a vacuum. They are ultimately asserted against other people's civil rights and this proposal lays out a blueprint for how that would play out.
Wed, 2011-01-26 10:48
#26
Enlighten me, why are property rights bad? I have no clue on this issue.
Thanx
In a nutshell they undermine the equality of people -- those with more property end up with more rights.
The reality is there is no such thing as property rights. Nobody seriously thinks a piece of property has rights. What we are talking about is additional rights for people with property.
The second thing you need to consider when discussing property rights is that the assertion of rights are never in a vacuum. These are always about conflicts. The only time you are prevented from doing something is either if there is a specific law against it or what you are doing conflicts with someone else's rights. So the introduction of property rights is intended to trump other people's individual rights.So a person with property rights trumps a person without so when their rights are measured against each other the person with property wins. This is especially problematic since that person with the property already has the advantages of the control of the property. If you add the advantage of the control of the property (wealth) to additional property rights then the power-shift away from human rights is complete.
It is critical to recognize that rights are about power-- both moral and legal. Property is already power through control. If you add to the power of wealth additional rights related to the existence of that property then human rights, even when considered, become so weak that they are irrelevant in practice. Consider that the power to control property is already there in the absence of a declaration of an additional right to go with it. Already rights like freedom from hunger or the need for housing cannot compete, even without property rights being recognized, with the control of property so that people still face the fact that others control the housing and the food. If we go further what really is left?
Now consider the concentration of wealth in this country. The property owners are doing fine and gaining as it is. Why do they need property rights enshrined when they have increased their relative share of property to the point wealth is the most concentrated it has been in the last 100 years? The addition of property rights would effectively undo the gains of human and civil rights and return us to a previous time. 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.
Anyway, hope this helps you.
So as a middle income home owner, you are saying that my right to property is a bad thing? That someone without property can tell me what to do with my property?
Just trying to understand what the problem is?
Wed, 2011-01-26 11:00
#27
Boom Boom
Excellent, Sean. I find it very worrisome that in 1998 in Alberta (and I know earlier instances in Ontario) that property rights were being discussed in relation to environmental conflicts, rent control battles, gun control, human rights, native land claims, and intellectual property rights - because property rights enshrined in the Charter will trump each and every one of these concerns.
I have a relative in Canada that owns valuable farmland but wants to sell it to a developer for millions of dollars, but the Municipality says no, it must remain as farmland. My relative is saying his property rights are being violated, and has become a rabid right wing neocon and calling on Harper to get his ass in gear and put property rights in the Charter, asap. He hardly speaks to me anymore, knowing I vehemently oppose property rights. It's personal for me. I want to see that farmland continue as farmland in that municipality.
Wed, 2011-01-26 11:22
#28
@ Who are you [cross posted with Boom Boom]
Your civil rights already exist. Through those civil rights you already have protections. However, when you invoke property rights as well that is added to and ultimately will conflict with civil rights and be used to settle conflicts.
So you are speaking as a "middle income home owner." Who are you afraid of? In theory, it is the state I assume since only the elected government could infringe in any imaginable way on the property of someone and they are politically accountable. Protection to individuals limits that. What exactly do you think an elected government would do to all homeowners? People are already protected against individual or arbitrary action against them by the government. Another possibility might be a landlord. Perhaps, property rights can be used to prevent a pesky tenant from asserting unimportant rights like safety etc. to interfere in your rental profit? Certainly the property rights of landlords will conflict with the rights of tenants in any expression of property rights. The law is supposed to seek in the public good to balance the two. But if you enter property rights for landlords then the state might not be able to provide those civil rights such as safety etc. without challenge and deep costs.
But let us imagine the same "middle income homeowner" following the assertion of property rights. Imagine beside you there is a big corporation and it wants to create a product for profit but it won't be safe and will poison your water. Presently, you have a right to health and safety-- no contest. But what happens when the government is prohibited from limiting that corporation's use of the land? Under the proposal the government could have to pay the corporation for its "losses" if it sought to limit the production of what would poison your water, or forced the corporation to expend money (devaluing the property) to consider your safety. The government could be effectively prevented from protecting individual rights.
Now what about a situation where there are both rights being asserted-- one person who has a property right and an individual right and another with just individual rights-- the one with the property would win.
What about property rights to patents? Heart medication might be coming out of patent protection-- well the government could not in a balanced way seek to manage both the private company's right to make the most money for the drug against the public's need to have generics produce the drug after a reasonable time and the public interest of keeping health care affordable. the property rights and profit would triumph.
We all have individual civil rights that seek to make us all equal in the law. Those rights allow for possession and enjoyment of property as civil rights rather than as extended property rights. To invoke property rights is to distribute in what is already an equitable playing field high "cards" in the form of property rights to those with property. Now back to the "so called "middle income homeowner" how does that person's property rights measure up against a developer's property rights? Those with more property would have more rights.
There was a time when only landowners could vote-- such a proposal takes us a step back to that kind of class division in society.
And it is all completely unnecessary-- please explain what right as an individual you are missing today.
Also the governemnt that we elect is ours -- it is a collective expression and can be changed with the public will. That govenrment is already elected in a system that favours money. Thsoe with property already have more sway over the governmetn than those without. Why do they need additional protection from "their" government? Would individuals seeking individual civil rights regardless of property not need more protection since their influence over the electoral process is less?
Wed, 2011-01-26 11:22
#29
Yes Boom Boom it would be an end to the Agricultural Land Reserve in BC. It also would clearly pit a person's right to expect service in an establishment open to the public against the right to choose who you will allow on your property.
The use of property and the ownership of property must clearly be differentiated. That house you own in suburbia is on Crown land according to our law. The deed was granted from the Crown after it stole the land from the original inhabitants. We already have the concept of societal (the Crown) ownership of all land in Canada with rights granted for use of the land by the government. Some people in this country own their land and the resources that are below the ground other people own only the land or only the rights to the resources.
Giving rights to people and corporations owning property to bring to the table in discussions about public policy is undemocratic. People are either equal actors on the public stage or some are serfs.
Wed, 2011-01-26 11:27
#30
Here is an example.
If we had property rights, then I could buy up all the farmland and the Government or the Monarchy could not take it from me. Nor could you.
At this point, owning all the farmland, I can now dictate to you as to what you can get from it. If you wanted to eat, I could make you toil all day, just to get a snack. Or in the case of Capitalism, by withholding the food, I can make you work for it and pay you a wage for your labour power. Which is a fraction of the value you created with your labour.
Interestingly, this argument works just as well if the State owns all the land. This is a good argument against monopoly ownership of land, but it's not really specific to capitalism.
Careful you are sounding like an anarchist.
To me allowing a hedge fund based on Wall Street to control its "property" globally is the antithesis of a democratic world and a sound economy. Central control is like monolithic farming. You can grow lots of crops until the whole shebang gets wiped out from lack of diversity.
Wed, 2011-01-26 11:35
#31
ElizaQ
I have to admit that I don't know what property rights mean to an average shmo like myself or the ramifications of property rights being implemented into the Charter.
Seeing that this seems like such an important issue for the right wing,I'm assuming this is bad news...But I'd like to know what it means in layman's terms.
Sean's post is good at explaining the ramifications of them going into the charter. I'm dead set against that because in a nutshell it means less wiggle room and exploits the balance of power.
However my issue is that this drive and support, especially from rural people, for charter implementation comes from real world conflicts between different parties and the right wing has jumped all over it to exploit it. They're offering up and selling this as an all encompassing solution to the problems. Without anyone else offering alternatives and searching out other solutions then it's theirs to play with and exploit. Sure it's great to say on theoretical level that all 'property rights' are bad and maybe even should be abolished but that doesn't do a whole lot to convince the people who are experiencing the conflicts.
To give a small example that's happening right now in my area. Interesting because the people involved aren't 'property rights' advocates at all and believe more in communal sharing. Aged hippy types. In this particular area there are some old farms and large pieces of property that are bush. The Bruce Trail runs through most of these properties and the people have no issue with that at all. They do work to maintain and keep up the part of the public trail that runs through there land.
However a few years ago several large 'cottages' went in along the lakeshore. Not really cottages but mega houses, built by people that come up from the GTA. So these people have decided that they can take whatever the hell they want, whatever way they want and when they want. So they'll just go and chop down trees willy nilly, the latest is they're working on their landscaping and they just go and haul huge stones from the bush and leave quite a lot of destruction in their wake. I saw some of it. It's awful. They decided that the Bruce Trail was a great ATV track. Not only is this dangerous for hikers it causes a heck of lot of damage. The neighbors decided to try to do something to curb it and build some stone barriers at the trail head and when they got them half built the city slickers showed up with bobcat and smashed them down.
Talking to these people hasn't worked. They have no interest whatsoever in working with the surrounding neighbors. They have no interest in ecological concerns and destruction. So talking about working out some sort of way that the trees that get chopped down are the ones that are already part of sustainable woodlot plans that most have is a no go. Not interested, a tree, is a tree, is a tree. Screw off. They are utterly selfish. The 'property owners' had no choice but to go to authorities and exert their 'rights'. One lady I talked to said it made her sick because it went against much that she believed. She hated having to put up 'No Tresspassing" signs all over the place because for the most part she doesn't care if people come on and walk through the property to enjoy. They have to do it now because in order to be able to do anything with these people it has to be made plain as day that it is private property.
With this sort of conflict which isn't that uncommon around here are the people that hold the 'property rights' the bad guys? And if property rights didn't exist as they do now what are ways that these type of conflicts can be resolved, especially in a situation when one party doesn't care about any social or community concerns. Situations where they are not really part of the community at all. Where the social mechinisms that are use to govern a 'commons' don't exist. What is the better alternative to deal with these sorts of things.
Although I don't see these particular people taking what's happening in their neck of woods to 'we must put rights' in the Charter. I can easily see how these sorts of conflicts can forment the atmosphere where people when presented with this as a 'solution' go into this mode of thinking. I can only see it getting worse as well as resource and land pressures grow. The Right and Harper are exploiting this right now and with no one else in the mix addressing the actual concerns that are driving it in the first place and offering 'progressive' alternatives. It's Harper's and his ilk 'issue' to use and abuse all the way to Charter implementation.
Wed, 2011-01-26 11:40
#32
Boom Boom
I posted this government link on the old archived thread a few years back, but the archived thread is down for the moment.
PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION October 1991
excerpt:
Critics warn that entrenchment might have unintended consequences, affecting such things as municipal zoning rules, Native land claims, pollution regulations and a spouse's right to property on the dissolution of a marriage. Others are concerned about how property rights might be interpreted by the courts, if no definition of "property" were included in the Charter.
excerpt:
A number of other groups have also indicated their concerns about the possible inclusion of property rights in the Constitution. For example, Native groups are worried about how their land claims and land entitlement would be affected. Labour groups have expressed concerns about how the rights of workers might conflict with the rights of those who own property. Environmental groups have concerns about the kinds of laws that could be passed if property rights were entrenched.
excerpt:
In addition, a number of provinces are concerned that the constitutional entrenchment of property rights would enable the courts to interfere with laws that protect important societal interests. They cite, for example, land use planning and municipal laws, real and personal property laws, environmental laws, and health and safety laws. They ask whether an entrenched right to property might affect the ability of the provinces to control the use of privately owned lands, to protect the environment, or to protect communities.
(my excerpts were made selectively from a much longer article)
Wed, 2011-01-26 12:16
#33
Boom Boom
From my link #21 above:
Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith, former campaign director of the Alberta Property Rights Initiative and managing director of the Canadian Property Rights Research Institute, said restoring and strengthening property rights would be a top priority for her government after the constant attacks the PC government has waged against Alberta landowners over the last two years.
Question: How will other provinces, and especially the federal government, react if the WRA succeeds in getting elected to government and putting property rights into Alberta law?
Wed, 2011-01-26 14:28
#34
alan smithee
Would property rights destroy any hope of rent controlled,affordable and/or social housing?
I don't live in rural Canada,in the urban districts of Canada,rents have gotten out of control and increased dramatically year after year for over 10 years.
I know that in my area,there has been a housing problem for over a decade and promises of new social housing units and affordable housing units have been broken and all that is being constructed are condos--I'm not exaggerating.
Would property rights kill any initiatives for affordable housing which is probably one of the most important issues facing Canadians?
I'm a little concerned because our Finance Minister (a Mike Harris Tory) campaigned to take over for Harris when the bastard stepped down,to make homelessness 'illegal' at the height of a housing crisis.
That was some years ago and maybe I'm misinformed...But if that's true,will the housing situation in Canada's urban communities become even worse than it currently is?
Wed, 2011-01-26 14:46
#35
Alan, I can't speak in absolutes. The concept of property rights is in conflict with the measures you are concerned with. Whether they would prevent them or not would depend on specific working we have not seen. They are in conflict with the concept of equality between individuals and they can place a chill on public initiatives for social purposes. They open the door for property owners to challenge the government whenever it seeks to place a limit on how property is used-- this would include all forms of regulation and all forms of private property including both intellectual, goodwill, physical like guns etc., and real estate.
The concept is to protect from elected representatives any limitation on the use or value of property. There is very little in terms of regulation that is not affecting private property in some way. It would do severe damage to almost every function of government. In some cases, it would be a question of compensation but the government is ours and if it is forced to pick up these costs for property owners every time it wanted to do something few functions of government could be affordable.
It is critical to remember that government is a public expression. When you limit it in the interests of a few, you make it work better for them and worse for everyone else.
Wed, 2011-01-26 14:53
#36
alan smithee
Thanks,Sean.
It sounds bleek...But I shouldn't have been surprised looking at who is championing this idea.
Wed, 2011-01-26 15:15
#37
Snert
They open the door for property owners to challenge the government whenever it seeks to place a limit on how property is used-- this would include all forms of regulation and all forms of private property including both intellectual, goodwill, physical like guns etc., and real estate.
I wouldn't be averse to those challenges. Heck, already that implies that property rights wouldn't be absolute. But then if property rights aren't absolute, what would really be the difference between that and what we have now, where property "rights" are enshrined in process or convention or law, but not in the Charter?
For the record, I don't think we need absolute property rights, nor do I think we need fewer property "rights" than what we've currently got (eg: the understood and agreed on "right" to own possessions, to sell or trade them, to reserve exclusive use of them, etc., etc.)
Wed, 2011-01-26 15:52
#38
Boom Boom
You're awesome, Sean - and I apologise for my nasty comments in an earlier thread. You've got my vote if you ever run here! 
Wed, 2011-01-26 15:55
#39
Snert
Snert-- just how right wing are you?
Not to be glib, but the answer is relative.
But now I'm also curious: did you see my post above as being right wing? I'm actually saying that I don't think we need any special property rights.
I've suggested before that I'm probably more "civil libertarian" than "right wing", though there will always be overlap. Regarding property, I believe I should be allowed to own things (a car, a house, a collection of old vinyl) and that if these are legally acquired, I should be permitted to use them as I wish within the bounds of the law. If the government wishes, for example, to take that collection of classic vinyl from me then they should first of all have a very good reason for this, and second, should compensate me at market value. That's about it. I'm not pushing for the right to "own" the only river in the county, or to include the airspace above my house or anything.
Wed, 2011-01-26 16:50
#40
What if I own a grow-op and it is my "property". If property rights are enshrined - i guess the government cannot stop me from growing cannabis on my property?
Wed, 2011-01-26 17:26
#41
I've suggested before that I'm probably more "civil libertarian" than "right wing", though there will always be overlap.
Lots of overlap for sure. Libertarians are more of a cult than anything. They believe in invisible hand worship and other black magic. I'd put a stop on their news letters if I were you. Next thing you know you'll be selling your house and car, wife and kids and moving into a condo downtown, or something.
Wed, 2011-01-26 17:58
#42
alan smithee
Well,seeing that there are Libertarians out here,I'mm going to come out of the political closet.
I am a fiscal conservative.
I oppose the government spending $300 000 000 on renovating this city's casino.
I oppose the billions being spent on un-needed fighter jets and prisons.
I oppose corporate welfare.
I oppose prohibition.
I oppose the ' war' (cough-occupation-cough) in Afghanistan.
I oppose tax cuts to the top 10% wealthiest.
I oppose Parliamentary salary raises and million dollar pensions.
I oppose the Senate.
As it stands,the government likes to boast ' cutting spending' but ONLY to services and the general well being of its citizenry.
the government has 100's of billions of dollars of tax payer money to spend on ideology,their corporate overlords and on themselves.
A REAL fiscal conservative would never stand for this....Hence,most fiscal conservatives are as full of shit and drunk on ideology as their socially conservative brothers and sisters.
Wed, 2011-01-26 18:04
#43
Glad to hear it, Alan. Your vote is safe with the NDP. It will be good for conservative-minded people to lend their votes to Layton and the NDP in nudging the Harpers, or the people who will eventually replace them, toward some notions of fiscal and national responsibility.
Wed, 2011-01-26 18:30
#44
No, what is not absolute is a description of how bad it would be-- and only because we can't see the language.
We do not need property rights to be increased in competition with civil rights and the latitude of elected government. We do not want the precedent. Objects do not have rights -- people do. And people with more objects do not get additional rights.
There is no need whatsoever for these additional property rights EXCEPT as a means to assert them against existing civil rights.
The implications on government:
1) chill/reluctance to take action in the public interest
2) cost in defending the right to do same after such legislation
3) cost in actual compensation where property rights triumphs
On individuals
1) reduction in personal rights to make room for these
2) increased reality of government speaking for wealthy interests rather than citizen's interests
3) inequality between individuals (those with more property end up with more rights)
In the end it is the property owner using the right not the property itself so the owners civil rights should be enough.
Snert-- just how right wing are you? You have been here a long time for someone this right wing-- don't mean it as an insult just a fair question in this context.
Wed, 2011-01-26 18:35
#45
Snert-- just how right wing are you?
Not to be glib, but the answer is relative.
But now I'm also curious: did you see my post above as being right wing? I'm actually saying that I don't think we need any special property rights.
I've suggested before that I'm probably more "civil libertarian" than "right wing", though there will always be overlap. Regarding property, I believe I should be allowed to own things (a car, a house, a collection of old vinyl) and that if these are legally acquired, I should be permitted to use them as I wish within the bounds of the law. If the government wishes, for example, to take that collection of classic vinyl from me then they should first of all have a very good reason for this, and second, should compensate me at market value. That's about it. I'm not pushing for the right to "own" the only river in the county, or to include the airspace above my house or anything.
But Snert, you have all that. The government can't just take any of those things. The only purpose in asserting property rights on top of existing individual rights which include a all the property rights you will ever need is to puff up property rights in order for them to take on other people's individual rights or the collective rights of individuals to take action on behalf of individuals in an accountable and legal fashion. The government already has a great deal of legal liability when it affects people's personal property but to give that propert special rights is an extension that scares me and many others here.
I do get part of your reaction because those trumpeting property rights always point to the reasonable sounding (albeit unneeded rationales) and never point to the real purpose behind this. The real purpose is what one might call an "intended consequence" and the stated purpose is reasonably called an "excuse" since there is no real need for this other than the "intended consequences" that are not be advertised -- for good reason.
Wed, 2011-01-26 18:41
#46
Oh on the relative right wing-- I totally agree that it is relative.
But consider this: in a global perspective those you consider left here are actually mostly very centre. United States is a very right wing country with a penchant for radical capitalism. Western Europe is for the most part more centrist and even many of their right wing parties come in contexts of a society that is far to the left of here.
They might discuss retirement age etc. even throw some rocks while doing so but they don't spend their days discussing if they can afford state-supported health care. And property rights-- they'd look at you funny unless they spent time in the US where people think the right to carry a weapon trumps your right not to be shot by one.
In any case I would argue that in the grand scheme Canada's left is at the global centre and our right is a few steps from the global looney fringe (which is geographically located in Texas).
So relative indeed.
Wed, 2011-01-26 18:44
#47
Thanks Alan -- nice to hear that definition of fiscal conservative-- i guess I can use that instead of my previous definition "greedy bastard"
Thanks Boom-Boom -- never liked fighting with you anyway-- you add too much here that I like reading and agreeing with.
Wed, 2011-01-26 23:48
#48
Boom Boom
Scary Ontario group: Ontario Landowners Association
Related link: Landowners encouraged to assert their property rights. Land owners are applying in droves for their Crown Land Patent Grants.
excerpt:
Ontario rural landowners are going back in time in their fight to preserve their property rights. Land owners are applying in droves for their Crown Land Patent Grants which Liz Marshall, secretary of the Ontario Landowners Association and a researcher with the Association's Patent Committee says gives landowners the authority to challenge government legislation that designates land use conditions and plans without full compensation or regard to the property/land owner's rights.
"The Crown Land Patent Grants were established for the settlement of Canada and created so the land would be granted free. There may have been certain conditions such as building a home or clearing the land within three years time," Marshall said. "The letters patent are what would be considered a contract; they are their own legislation and had specific reservations for the Crown such as, for example, mineral extraction and white pine. Everything else was for the owner of the land and they could do anything they wanted with that land, as long as the landowner respected neighbouring land, water or air, as expressed under Common Law.
It also states in these patents that it is for the heirs and assigned forever. So everything that is in those patents stands and was to continue on."
Marshall says, it would seem that any legislation created after existing land patents does not trump original land patents. If new patents were issued they would be subject to current legislation. The OLA is using these documents as means of fighting back against intrusive government legislation such as wetland, endangered species habitat, tree cutting by-laws, and the Places to Grow Act which are violations of their property rights.
"We are trying to create the big stick that will make the government back off. The government is designating people's property as wetlands, heritage lands and habitat for endangered species. They can't do that, you can't plan for it if you don't own it" Marshall said. "When the provinces were created nothing was given to the province in that manner because everything had been conveyed previously. Land was either owned by the Crown or it had been conveyed to the private freehold land owner."
Related Link: Ontario Parties could learn from Alberta
excerpt:
"The Wildrose Alliance has made protecting private property rights a top priority," says OLA president Deborah Madill. "Their party leader, Danielle Smith, has even pledged to entrench property rights into the Alberta Bill of Rights, and spearhead a national initiative to have property rights enshrined into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
The Foundation of our freedom. The most important rights in any society are property rights*
*that's a very Ayn Rand-ish statement!
Thu, 2011-01-27 00:40
#49
alan smithee
Just to expose alot of the hypocracies of fiscal conservatism and why it's an ideology and not a concern over money.
Traditional fiscal conservatives believe that ;
Corporate welfare is good...Social welfare is bad.
A regulated housing program is bad...Filling prison cells is good.
The 3 constant cuts fiscal conservatives always slash is health care,education and welfare...The 3 constant priority spendatures is on military,police and corporate tax cuts/welfare.
This mindset and these policies actually cost a MINIMUM of 10 times than policies that are socially responsible.
Regulating the housing market by spending money on affordable housing units CREATES JOBS...Prospective owners of these units can be easily appeased and compensated by CUTTING property taxes to affordable housing to a bare minimum and INCREASING property taxes on condos.
And someone has to build these units (jobs)
I still hear people moaning about welfare recipients and the same outrageous myths.
They're lazy or the time tested line of bullshit, 'They sit at home all day drinking beer'
I did some research and in Quebec,a single person on welfare in 1990 received $485/month...A single person on welfare in 2010 receives $550/month
That's an increase of about 12% in 20 years...You could rent a one bedroom appartment in 1990 for as low as $220/month...In 2010 you'd be extremely lucky to find the same appartment for less than $500/month .
And in Montreal,it's to the point where someone could pitch a tent on their front yard,label it a condo and charge $600/month for it.
This is why this city's food banks are overwhelmed and I'd like someone to explain just where in the hell does a welfare recipient find the money to drink everyday?
I'm sure a conservative could label them criminals..Probably all sell drugs.
So in the fiscal conservative world,paying an individual $6 000/a year to pay their rent is a waste of tax money..BUT paying $60 000/a year to house the same person in jail is a good thing.
Alot of the professional assholes with soap boxes in the media will look you square in the face and tell you that social justice is Nazism.
'Paying people to do nothing is wrong'...But only if they're poor.
The fact is,if you spread the wealth,more people have money in their pockets and the only good money has is in SPENDING it.
WOW,more people spending their money buying services and goods--I'm sure Hitler would be proud :P
The fact is that social spending creates jobs,stimulates the economy,keeps the streets safer and costs 10-20 times cheaper than a corporate supremist military/police state.
Scrap prohibition on top of that and we'd probably never see a deficit ....Or hungry,homeless,sick or 3rd world poverty in this country again.
Thu, 2011-01-27 00:43
#50
You are on a roll Alan-- nothing to disagree with there...
Thu, 2011-01-27 12:08
#51
Snert
Lots of overlap for sure. Libertarians are more of a cult than anything. They believe in invisible hand worship and other black magic.
You're probably thinking of "Right Libertarians" (eg: the Libertarian Party). Civil Libertarians aren't the same thing at all. There's a lot of overlap between Civil Libertarians and the Left (belief in free speech, support for an individual's right to smoke pot, gay rights, and so on).
There's a lot of unfortunate confusion, with the result being (among other things) some kind of curious belief that I don't believe in any kind of taxes, or that I'm a minarchist or whatever.