Nick Makiaveli, on 15 February 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:
You seriously believe that a govt that already talks about taxes being a vehicle of wealth distribution etc wouldn't do such a thing? Food confiscation is the same as money confiscation. Take from those that have "more than enough" and give to those who don't.
Um... Well, it is perfectly reasonable for the 'things' of an individual to be 'commandeered' or what-have-you for use to support the larger community in times of significant need (major disasters and such), provided just compensation is provided within a reasonable amount of time. In fact, that's right there in the 5th Amendment. "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The government legally has every right and constitutional authority to take private property of individuals for public use, so long as just compensation is provided for whatever is taken.
So, if a disaster hits, and you've got a bunch of food stockpiled and the rest of your local community doesn't have any food, local authorities are fully within their rights to confiscate that food to provide to the greater community, provided they take a tally of all that is confiscated and provide you with just compensation for the value of that food upon confiscation,(or within a reasonable timeframe if doing so under emergency conditions).
That still does not answer the question, however. The 5th Amendment aside, where is it stated or written that the U.S. Gov't can confiscate food or what-have-you whenever it feels like? Or where is it stated or written that maintaining a stockpile of food in an emergency situation is illegal? What law, besides the 5th Amendment, states this?
If there is no such law, or no such law can be pointed to, then this is just hearsay at best, and potentially seditious propaganda at worst.
Nick Makiaveli, on 15 February 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:
Just because it's been around for a long time doesn't make it ok. Most people never stop to think why do we have to have licenses to be a hair dresser? Or groom dogs?
It's been around since the Constitution was written, since the government right/authority to confiscate private property with just compensation was included in the Bill of Rights, and the limitation to that authority/protection for private individuals from that authority (the just compensation part) was also included in the same amendment.
Licenses are required to be a hair dresser because hair dressers work in an environment that has an impact on public health. Ever known anyone who worked in a hair salon? Ever hear them complain about filthy customers who come in with hair full of lice, requiring them to completely sterilize all of their equipment? Not just dipping the comb and scissors in rubbing alcohol after the last customer, but sanitizing the chair and the entire work station. That's just one small aspect of it. Dog grooming has many of the same sorts of concerns, though focused more on the pet population. it's perfectly reasonable to require a license to be a hair dresser or dog groomer, to make sure people actually know what they're doing and how to prevent the spread of disease and other public health problems, and what is required by law for the safety and health of their customers, etc.
Nick Makiaveli, on 15 February 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:
Oh and FTR the first link that popped up.
Link
Now that is a bit more like it. An actual reference to real laws, not just wild, unsupported claims. That said, however, these laws are perfectly reasonable, and are covered by the 5th Amendment (see above).
It is perfectly reasonable, under emergency/disaster conditions, for goverment authorities to confiscate food stockpiled by one person, to feed the local community. It is completely unreasonable for one person to insist on holding onto their stockpile of food and refusing to share that food with their starving neighbors, and it is also unethical and immoral.
Government's job is to protect the general population and promote the general welfare. A lot of that is protecting individuals from various abuses, but when it comes right down to it the government's responsibility is to the general population as a whole, not just single individuals. If a person has a lot of food, it's an emergency/disaster situation, their neighbors are starving, and they are refusing to share their food, the government has every legal and moral right to confiscate that food to feed the larger community, because its duties and obligations extend to the larger community as a whole, and their need to eat to survive out-weighs the mere property rights of a single individual, and that applies from a moral and ethical perspective as well as a legal perspective. Now, that private individual's rights are protected by that individual having the right to just compensation for the property confiscated, either upon confiscation or within a reasonable amount of time after the emergency has been dealt with, so they're not going to just get shafted, but the government has every right and authority to confiscate any property for public use, especially in times of emergency or disaster, so long as just compensation is provided.
On a related note to all of this, what is your stance on the classic hero of Robin Hood? Robin Hood is a very classic hero, held up and idolized by most western cultures, for standing up against a corrupt government, AND for
robbing from the rich to give to the poor. The main function of Robin Hood's heroism is that he would rob the rich nobles and give their stolen wealth to the starving poor. Robin Hood undertook vigilante wealth redistribution, taking from the wealthy nobles, who had more than enough wealth to support themselves in comfortable luxury but still trod on the peasants below them and sucked them dry of every ounce of money they had, and giving to the impoverished peasants who were struggling to just barely get by, and often failing at even that. What is your position on that classic tale? Is Robin Hood a hero, or a villain?
Edited by ilithi dragon, 15 February 2012 - 12:57 PM.
4
