Clean Water Act Overhaul => Largest Land-Grab Ever

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IntheNet, Dec 14, 2009.

  1. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #1
    Not So Private Property? Clean Water Restoration Act Raises Fears of Land Grab
    FOXNews.com
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/14/private-property-clean-water-restoration-act/
    Upwards of 40 percent of all land in the United States is already under some form of government control or ownership -- 800 million to 900 million acres out of America's total 2.2 billion acres. The government now appears poised to wield greater control over private property on a number of fronts. The battle over private property rights has intensified since 2005, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo v. City of New London case that the government could take property from one group of private landowners and give it to another. Outraged over that ruling and a series of recent efforts by government to wield greater control over private property, citizens are fighting back. Fox News' Shannon Bream takes a fair and balanced look at the controversy in a three-part series. The Clean Water Restoration Act currently pending in the U.S. Senate could reach to control even a "seasonal puddle" on private property. Eleven senators and 17 representatives in the U.S. House have sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasting the measure as one of the boldest property grab attempts of all time.
     
  2. Schtumple macrumors 601

    Schtumple

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Location:
    benkadams.com
    #2
    I'm sorry but how is this a "fair and balanced" report when it's instantly assuming that the government WILL grab land... Oh wait, Fox, I should've known better :rolleyes:



    (Sorry to panda to the cliche on fox bashing, but they really are relentless in inciting fear)
     
  3. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #3
    bash fox all you want. The land grabbing they are reporting is a huge problem threw out goverment. I am glad Texas passed a law making it illegal to for a government in the State of Texas to take land and sell it to a private property. I can promise you that will never go away as it was an amendment to the state constitution and as such would require the people vote (which voted like 95-98% for it to be added).

    The people really do not like the government taking land from private property to turn around and give to another.
     
  4. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #4
    Assuming the goverment will do what it's legislating itself the ability to do is the exact test extentions of government power should have to pass before they're granted. The whole reason we have the Constitution is to disempower the government from being able to do things that it might find advantageous in the future for any reason but that are against the interests and liberty of the people.

    Look at the millions who fought against the Patriot Act. Everyone was concerned (and rightly so) that these additional powers could potentially be used against them, even if that would be an unlikely occurence. Regardless, evil, or at least not benevolent, intentions need to be assumed and discussed whenever the government is seeking to enlarge its influence and domain of control.

    Now I'm not taking sides or lending any support to the Fox News article, I just took exeption to the portion of your post I italicized.
     
  5. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #5
    I think you'll find the "largest land grab ever" in the US was the theft of the original inhabitants lands.
     
  6. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #6
    In contrast to the OP's bolded section, which is clearly fear-mongering, I present this paragraph from the linked article:
    So, aside from the intermittent streams and playa lakes, they're all a far cry from "seasonal puddles".
    Yup, nothing like a monarch from across an ocean granting charters for land that doesn't belong to them.
     
  7. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #7
    Quite, it doesn't absolve however those who to this day took advantage of that crime and committed their own. Truly all property is theft.
     
  8. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #8
    I don't believe the "largest land-grab ever" was even in North America. Africa is significantly larger than the USA.
     
  9. arkitect macrumors 603

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #9
    True, although you could say the Imperialists at least "gave the land back"… only for it to be re-grabbed by Chinese strip miners, Shell, Coca Cola etcetera…

    Edit:
    ;):(:mad:;):(:mad:
     
  10. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #10
    They never gave the land back, have a look at South Africa for instance it's a land of security fences and armed protection of the stolen land.
     
  11. arkitect macrumors 603

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #11
    Oh for the love of a non existent god!
    I was being facetious… :rolleyes:
    And as for South Africa, go tell Zuma to tear down those walls and take the land back… or… what is stopping him?
     
  12. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #12
    In the main the stolen African land remained in the hands of its colonial owners even after the artificial country it is located in "regained" independence. It was mostly these owners that then sold the land on to the multinationals.

    Sorry, this is getting a bit off-topic. Similar to the current situation in the USA the UK government in the 1960s seized huge amounts of unowned common land and handed it to the Water Boards* which were then subsequently sold by the Thatcher government into private hands. Now the land is mostly fenced off from the UK public, who prior to government theft used to own it. Americans, be warned.

    *not to be confused with the Bush/Cheney definition...
     
  13. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #13
    Also throughout government. But Schtumple's right in Fox-bashing. The article declares itself "fair and balanced", and in the very next sentence extrapolates a nonsensical conclusion.

    But it's the clever use of the word "could". Martians could invade Earth today, too.

    Meanwhile, I think I'd better call a waterproofer. I wouldn't want the government "grabbing" my basement. ;)
     
  14. IntheNet thread starter macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #14
    Excellent post! More on the land grab below by wise Wyoming representatives action! Stopping this tyranny is essential! Property rights are the essence of democracy.

    Wyo. delegation opposes change to Clean Water Act
    By MEAD GRUVER (AP)
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guY3P5yOxJ93CkvGXsWr_o1eqrUQD9CFRRL81
    CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The three members of Wyoming congressional delegation is among 28 Republican lawmakers who oppose changing the Clean Water Act to clarify that it applies to all surface water in the United States, not strictly navigable water. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said in a release Tuesday that the federal government shouldn't regulate "mud puddles and prairie potholes." The 11 senators and 17 representatives say the measure would give the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "virtually unlimited regulatory control over all wet areas" within states. The federal act is subject to discussion because it does not define the proximity of a polluted stream to navigable water in order for the smaller body of water to be regulated under the law. Federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court have offered conflicting opinions about that, said Steve Jones, watershed protection program attorney with the Lander-based Wyoming Outdoor Council. He said streams deserve to be included in the Clean Water Act.
     
  15. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #15
    The only way democracy can work is after the abolition of property "rights".
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Why? [/three-year old]
     
  17. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #17
    Instead of putting it in my own words I'll just quote Proudhon:


    The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign — for all these titles are synonymous — imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once . . . [and so] property engenders despotism . . . That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse . . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings — kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?

    Unfortunately it"s similar to religion in that the propaganda by those who benefit from the status quo is so pervasive that the vast majority have trouble conceiving of the possibility of things being different.
     
  18. IntheNet thread starter macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #18
    I'm sure you're aware that the very definition and characteristic of socialism and (to a degree communism) is the abolition of private property?

    "The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property."

    Therefore, Americans need be wary over radical measures, such as this Clean Water Act, that trods heavily and needlessly on private property rights.
     
  19. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #19
    Socialism,Anarchism and Communism want the same things one of which of course is the abolition of private property.Something I'm very much in favour of. Given the US state is build entirely around property rights I don't think as long as it exists property rights are in danger,of course they may well forcibly exchange ownership in their favour but that's what government is for.
     
  20. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #20
    I have no problem with the Feds saying, "Thou shalt not pollute the waters." We already have plenty of laws and regulations on this subject. It is fair to argue over the budget for enforcement, but that is a completely different issue from the proposed legislation.

    I know of no state which does not already regulate streamflows, with regard to dams/reservoirs.

    There is no NEED for the federal government to reach down into miniscule gullies and frog-puddles, which is what this legislation would do. It is a waste of taxpayer money for the federal government to get involved with regulating livestock ponds in pastures, as another example. Or catfish farms, for that matter.
     

Share This Page