50 votes

Why is it acceptable to occupy 148 countries but not let a vet occupy

a bank owned, foreclosed home?

https://twitter.com/Ian56...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I have explained in my post below and on a separate thread

I support Property Rights AND VOLUNTARY negotiations and agreements.

Libertarians seem incapable of thinking things through further into practical solutions to real world problems.

You do not apply Common Sense or critical thinking (or you do not do it nearly enough.)

Some even think that it is possible to go from the current nightmare scenario to their version of Utopia in a single step. #NotPractical

Yes it was a diss.

So was this.
http://www.dailypaul.com/253554/libertarians-do-not-explain-...

The comment currently at the top of this thread by john2k, IS Common Sense thinking and offers a practical solution to help solve a real world problem.

Your comment displays typically limited Libertarian thought processes and an adherence to dogma not original thought.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

haha

You're not as smart as you think you are.

You don't need to be smart to apply common sense

Anyone can do it.
All you have to do is step back and think for a while.

Why don't you give it a try?

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

In various cases, the banks

In various cases, the banks find it easier just to demolish the house.

I happen to agree with this though. We have all these homeless people and tons of empty houses. Seeing as how we basically gave the banks a ton of money, maybe something should be "cashed out". Perhaps those who got money need to be made to owe the people something.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Cyril's picture

Why is it acceptable to BETRAY YOUR COUNTRY

Why is it acceptable to BETRAY YOUR COUNTRY FOUR YEARS IN A ROW and still run for a second presidential mandate ?

I'm just asking.

GENUINELY.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Neither of the above. Let us create sound money.

"Legal tender!" Naive. Get the gone!

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

You are a TERRIBLE political campaigner

A single image captures at least 3 of our major campaign points.

1. The current drastic strategic overstretch of so many bases in so many countries.
The massive military spending that goes with that overstretch (Romney wants to spend $1.675tn p.a. on the military and run $1.5tn deficits).

2. The utter contempt that Veterans (and troops) are treated with.

3. Banks come first.
EVERYONE else comes second.

It is you and a lot of others on here that are naive.
Because you cannot put yourselves in the minds of the 95%+ of the electorate that are not Libertarians.
You want to debate the legal and constitutional principles.

Sure it goes against property rights.
So it shouldn't be allowed without an agreed form of compensation with the owner.
Imagine the good publicity the banks would receive if they did accommodate some of the homeless Vets.
Priceless publicity for the banks with their current public standing.

Shouldn't cost much for the taxpayer, might even get it free with a public announcement of the agreement with large banks.
I am sure quite a lot of Vets would be happy sharing 1 each to a bedroom.
It would be therapeutic for a lot of homeless Vets to live in a house with 2 or more kindred spirits.
A small amount of savings would accrue from future medical bills.
Heck we might even make a profit.
To say nothing of doing our duty and trying to look after those that have served their country.
You guys do NOT think things thru properly for all your "clever" arguments.
Your arguments are not "clever" they are stupid - though they might be technically correct at first glance.
They are stupid because you have not though things thru enough and have not applied practicality / pragmatism or thought to look from the other side of the fence.
Ever heard of a win / win?
This one would be a potential win/win/win/win (Vets, Liberty ppl, taxpayers, & banks all winners).

But as EVER with you guys, you miss the MAIN point.
It sends out a VERY POWERFUL message to the 95% of the population that are not Libertarian and would encourage some of them to think and maybe even come on board.

You guys are NEVER practical.
You will NEVER be elected if you don't change your campaign style.

I wrote about guys like you, earlier today.
http://www.dailypaul.com/253554/libertarians-do-not-explain-...

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

At least

we know how to spell through.

Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both

SteveMT's picture

Do two wrongs make a right?

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. - Mark Twain
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_twain.html#...

If you are advocating government programs to solve this issue

then YOU are not thinking the entire thing through. (If you are talking about private initiative and charity, however, and are saying we need to use empty rhetoric to appeal to statists, then this doesn't apply).

A principle is only so because it has universal application within a context. This would mean that, toward the desired goal, it is pragmatic/practical.

If you want to institute coercion (take from one, give to another), you undermine the goal of protecting every individual. Your program will be unfair because it can't give to everyone (someone has to foot the bill), and will be co-opted and grown outside of your control (despite
your best intentions).

What "duty" are you talking about?
The only "duty" one man has to another is to acknowledge his right to life and property. This is the liberty message.

Personal responsibility and voluntary exchange.

The agreement is to be VOLUNTARY

Ideally the governments only involvement should be as a negotiator / go between / facilitator / publicist / encourager of more schemes or greater numbers.

The agreement should be between a bank and a Vets organisation.
E.G an agreement in each of the 50 states between a specific bank(s) and a vets charity/support org.
There may be more than one agreement in each state.

The banks would agree to house X number of homeless vets in their vacant properties.
If a property was sold or the bank wanted to re-take vacant possession the Vets would move to another of the banks (nearby) vacant properties.
If a vet abused the scheme or damaged a property, they would be issued with a warning and ultimately kicked out of the scheme.
Some arrangement could be made for property damage in the scheme so the banks were not put at too great a risk. Details to be negotiated, but it is basically an insurance scheme - cover for a large number of relatively small risks.

The government would publicise such agreements by e.g. holding a press conference that a certain bank was supporting Veterans in a certain state.

The banks would get the opportunity of running ads stating that they were supporting the troops (vets).
A great business opportunity for banks which currently have a very poor reputation with the general public.

Hopefully the banks would give free accommodation, in return for the positive publicity and branding.
At worst vet charities would pay a nominal rent for each homeless vet housed.

Vets would share each house - 1 vet per bedroom.
Group therapy without a psychiatrist (much better than with a psychiatrist).

Some banks would not want to do it.
Some would.

The schemes could start off small - say 100 vets as a pilot scheme.
If successful it could be expanded to a thousand or more vets in each state.
The government would arrange a press conference for the good news of expanded collaboration between said bank and vet orgs/charities.

Do you not think such a scheme might be a runner?
Do you not think that such a scheme might be expanded to cover tens of thousands of currently homeless vets at a nett (small) benefit to taxpayers?

It does not cost much to write a glowing report or hold a press conference or hold a 1 hour meeting(s) as moderator between several banks and vets organizations to facilitate such schemes.

win/win/win/win.
Vets, taxpayers, government & banks.

The government would win for it's increased reputation as a practical facilitator of solving real world problems with real world solutions (without costing $$$).

The taxpayers would win for a small saving and/or a feeling of general satisfaction for helping vets that found themselves on hard times.

The vets and bank wins are self explanatory.

The above could be termed common sense and thinking things through.
I am a great advocate of common sense and thinking things through to achieve practical solutions to real world problems.
I am not into idealism or dogma.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Why does the government need to have a part in this?

Also, if you are pragmatic without ideology, to what END are you "pragmatic"?

Ideally it would have no involvement

But in the real world, Vets orgs and banks are not likely to get together without some encouragement by some "respectable" go between.

I HAVE ideology.
The Bill of Rights
v limited Federal Government
balanced budgets
zero Fed income taxes
a Jeffersonian foreign policy

competition between individual states, not monopolistic Federal Laws.

If we burnt 90%+ of the Federal Laws passed, the USA would be in a MUCH better position.
Perhaps you could burn 100% of them, I haven't gone into it that far considering where we are now.

The American public is not idealistic like you, as Ron Paul's campaign just proved.
They are nowhere near ready for your message.

Put it in terms that they might understand.
Be pragmatic about it, taking into account human nature.
Tell them "what's in it for them" in practical everyday terms.

Try to understand where 90% of the American public are in their current thinking.
Clue 1: It really is quite sickening and disheartening

Clue 2: NEVER use the terms Liberty, Freedom, end the Fed, bring the troops home, end the wars.
You would get so MUCH MORE public support if you did this.
It is easy to present Ron Paul's policies (to a sufficient degree to get the general public to start listening) without mentioning ANY of these terms.

If you can hook them.
They can read more about it and go into more depth on Ron Paul's website and then other informational/educational places.
And then you CAN use those terms.

But you HAVEN'T hooked them and won't in sufficient numbers with the methods currently being employed

Pragmatism, being realistic, using COMMON SENSE.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

By the way, I'm all about

By the way, I'm all about "real world solutions to real world problems" too, I just have a thorough justification, not ignorant of long-term consequences.

Sorry you feel that way.

Best wishes to you.

Many call me a fool. I agree.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Maybe

I usually really like Mark Twains' posts.

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
-George Orwell

Housing? You want housing? ... I'll give you housing!

Sing Sing Prison, NY ~ Long term lease available.

The prison's still there, providing long-term housing for 2,200 tenants who don't look kindly on tourists. But continuing interest by visitors about the prison "up the river" from New York...

Also see: Truth? You want truth? - Jack Nicholson as Col. Jessup

"Why would Santiago be transferred off base?"

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Now you are talking Common Sense

john2k has thought it thru a bit more and expanded upon the theme of your post.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Whatever party owns the house

has absolute authority over that house. Whatever the credentials of the invader, the fact remains: We can't protect liberty without protecting property. It must be protected absolutely for every individual/party of individuals. As soon as we compromise this principle, we are no longer defending individual rights; we are catering to groups or initiating coercive organizations to be used by future looters.

reedr3v's picture

A number of comments in this thread

seem to accept current financial, banking, monetary, and economic policies as unquestionable. Whatever is ruled in court must be OK? Please visit the more detailed reply by Freedom below. Fraud is a big factor in many underwater mortgages, the situation is very cloudy at best.
Those who profited from government manipulation of the housing market should not receive more consideration that those tricked by the entire economic structure of this country.

My response

Is to the sign, and the assumption that the bank owns the house. If there is fraud, then the house must go the rightful owner. I just oppose the idea of anyone "occupying" another's property, on principle. (Not an endorsement of "policy as it is" by any means).

Typical focussing on the details

and no thought WHATSOEVER on the big picture.

No thought whatsoever on how this starting point could be extended with some thought and actually be turned into a practical moral real world solution.

Repeating Libertarian dogma is not the same as original thought.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Visit Sing Sing Prison, NY ~ Or visit our Freedom

Up the river? Sing Sing.

Down the river? Our Freedom Post ~ Simple questions to wonder about your banker.

Right here is River City. We got trouble!...

[Victrola plays 76 Trombones] This musical was performed by 45 students in a very small school (500 students total in grades K-12).

Dear Readers,

If 45 school chaps can right River City, we surely can right our ship of state!

Special notice: No hand back flip, stage right @ 4 minute mark.

Can your politician do that?

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Because He Has No Right To

I'm amazed that people struggle with this question. I feel bad for the homeless vets but the bottom line is he doesn't have the right to quiet enjoyment of that property. That is a right of ownership and only the owner can convey that right to another person.

________________________________________

I am amazed that you have not thought this through further

and the possibilities of a win/win/win/win solution to a real world problem.

You have not applied Common Sense.
(Or not enough.)

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Agreed

It's sad to see someone in this state, but it does not justify trespassing.

Not enough thought went into forming your opinion

see my comment above

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Why? Because they are the ruling class, the vet is not

If you aren't in the ruling class, you are either part of the working class or the poor.

The working class and the poor do not have the authority (force) to occupy. The ruling class does.

aah we have a POLITICAL CAMPAIGNER on board

who can articulate in terms the general population might understand and react positively to, for this and other messages we might have.

So refreshing.
TY Sir.
Voted up.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Force

This posts seems to imply that the authority to occupy by force has been unjustly stolen from the working class and poor. No one, rich or poor, has the authority to to violate property rights.