Individual Private Property Ownership Rights

[CdnRepublican]

Private Property would include all of your assets and income streams.

Private Property is protected by law and the laws are already pretty clear about it. Eminent domain is subject to the law and a fair value payment. Even gov't income streams are now deemed by the courts to be PP.

I.e. any payments you get from the gov't over a period of time cannot be stopped in the future, if the court rules they are your legal PP. Many such cases have already been heard. Good luck reforming the candy and lollipop welfare state. Welfare is also PP.

I don't see how running on a PP platform would gain you any votes ?

What are you fixing ? The Charter of Wrongs ? That document is an abomination but enjoys a good press. Tough job.

Making the general PP laws tougher or maybe reducing taxes ? Neither is supported by most Cdns. They want more lollipops and candy.

Most don't know or care about the role PP plays in society.

PP is conflated into capitalism which is demonized as evil and stupid. Most PP have no problems with anyone stealing their PP. High taxes is theft but most support it. Morality etc. etc. etc. Love and Commitment.

[Dogpatch]

Well trudeau was on the right path (see styky's link)

According to wikipedia, "Since Canada uses primarily British-derived Common Law, the holders of the land actually have land tenure (permission to hold land from the Crown) rather than absolute ownership."

Their link is http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/program ... ad-wp3.pdf

The Special Case of Real Property: In English law, Land ownership not only has the feature of “layers” referred to above, but also has the added characteristic that in theory the ultimate owner is the Crown (that is, the King or Queen, or the “State”).

The reason I mention this is back in the late 70s -early 80s, a rich man in Calgary had prime real estate that the city wanted it but the owner said no. After a while, the city simply took the land and paid him a pittance of what it was worth.

[snowstormcanuck]

I would go one step further and threaten to pull a Trudeau on the provinces i.e 'You back this or I will call a national referendum on the issue' and get private property ownership rights into the charter that way if I must.

A national referendum, even if 100% in the affirmative, cannot amend the Constitution Act, 1982. Provincial ratification is necessary.

[Charles J. White]

I would go one step further and threaten to pull a Trudeau on the provinces i.e 'You back this or I will call a national referendum on the issue' and get private property ownership rights into the charter that way if I must.

A national referendum, even if 100% in the affirmative, cannot amend the Constitution Act, 1982. Provincial ratification is necessary.

That is false, a national referendum goes over the heads of the provinces, but people don't like that because it can offend Quebec depending on the issue.

[Monorprise]

Without property rights no other rights can exist.

[snowstormcanuck]

I would go one step further and threaten to pull a Trudeau on the provinces i.e 'You back this or I will call a national referendum on the issue' and get private property ownership rights into the charter that way if I must.

A national referendum, even if 100% in the affirmative, cannot amend the Constitution Act, 1982. Provincial ratification is necessary.

That is false, a national referendum goes over the heads of the provinces, but people don't like that because it can offend Quebec depending on the issue.

You are incorrect. Please read the amending procedure to the Constitution Act, 1982, Part V, s. 38 to 49.

[Brown envelope]

Individual private property rights is the only moral option which exists

Is this the third, three-year-old thread you've bumped today Charles? Are you trying to hide you annual head the U.S. Canada Day plans from your gLiberal and NDP comrades?

[Dogpatch]

Individual private property rights is the only moral option which exists

That has got to be the stupidest statement ever.

[ccurrie]

IIRC a man's property is, under the commonlaw, a part of his person. This is the basis for most modern theories about property "rights". IMHO we don't need more "rights" just better laws and a lawful government.

[Yoda]

Individual private property rights is the only moral option which exists

That has got to be the stupidest statement ever.

It would appear you are lacking the basics

For without individual property rights you are nothing more than a serf

[Dogpatch]

Individual private property rights is the only moral option which exists

That has got to be the stupidest statement ever.

It would appear you are lacking the basics

For without individual property rights you are nothing more than a serf

Morality has absolutely nothing to do with property rights.

[Charles J. White]

Individual private property rights is the only moral option which exists

That has got to be the stupidest statement ever.

It would appear you are lacking the basics

For without individual property rights you are nothing more than a serf

Morality has absolutely nothing to do with property rights.

Yoda is correct because it reflects a belief of consent, and to attack property rights is to attack consent, which is immoral