Platinum Supporter
- Messages
- 2,394
- Reactions
- 7,140
Sadly, your example is no longer a stretch...it is how many people now think.Here's my issue with commodity laws.
So through mandating prices and controlling natural capitalism's approach to supply and demand, the public's needs are now greater than the individuals. In the case of something like bottled water or gasoline. The owner of that property, yes it is that person's private property, doesn't get to have his private property rights. They get pushed aside because others needs are greater?
Here is my catch. This now blurs the defining institution of private property. This logic now opens the doors to eliminate private property rights.
Your right to own anything can now be superseded by the needs of the many. Essentially voiding the 5th amendment.
Here is a stretch of a comparison, but I'll use it to demonstrate this part of logic. Kill the 5th and the 2nd in one sweep of public outcry.
The demand of the greater good of the many says that people should not own guns.
It's a stretch, but if we are removing individual rights for the rights of a community to control an entities ability to charge what it wants for its private property, then what's to say we can't remove someone's rights to have private property entirely when the communities need dictate?
There have been huge abuses with eminent domain. This is a great example about how something "seemed" best for the greater good and has ended up paving over people's homes for shopping malls.You mean like eminent domain?