Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Property rights? Do you think people over here can just take your stuff away without any consequence? We have laws regulating property, just like every modern country.
The only country that has rights and freedoms derived from a higher power, lol, that explains a lot about the American psyche and behavior
Wrong, read your Portugal law. There is no stipulation specifically guaranteeing right to property as in the US. It states concerning the sale and ownership, but leaves no discretion to the power of the government to take hold.
Wrong, read your Portugal law. There is no stipulation specifically guaranteeing right to property as in the US. It states concerning the sale and ownership, but leaves no discretion to the power of the government to take hold.
You are wrong.
Wrong about what? We have property rights, they don't have to be identical to yours, are you people nuts? Your laws are not the bible or whatever you seem to be thinking...
Wrong about what? We have property rights, they don't have to be identical to yours, are you people nuts? Your laws are not the bible or whatever you seem to be thinking...
The difference is, our right unless under specific circumstances (public domain and this is very specific) can they take it away. Yours does not specify such, it is very vague allowing for the government to step in for any reason it deems necessary and it can take control of it.
Our laws are not, I am merely pointing out the problems with yours. If your government decides that the congressional committee likes your property and deems it a necessity for the purpose of the state, you lose it. Period, no talk, no nothing, buh bye!
The difference is, our right unless under specific circumstances (public domain and this is very specific) can they take it away. Yours does not specify such, it is very vague allowing for the government to step in for any reason it deems necessary and it can take control of it.
Our laws are not, I am merely pointing out the problems with yours. If your government decides that the congressional committee likes your property and deems it a necessity for the purpose of the state, you lose it. Period, no talk, no nothing, buh bye!
I am no expert on property rights, but if there were problems, they would have long been addressed and fixed. If for instance the government wants to lay new railway tracks (which is a realistic scenario as that is going to happen when they build the high-speed train to Madrid) and the ideal path is blocked by a house or two, they indeed can take them away and tear them down, PROVIDED they pay the owner for it. Usually those payments are higher than the actual value, this is not China or India where entire towns are simply relocated or flooded without asking anyone for permission.
What you may find vague, might well be enough over here. Neither do we have warnings on our products like that one is not supposed to put cats into a microwave etc. That may be ok over there, but over here it is a joke.
Just say goodbye to the weird idea that your laws and ways of doing things are the only and best ones, they are simply one approach of many out there. Those things depend on culture and that varies a lot round the globe, which is a good thing. Your approach may work for the US, but may be totally inappropriate for other countries.
I am no expert on property rights, but if there were problems, they would have long been addressed and fixed.
Surely, I mean, a government could never violate and oppress its people, this just doesn't happen. If it was a problem and unjust, surely it has already been remedied! Sorry, this is not the way of things. Human rights are a side note. They are only considered when there is either something to be gained, or if there is enough pressure to deal with it. That is, if a government can get away with putting its citizens on a stake, consider yourself road decor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
If for instance the government wants to lay new railway tracks (which is a realistic scenario as that is going to happen when they build the high-speed train to Madrid) and the ideal path is blocked by a house or two, they indeed can take them away and tear them down, PROVIDED they pay the owner for it. Usually those payments are higher than the actual value, this is not China or India where entire towns are simply relocated or flooded without asking anyone for permission.
It has happened here and the result was it being taken to court and in many places show to be unconstitutional. That is, government began to "stretch" the meaning of public need and began to take property on simple principals of "taxable benefit", yet this was fought and eventually show to be unconstitutional in many states. The battle for individual rights is ongoing, but it is our constitution and the specifics of its stance to which ends in the benefit of the individual. As I said, yours is limited, vague and purposefully so to benefit government, not the individual. Remember, your governments are about the "collective", not the individual. It is perfectly acceptable for your government to walk over the individual as it sees fit to serve the "collective". The individual means nothing, the individual is nothing. It is about the whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
What you may find vague, might well be enough over here. Neither do we have warnings on our products like that one is not supposed to put cats into a microwave etc. That may be ok over there, but over here it is a joke.
Ahh, subjective lingo. What you may find paiful, I may find a tickle. What you may consider unjust, I consider fair. Up is down, and down is up, side ways we go and in the end, nothing matters accept those who agree of the majority and the rest can bugger off!
We have labels because we have suits. I make no excuse for the fact that there has been a degradation in our society. We have all of these stupid labels because deviant idiots and stupid governments saw fit to reward liars and manipulators over that of common sense and good nature. Rather than telling a person "fire burns you stupid idiot", we say "well, you may have been unaware that fire may reach a level of temperature that is unsafe for you and when you were playing with said fire you might have not been properly informed of such and therefore are not at fault for your decision because of such".
I make no excuses for those issues. Personally, those people who are part of such are either lying degenerates or so stupid that they got under the radar of natures culling. This is a problem of "politically correctness" and honestly, isn't a US thing, but something world wide, even though as you claim it may not be as common where you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Just say goodbye to the weird idea that your laws and ways of doing things are the only and best ones, they are simply one approach of many out there. Those things depend on culture and that varies a lot round the globe, which is a good thing. Your approach may work for the US, but may be totally inappropriate for other countries.
I only think that the concept of individual liberty is above all and we (at least in our Constitution and original governments design) put individual liberty above all. Any country that does not is wrong, sorry, it is a fact of life. When you do not respect the individual, then nothing matters. Freedom starts with the individual, everything else is nothing more than a scheme to fit a groups desire to infringe on another. If you disagree, you are wrong and you promote a form of tyranny to your liking.
Cultures vary, yes. Are all valid? NO. That is unless you also think the Yammamamo Indians are valid in their belief that woman are nothing more than property to be abused and discard as they see fit (this includes rape, mame, and murder). If you do accept them as valid, then at least you are consistent. I disagree as I think such a tribe of people are worthless to living, disgusting and undeserving of breath and nothing more than vulgar service to majority desire and ignorant subservience. If you do not, then you think there is a standard of living and position to which is above all. I do as well, and I think the US constitution sets that standard and all others are nothing more than serving an agenda to various powers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Could we gradually return to the topic?
Sure thing, go on back to my first response to which you claimed "Debunked" with a source that was irrelevant to my mention (You provided a response to Ice melt and I was talking about June temperature grid cells and the errors related to them). Knock yourself out.
We have safeguards against dictatorships. When Germany for instance authored its new constitution they of course knew of other constitutions including the American one, but they deliberately did not adopt them because they were not convinced of them. Different priorities, cultures etc.
Maybe over there human rights are a side note, we believe in them and live them. Guantanamo, waterboarding, starting wars without being attacked etc. are not exactly recent European phenomena
Like so often Americans talk about theory and their constitution, while we just live and are ahead of the US in pretty much any ranking regarding freedom, quality of life, safety, etc. I have already posted links and can post more if necessary.
Nope, our constitutions are worded the way they are to benefit society as a whole, not government. Indeed society, the collective plays a greater role over here, and rightly so. We don't want American-style societies.
The differences regarding eminent domain are actually not that big between the US and Europe, compare here Eminent domain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . The procedures of expropriation differ quite a bit, but in the end each country directly or indirectly recognizes that the good of society is more important than that of a few individuals. Plus, people here can and do challenge any such decision in court as well. I know those legal battles sometimes take years, for instance when runways are added to airports and thus people need to be resettled. Usually the price of compensation is sooner or later adjusted a bit to enable the individual to lose the case without losing face.
There is no country on earth where important infrastructure projects benefiting all of society are blocked because of a couple of homes or acres of farmland. I like that old Japanese philosophical school of thought where they completely disassemble their homes once a year and then reassemble them, just to refresh the understanding that a house is only bricks and wood, just material stuff, nothing to cling to.
I guess by and large people over here don't have that infamous American sueing mentality.
I accept your defending your constitution where individuals seem to be favored, still I would like to make clear that when you say "if you disagree you are wrong" you are being silly. You don't need to be that self-opinionated just to prove your point. It still is nothing but your opinion, no more valuable than mine or anyone else's. I know when one grows up believing something and someone else things differently, we tend to say they are wrong. It is similar to Muslims saying every non-Muslim is wrong.
Comparing this issue to rape among indians is ridiculous. There is a clear line between mere material pocessions and the violation of a person's body and mind. I know differentiation is cumbersome, but it is worth it to prevent the impression of being superficial.
Where did I claim 'debunked'? I can't remember ever having used that word. What is the number of that posting you refer to?
We have safeguards against dictatorships. When Germany for instance authored its new constitution they of course knew of other constitutions including the American one, but they deliberately did not adopt them because they were not convinced of them. Different priorities, cultures etc.
Maybe over there human rights are a side note, we believe in them and live them. Guantanamo, waterboarding, starting wars without being attacked etc. are not exactly recent European phenomena
Depending on who you talk to, the EU can be considered a dictatorship because the EU Directives are not drawn up by the MEPs they just have a vote on whether to adopt said measures. Also if Europe respects freedom of the individual, why did the various Parliaments in Europe not vote in a referendum on the EU Constitution (renaming it the Lisbon Treaty) and countries that had voted no, were subject to scare tactics and more voting rounds until they voted yes?
Like so often Americans talk about theory and their constitution, while we just live and are ahead of the US in pretty much any ranking regarding freedom, quality of life, safety, etc. I have already posted links and can post more if necessary.
We have 300 million people and counting, and many new immigrants are poor relatives from the 3rd world and illiterate illegal immigrants. We are not a homogeneous society like Europe is to a large extent and much of the reason why Europe has a higher quality of life is that there is less people chasing money in your countries.
Nope, our constitutions are worded the way they are to benefit society as a whole, not government. Indeed society, the collective plays a greater role over here, and rightly so. We don't want American-style societies.
That's why European countries are good at adopting policies which aim to restrict free speech and the like. Whether you like it or not, racists and neo-Nazis should have free speech even if you don't agree with their views but allowing them free speech also allows you free speech to counter them.The collective plays a bigger role in Europe than here, which means that it's ok for government to restrict freedoms so long as one group isn't offended by someone else's rights. In my case I used the example of racism.
The differences regarding eminent domain are actually not that big between the US and Europe, compare here Eminent domain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . The procedures of expropriation differ quite a bit, but in the end each country directly or indirectly recognizes that the good of society is more important than that of a few individuals. Plus, people here can and do challenge any such decision in court as well. I know those legal battles sometimes take years, for instance when runways are added to airports and thus people need to be resettled. Usually the price of compensation is sooner or later adjusted a bit to enable the individual to lose the case without losing face.
What about those expats that got suckered into buying illegal property on the Spanish coasts? AndalucÃa, Murcia, and Valencia are not compensating them for it. They are bulldozing the houses in the name of the collectively to not spoil the coast but at the coast of individual freedom because your government took your house away and bulldozed it into the ground.
There is no country on earth where important infrastructure projects benefiting all of society are blocked because of a couple of homes or acres of farmland. I like that old Japanese philosophical school of thought where they completely disassemble their homes once a year and then reassemble them, just to refresh the understanding that a house is only bricks and wood, just material stuff, nothing to cling to.
I guess by and large people over here don't have that infamous American sueing mentality.
You don't have the suing mentality that we do, but we don't suffer from the ridiculous political correctness laws that you have. You have to be walking on eggshells there lest, God forbid (or is it Allah now? I can't remember), you slightly offend someone and that is going to have to be treated as a racial incident.
I accept your defending your constitution where individuals seem to be favored, still I would like to make clear that when you say "if you disagree you are wrong" you are being silly. You don't need to be that self-opinionated just to prove your point. It still is nothing but your opinion, no more valuable than mine or anyone else's. I know when one grows up believing something and someone else things differently, we tend to say they are wrong. It is similar to Muslims saying every non-Muslim is wrong.
Comparing this issue to rape among indians is ridiculous. There is a clear line between mere material pocessions and the violation of a person's body and mind. I know differentiation is cumbersome, but it is worth it to prevent the impression of being superficial.
Where did I claim 'debunked'? I can't remember ever having used that word. What is the number of that posting you refer to?
Where did I claim 'debunked'? I can't remember ever having used that word. What is the number of that posting you refer to?
I disagree with a lot that you have said, but as you pointed out in the post before this, we are getting off topic.
As for the above remark, my bad, I mixed you up with someone else. Though you are welcome to respond to it as it is directly related to the OP's mention.
OK folks, I have started a new thread on the off-topic issues discussed here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
