April 11th, 2013 at 11:36AM
[U]nless you are pro-market, pro-private property, you have no basis to oppose the state, for the state is simply the agency of institutionalized aggression against private property rights. To oppose the state is to support property rights, since opposing aggression means opposing the invasion of property. Conversely, those who oppose property rights inevitably support the state or other forms of aggression. —

Stephan Kinsella - Down with anti-market “anarchists” (via laliberty)

This is on-point as far as my morning tumblr interactions have gone. 

(via thedrunkanarchist)
25 notes Source: laliberty #government#quotes#Stephan Kinsella#property#property rights#private property#private property rights#communism#politics#anarchy#state#Communism is for dummies#anarcho-communist
March 20th, 2013 at 1:29AM
Shahe Writes...: statehate: sugashane: statehate: dude i’m seriously so screwed omgidk...

statehate:

statehate:

sugashane:

statehate:

dude i’m seriously so screwed omg

idk anything about this shit

easements?

air rights??

avigation easements??

takings?

property rights????

wtf

What do you need, dude. Wife’s a lawyer and I’m a biz law major.

I need to write a amicus…

ugh well basically the government in this case is taking an easement without giving just compensation

the lower court said that it’s not a takings that entitles the owner to just compensation because there hasn’t been an interference with the use and enjoyment of the land

HOWEVER, the judge completely misses the point that granting the government an easement gives it the right to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the land, which would bar a subsequent suit because the government would already have an easement

so, i’m trying to argue that, if the government wants an avigation easement, it needs to pay for it, even if it has yet to interfere with the physical land

So you need to argue that the gov’t doesn’t need an easement or an easement isn’t created because there is an alternative to the use of private air space. Government can strictly allow flight over government land or over non

Also, if you want to justify a need for compensation you have to show a detriment to the property owner, right? That the 3rd party use of this air space violates their use of the land by a. loud noises b. pollution c. danger of accidents d. loss of ability to personally profit from their own land (leasing it to private air companies). e. loss of ability to personally use property (air space) i.e. rocket launchers, personal aircraft, building upward, air balloons, etc. 

So the government has to compensate for this loss. 

Then again, they can counter by saying that the property sold was limited to 10 feet below the surface and 100 feet above it and that the remainder of the land remains property of the government or other agencies with which they are free to do as they please. 

Hope this makes sense. I’m hammered so it sounds like a Supreme Court arguemtn on my end. 
13 notes Source: statehate #property#property rights#private property#air rights#mineral rights#property law#Law
January 31st, 2013 at 10:37AM

Ending Forfeiture Abuse: How States Can Be Tough on Crime and Respect Property Rights

Civil asset forfeiture is one of the greatest threats to private property rights in our nation today. Law enforcement can take your property without even charging you with a crime. 

According to reports from the Institute for Justice, law enforcement agencies frequently fail to disclose what they seize or how they use the proceeds. Failure to report only makes this already bad problem worse. 

State legislatures must enact comprehensive forfeiture reform to protect private property by (1) requiring that individuals be convicted of a crime before title to their property is transferred to the state, (2) ensuring that forfeiture proceeds do not become a slush fund for law enforcement, and (3) protecting innocent owners by shifting the burden to prosecutors to prove that a third-party did not consent or have actual knowledge about a crime before he loses his property. 


Police and prosecutors should be chasing criminals, not profits, but allowing the law enforcement to keep the proceeds of forfeited property gives them a direct financial incentive to abuse their power. Fair and impartial law enforcement cannot exist as long as policing for profit is allowed.

Going to court to get your property back is no simple task. The state forces you to enter an upside down legal world where you must prove your property is innocent instead of requiring the government to prove you are guilty of a crime. 

The legal process is so rigged that even an innocent owner needs a lawyer and must wait months for a hearing to get back seized property. The laws need to be changed to protect property owners who are wrongly dragged into the forfeiture process through no fault of their own.

 

2 notes Source: sugashane #Property Rights#Private property#Policing For Profit#Police State#Police#Police Abuse#Forfeiture#Forfeiture Laws#Rights#libertarian#Law#Politics#Government#IJ.org#Institute of Justice#video