shadylady wrote:REGARDING CONSTITUTION LAND VIDEO
I'm always amazed how land owners like to stress property rights above basic freedoms when they talk about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What they actually mean when they talk like this is that they feel that only those who own land and who are relatively rich deserve the protection of the Constitution/Bill or Rights. They don't feel that protecting our natural heritage is to their advantage and it gets in the way of them making money. These people at the meeting shown in the video sound like a bunch of tea baggers who think that their interests are the same as the interests as those of the corporate overlords. Notice that the law and order crowd is in full support of this drivel! What a bunch of idiots!
The problem with law enforcement is that they respect authority and to them the ultimate authority is wealth and so they always do the bidding the the wealthy. It's a very primitive concept of morality, best summed up as Might Makes Right. It's unfortunate that so many people are still stuck in that mindset. It's really nothing more advanced than the "serf as servant of the almighty and benevolent king" mentality, but it's still the psychological reality that many people live by. Of course, the progressive ethos isn't much better - that being, force everyone to do the right thing by making laws. I'm more of a libertarian and am willing to go by the idea that people should be free to do what they want to do as long as they do no harm to others. That being said there should be laws to protect wilderness resources and there should be services provided by the government for individuals and I'm very much against privatization of such services. This provides for maximal freedom and equality without regard to personal wealth. I'm afraid that such an egalitarian philosophy would be threatening to the "rich land owners" (that's how they see themselves) presented in the video!
It would be interesting to hear how Surfsteve interprets the video. He posted it without commentary and there's no way of knowing if he supports the ideas presented in the video or if he posted the video as a negative example (which seems to be the case since he posted in a thread about corruption of the justice system).