Seizing Property without Consent or Compensation

Over in South Africa, there's a move on by the ANC to change their constitution to allow them to just take what they want. South Africa might be thought to have a particularly difficult history that explains this otherwise radical policy.

On the other hand, in Georgia, one of the two candidates for governor agrees with the general idea. She sponsored a bill to require the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to "seize and destroy" broad classes of privately-owned firearms. The bill did not suggest that any of these arms would be paid for; just taken, and destroyed. Both actions are said to be justified because they are 'in the public interest.'

Georgia might also be said to have a 'particularly difficult history that explains an otherwise radical policy.' The same candidate has called for the destruction of the monument carved into Stone Mountain, although in calmer moments she has also endorsed better, wiser ideas for dealing with the monument and the history of the site. (The idea was popular enough that a comedian's fake Facebook event to 'Witness the Implosion of Stone Mountain' was floating around for a while. Lest people think this is a simple proxy for race, a whole bunch of people I know -- all of them white liberals -- were enthusiastic about this event, which is how it came across my page.)

On the other hand, I've been listening to all the talk about America from the Left that's been going on these last few years. I'm wondering if there's any place in America, or the West, that they don't think of as having a 'particularly difficult history' that justifies radical policies. And it occurs to me that it's easier to effect all the most radical ones after you've effected the seizure and destruction of the people's arms.


raven said...

The left has a problem with reasoning, and foremost in their ignorance is the law of unintended consequences.
We hear these diatribes about guns,and bitter clingers, and the implicit assumption by the leftist twits (I was was going to say "intelligentsia" , but it corrupts the term), is their place of refuge in the ensuing storm, as if the Gov agents and the deplorables will fight it out amongst themselves, leaving intact the towers of ivory.
That is a flawed assumption.

MikeD said...

I think people are using a 'particularly difficult history that explains an otherwise radical policy' to replace "because I want to." It's the excuse used, sure, but in fact they want to do this, because it is their preference to. And if the 'particularly difficult history that explains an otherwise radical policy' did not exist, they'd either invent one, or come up with another "plausible sounding" excuse to justify doing what is their preference.

I just wish they'd be more honest about it.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

@ MikeD - agreed.

Ymarsakar said...

The only thing keeping people like me or Aries ascendant in check in the USA is the Rule of Law and the US Constitution.

Fortunately for some and unfortunately for others, the Leftist alliance and Deep State is just about done getting rid of the above 2 limitations.

Won't that be fun.

Human crowds suffer from the 1 in 100 monkey issue. Meaning, even if 2 armed shooters can keep a group of 100 at a bank hostage, that assumes that nobody in the 100 is willing to be the first to tackle and backstab or ambush the shooters from a dead angle. Once the first monkey shows it can be done, the rest will say "I can do that too".

Ymarsakar said...

Removing the faces of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson would take a monster of a sandblaster and require a change in state law.

So that's who those 3 were. I finally know after looking at it over the years.... humans place quite the significance on their idols and statues. Meaningless, temporary things that are going to be trashed sooner or later by a rock from the sky Daniel style.