You probably saw the story about the lady on Mamdani’s team declaring that property rights “especially for white families” will change to become “more collective.”
You should also read her deleted messages from X.com.
So if I own something and the government forces me to accept a “more collective ownership,” i.e. my ownership of the thing drops from 100% to 50% (or less), or from 35% to 10% (or whatever), that seems to be a matter clearly defined by the jurisprudence around the Takings Clause. It’s not that the government can’t do it, but it is that just compensation is owed.
In her earlier remarks, you can identify the solution she intends: she wants to lower real estate values in New York City, both to discourage landlords from investing there and presumably to lower the amount that just compensation might embrace.
It’s amazing how clear the historical evidence is about how this all works. Another thing we learn from her is that she’s motivated also by intense hatred. That of will hurt people is not a small price to pay in striving for the glorious utopia: hurting people in New York is actually a major part of the payoff for her.
Will anyone learn this time? Sadly, the historical evidence is pretty clear about that too.
2 comments:
I think the locals have learned from time to time--Poland, Baltics, RoK, RoC, Norway, Finland, etc. For a few generations, anyway, until the ensuing prosperity softens them and makes them forget.
It's why I hoped for a Mamdani election to Mayor. He, and the staff he's accumulating, will give New Yorkers an up close and personal view and experience of what they voted for. The rest of our nation will see, from the magnitude of New York City, the disaster of such...policies.
That should refresh us all for another couple of generations.
Eric Hines
Yes,
It will be interesting.
Maybe Seattle can give him pointers.
Of all the vermin to ever plague humanity, collectivists have to be the worst.
Post a Comment